Mendota City Council
August 9, 2022

CITYOF MENDOTA
ooCantaloupe Center Of The World"

ROLANDO CASTRO
Mayor

JESUS MENDOZA
Mayor Pro Tem

JOSE ALONSO
JOSEPH R. RIOFRIO

OSCAR ROSALES
AGENDA

MENDOTA CITY COUNCIL
Regular City Council Meeting

CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
643 QUINCE STREET
August 9, 2022
6:00 PM

CRISTIAN GONZALEZ
City Manager

JOHN KINSEY
City Attorney
The Mendota City Council welcomes you to its meetings, which are scheduled for the 2nd and 4th Tuesday of every month. Your interest and participation are encouraged and appreciated. Notice is hereby given that Council may discuss and/or take action on any or all of the items listed on this agenda. Please turn your cell phones on vibrate/off while in the council chambers.

Any public writings distributed by the City of Mendota to at least a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this regular meeting agenda will be made available at the front counter at City Hall, located at 643 Quince Street Mendota, CA 93640, during normal business hours, 8 AM - 5 PM. ln compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, individuals requiring special assistance to participate at this meeting please contact the City Clerk at (559) 655-3291 or (559) 577-7692. Notification of at least forty-eight hours prior to the meeting will enable staff to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting.

Si necesita servicios de interpretaci6n para participar en esta reuni6n, comuniquese con la Secretaria de la Ciudad al (559) 655-3291 o (559) 577-7692 entre las 8 a.m. y las 5 p.m. de lunes a viernes. La notificaci6n de al menos veinticuatro horas antes de la reuni6n permitir5 al personal adoptar las disposiciones necesarias para garantizar su participacion en la reunion.

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL

FLAG SALUTE

INVOCATION

FINALIZE THE AGENDA

1. Adjustments to Agenda

2. Adoption of final Agenda

CITIZENS' ORAL AND WRITTEN PRESENTATIONS
At this time, members of the public may address the City Council on any matter not listed on the agenda involving matters within the jurisdiction of the City Council. Please complete a "request to speak" form and limit your comments toTHREE(3)MINUTES. PleasegivethecompletedformtotheCityClerkpriortothestartofthemeeting. Allspeakers shall observe proper decorum. The Mendota Municipal Code prohibits the use of boisterous, slanderous, or profane language. All speakers must step to the podium and state their names and addresses for the record. Please watch the time.

City Council Agenda 1 August 9, 2022
643 0uince Street Mendota, Calilornia 93640
Telephone: (559) 655-3291 Fresno Line: (559) 266-6456 Fax: (559) 655-4064 TDD/[TY 866-735-2919 (English) TDD/ITY 866-833-4703 (Spanish) ci.mendota.ca.us
The City ol Mendota is an equal opportunity provider and employer

APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND NOTICE OF WAIVING OF READING
1 2
Minutes of the regular City Council meeting of July 26,2022.

Notice of waiving of the reading of all resolutions and/or ordinances introduced and/or adopted under this agenda.

CONSENT CALENDAR
Matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion and one vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items. lf discussion is desired, that item will be removed from the Consent Calendar and will be considered separately.

JULY 20,2022 THROUGH AUGUST 2, 2022
WARRANT LIST CHECK NOS. 52029 THROUGH 52133
TOTAL FOR COUNCIL APPROVAI- = $689,298.38
Proposed adoption of Resolution No. 2248, authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract with Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group for design and bid phase services for the Westside Water Storage Tank and Pump Station.

Proposed adoption of Resolution No. 22-49, adopting the Water Master Plan, Wastewater Master Plan, and Storm Drain Master Plan documents. 4 Proposed adoption of Resolution No. 22-50, claiming local transportation funds for Fiscal Year 2022-2023.

Proposed adoption of Resolution No. 22-51, approving a lease and maintenance agreement for copy machine services and authorizing signers.

Proposed adoption of Resolution No. 22-52, approving the proposal submitted by Price Paige & Company for professional auditing services and authorizing signers.

Proposed adoption of Resolution No. 22-53, approving the scope of services provided by Lighthouse Electrical, lnc., to install upgrades to well number 5 to serve as a water source to irrigate Pool Park.
1 2
3 5
6 7
City Council Agenda 2 August 9, 2022
1 BUSINESS
Discussion regarding current status of Chapter 12.20 of the Mendota Municipal Code regarding City parks and recreation facilities.
a. Receive repoft from City Manager Gonzalez
b. lnquiries from City Council to staff
c. Mayor Castro opens floor to receive any comment from the public d. City Council provides direction to staff on how to proceed

PUBLIC HEARING
Council discussion and consideration of Ordinance No. 22-03, adding Chapter

3.14 to Title 3 of the Mendota Municipal Code to Enact a Mendota General Transactions and Use Tax to be Administered by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration.
a. Receive report from City Clerk Garcia and Finance Director Banda b. lnquiries from City Council to staff
c. Mayor Castro opens the public hearing
d. Once all comment has been received, Mayor Castro c/oses the public hearing
e. Councilconsrders waiving the second reading and adoption of Ordinance No.22-03

DEPARTMENT REPORTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
Finance Director
a) Grant Update
City Engineer
a) Update
City Attorney
a) Update
1 1
2 3

4. City Manager

MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPO AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
1 2.

Council Member(s)
N/ayor
City Council Agenda 3 August 9, 2022
1 2

CLOSED SESSION

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Potential initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Government Code section 54956.9 (one potential case).

CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code sections 54954.5, subd. (0, 54957.6 a. Agency Designated Representative: Cristian Gonzalez, City Manager b. Employee Organization: American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees

ADJOURNMENT

CERTIFICATION OF POSTING
l, Celeste Cabrera-Garcia, City Clerk of the City of Mendota, do hereby declare that the foregoing agenda for the Mendota City Council Regular Meeting of August 9,2022, was posted on the outside bulletin board located at City Hall, 643 Quince Street, on Friday, August 4, 2022 at 5:00 p.m
Cabrera-G
4 , city
City Council Agenda August 9, 2022
Minutes of City Council Meeting 1 July 26, 2022

MINUTES OF MENDOTA

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Regular Meeting July 26, 2022
Meeting called to order by Mayor Castro at 6:05 p.m.

Roll Call
Council Members Present: Mayor Rolando Castro, Mayor Pro Tem Jesus Mendoza and Councilors Jose Alonso and Joseph
Riofrio
Council Members Absent: Councilor Oscar Rosales
Flag salute led by Mayor Castro
Invocation led by Police Chaplain Ophelia Lugo

FINALIZE THE AGENDA

1. Adjustments to Agenda.

2. Adoption of final Agenda.

City Manager Gonzalez requested that Closed Session items 1, 3, and 4 be tabled to a future meeting agenda due to Councilor Rosales’ absence.

A motion was made by Councilor Riofrio to adopt the agenda as requested by staff, seconded by Mayor Castro; unanimously approved (4 ayes, absent: Rosales).

PRESENTATION

1. Council to recognize Jenny Ramos for her service to the community.

Mayor Castro presented a Certificate of Recognition to Jenny Ramos for her service to the community.

Minutes of City Council Meeting 2 July 26, 2022
Jenny Ramos thanked the City and Council for the opportunity to serve.

At 6:19 p.m. Mayor Castro announced that there would be a recess.

At 6:33 p.m. the Council reconvened in open session.

CITIZENS ORAL AND WRITTEN PRESENTATIONS
Albert Escobedo – shared a conversation he had with others regarding a speech that Mayor Castro made at a recent meeting.

Elizabeth Jonasson (Westlands Water District) – provided information about Westlands Water District’s 2022 West Side Scholarship recipients for Mendota High School.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND NOTICE OF WAIVING OF READING

1. Minutes of the regular City Council meeting of July 12, 2022.

2. Notice of waiving of the reading of all resolutions and/or ordinances introduced and/or adopted under this agenda.

A motion was made by Councilor Riofrio to approve items 1 and 2, seconded by Councilor Alonso; unanimously approved (4 ayes, absent: Rosales).

CONSENT CALENDAR

1. JULY 6, 2022 THROUGH JULY 19, 2022
WARRANT LIST CHECK NOS.51959 THROUGH 52028
TOTAL FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL = $449,609.94

2. Proposed adoption of Resolution No. 22-44, concerning Local Transportation Purpose Funds (Measure “C” Extension Funds).

3. Proposed adoption of Resolution No. 22-45, approving the quotation provided by Lighthouse Electrical, Inc. for a new 400-kilowatt diesel standby generator for the Water Treatment Facility and authorizing its purchase and installation.

4. Proposed adoption of Resolution No. 22-47, supporting the Measure C Renewal Expenditure Plan.

A request was made to pull item 2 for discussion.

A motion was made by Councilor Riofrio to approve items 1, 3, and 4 of the Consent Calendar, seconded by Councilor Alonso; unanimously approved (4 ayes, absent:

Rosales).

Minutes of City Council Meeting 3 July 26, 2022

2. Proposed adoption of Resolution No. 22-44, concerning Local Transportation Purpose Funds (Measure “C” Extension Funds).

Tony Boren (Fresno COG) – provided information on Measure C.

Discussion was held on proposed road projects for the West side of Fresno County, and on the item.

A motion was made by Councilor Riofrio to approve item 2 of the Consent Calendar, seconded by Councilor Alonso; unanimously approved (4 ayes, absent: Rosales)

BUSINESS

1. Council discussion and consideration of the color options of tire-derived product for its installation at all Citywide sites.

Mayor Castro introduced the item and Finance Director Banda provided the report.

Discussion was held on the item.

Council provided direction to staff on the selected color options for the installation of tirederived product at various Citywide sites.

2. Council discussion and consideration of Resolution No. 22-46, (1) Calling for and ordering a Special Municipal Election to be consolidated with the regularly scheduled General Municipal Election to be held on November 8, 2022, to present to voters a measure to establish the Mendota General Transactions and use tax of 1.25%, as required by the provisions of the laws of the State of California; (2) Requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Fresno to consolidate the special municipal election with the Statewide General Election to be held on the same date; (3) Requesting that the Fresno County Board of Supervisors authorize the Fresno County Clerk/Registrar of Voters to render specified services to the City of Mendota related to the conduct of the Special Municipal Election; (4) Approving the proposed ballot measure description; and (5) authorizing the City Attorney to prepare the impartial analysis for the proposed ballot measure.

Mayor Castro introduced the item and City Clerk Cabrera-Garcia and Finance Director Banda provided the report for Business items 2 and 3.

Discussion was held on the item.

A motion was made by Councilor Riofrio to adopt Resolution No. 22-46, seconded by Councilor Alonso; unanimously approved (4 ayes, absent: Rosales).

Minutes of City Council Meeting 4 July 26, 2022

3. Council discussion and consideration of Ordinance No. 22-03, adding Chapter 3.14 to Title 3 of the Mendota Municipal Code to Enact a Mendota General Transactions and Use Tax to be Administered by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration.

Mayor Castro introduced the item.

A motion was made by Councilor Riofrio to waive the first reading of Ordinance No. 22-03 and set the public hearing for August 9, 2022, seconded by Councilor Alonso; unanimously approved (4 ayes, absent: Rosales).

PUBLIC HEARING

1. Council to hold the Development Agreement Annual Review Hearing for Left Mendota I, LLC.

Mayor Castro introduced the item and City Attorney Kinsey provided the report.

Chris Lefkovitz (Left Mendota I, LLC) – provided information about the facility.

Discussion was held on the item.

At 7:04 p.m. Councilor Riofrio left the Council Chambers and returned at 7:05 p.m.

2. Council discussion and consideration of Ordinance No. 22-02, amending Chapter

12.20 of the Mendota Municipal Code to promote access to City park and recreation facilities.

Mayor Castro introduced the item and City Attorney Kinsey provided the report.

Discussion was held on the item.

Direction was provided to staff regarding potential amendments to the ordinance.

DEPARTMENT REPORTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

1. Animal Control, Code Enforcement, and Police Department a) Monthly Reports
Chief of Police Smith provided the report on the Code Enforcement Department, including monthly statistics.

Chief Smith provided the report for the Animal Control Department including monthly statistics; the upcoming dog vaccination clinic; and the work of a volunteer of the department.

Minutes of City Council Meeting 5 July 26, 2022
Discussion was held on chickens in the City; and how the department addresses dog bites.

Chief Smith provided the report for the Police Department including crime statistics and trends; a personnel update; and reported that Sergeant Galaviz won gold at the World Police Olympics.

Discussion was held on all-terrain vehicles being driven on City streets; and the status of the ongoing road construction of State Routes 33 and 180.

2. City Attorney
a) Update
City Attorney Kinsey responded to a comment that was made at a previous meeting by a member of the public regarding potential action that the City Council can take in response to inflation.

Discussion was held on the possibility of modifying the City’s utility fees, and the water restrictions that are currently in place.

3. City Manager
City Manager Gonzalez provided a personnel update; honor wall project update; City Hall and Police Department building update; reported on ongoing projects; on an accident that recently occurred at the roundabout; and stated that he will be out of office.

Discussion was held on the ongoing construction of the State Routes, and the condition of a speed hump at Kate and 8th Streets.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

1. Council Member(s)
Councilor Alonso reported on the upcoming National Night Out event; a meeting that he recently attended regarding the housing crisis; and congratulated Sergeant Galaviz for his victory at the World Police Olympics.

Councilor Riofrio reported on the passing of local residents.

Mayor Pro Tem Mendoza reported that the Rojas-Pierce Pierce Park sign and the Eddie Porras Basketball Court sign were updated; that local resident Roger Lua recently won a video contest; and that local resident Hannah Flores competed in a pageant.

Minutes of City Council Meeting 6 July 26, 2022

2. Mayor
Mayor Castro commented on the upcoming Joaquin Murrieta ride; an event that the Fresno Area Hispanic Foundation will be having in the community; and that the Mexican and Salvadoran consulates were recently serving the community at the AMOR Wellness Center.

CLOSED SESSION

1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Potential initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Government Code section 54956.9 (one potential case).

2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Government Code section 54956.9 (one potential case).

3. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code sections 54954.5, subdivision (f), and 54957.6 a. Agency Designated Representative: Cristian Gonzalez, City Manager b. Employee Organization: American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees

4. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code sections 54954.5, subdivision (f), and 54957.6 a. Agency Designated Representative: Cristian Gonzalez, City Manager b. Employee Organization: Unrepresented Management Employees At 8:01 p.m. the Council moved into closed session.

At 8:07 p.m. the Council reconvened in open session and City Attorney Kinsey stated that in regard to item 2 of the Closed Session the City Council voted to reject the claim and approve the related resolution.

ADJOURNMENT
With no more business to be brought before the Council, a motion for adjournment was made at 8:07 p.m. by Councilor Riofrio, seconded by Councilor Alonso; unanimously approved (4 ayes, absent: Rosales).
_______________________________
Rolando Castro, Mayor
Minutes of City Council Meeting 7 July 26, 2022
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Celeste Cabrera-Garcia, City Clerk

CITY OF MENDOTA

CASH DISBURSEMENTS
7/20/2022-8/2/2022
CK# 52029-52133
Date Check # Check Amount Vendor Department Description July 20, 2022 52029 $ 132,114.00 CITY OF MENDOTA PAYROLL GENERAL PAYROLL TRANSFER FOR 7/4/2022-7/17/2022
July 22, 2022 52030 $ 4,500.00 ADMINISTRATIVE SOLUTIONS - FRESNO GENERAL MEDICAL CHECK RUN 7/19/2022
July 22, 2022 52031 $ 64.54 ADT SECURITY SERVICES WATER SECURITY SERVICES FOR WATER PLANT 8/4/22-9/3/22
July 22, 2022 52032 $ 632.74 AFLAC GENERAL
AFLAC INSURANCE FOR THE MONTH OF JULY 2022
July 22, 2022 52033 $ 944.01 CORBIN WILLITS SY'S INC. GENERAL-WATER-SEWER ENHANCEMENT & SERVICE FEES MOMS SOFTWARE- AUGUST 2022
July 22, 2022 52034 $ 6,862.00 STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES SEWER GROUNDWATER SAMPLING & REPORTING 1ST QTR 2022
July 22, 2022 52035 $ 578.33 M.C REPAIRS FULL DIAGNOSTIC GENERAL-WATER-SEWER 2018 RAM LARAMIE-BRAKE PADS, AIR FILTER, OIL & OIL FILTER July 22, 2022 52036 $ 3,062.97 PURCHASE POWER GENERAL-WATER-SEWER POSTAGE METER REFILL 6/15/22, 7/11/22, & 7/12/22
July 22, 2022 52037 $ 60.00 STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL WATER DRINKING WATER TREATMENT OPERATOR CERTIFICATION RENEWAL R.

BAEZA
July 22, 2022 52038 $ 300.00

UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT OF

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA & NEVADA WATER-SEWER
(181) BILLABLE TICKETS & 2022 MEMBERSHIP FEE
July 22, 2022 52039 $ 300.00 DISCOUNT SHRED GENERAL
(2) 96 GAL BINS ON SITE DOCUMENT DESTRUCTION (PD)
July 22, 2022 52040 $ 202.00 MENDOTA COMMUNITY CORPORATION GENERAL DEBIT TRANSACTIONS FOR 6/24/22 & 6/25/22 SOFTBALL GAME &

FIREWORK SHOW
July 22, 2022 52041 $ 1,801.63 THE HOME DEPOT
GENERAL-WATER-SEWERSTREETS
GORILLA DUCT TAPE 30 YARD,BEHR PAINT (2) 4.69GAL, (1) 5/8 CONTRACTOR HOSE, DUAL NOZZLE, EXT CORD, HUSKY 194 PC
July 22, 2022 52042 $ 195,607.85 WEST VALLEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY WATER AUTOMATIC METER READING PROJECT JUNE-2022 PAYMENT #5
July 28, 2022 52043 $ 854.75 ACME ROTARY BROOM SERVICE STREETS (1) 58" 4/3 HUB HEAVY FILL SCHWARZE POLY BROOM (STREET

SWEEPER)
July 28, 2022 52044 $ 57.09 AG & INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC. STREETS (1) HYDRAULIC HOSE 1/2 2WIRE, FITTING, FLAT FACE PC
July 28, 2022 52045 $ 506.43 ALERT-0-LITE
GENERAL-WATER-SEWERSTREETS
(1)A-C MAGNETIC STROB & (18)GATORADE 2.5 GAL, 32 PK 21 OZ POWDER

SPORTS DRINK MIX-LEMON GATORADE
July 28, 2022 52046 $ 687.98 ALEX AUTO DIAGNOSTICS GENERAL-WATER-SEWER EXPLORER POLICE INTERCEPTOR-OIL & FILTER & TIRE ROT. (PD), (1)

INSPECT CHARGING SYSTEM-ADVISE R&R PARTS-(PD)
July 28, 2022 52047 $ 732.63 ALLIED ELECTRIC SEWER
(135) ZWCS08/4 600 VOLT CORD 1000 FT REEL 1000', (2) HBL 2431 GRD LKG PLUG(2) HUB 2433 CONN -WWTP
July 28, 2022 52048 $ 478.78 AQUA NATURAL SOLUTIONS SEWER (6) MICROLIFT BLEND, (4) DRAIN CLEANER, (2) SLUDGE AWAY July 28, 2022 52049 $ 1,050.49 ARAMARK GENERAL-WATER-SEWER

PUBLIC WORKS UNIFORM RENTAL SERVICES MONTHS OF MAY & JUNE 2022 (1) CUSTOM EMBROIDERY, (3) SS HVY DUTY WORKSHIRTS
July 28, 2022 52050 $ 885.78 AT&T MOBILITY GENERAL
POLICE DEPARTMENT CELL PHONE SERVICES 6/12/22-6/30/22
July 28, 2022 52051 $ 8.88 AUTOZONE, INC. STREETS
(1) 3-LEG ADJUSTABLE OIL FILTER WRENCH
July 28, 2022 52052 $ 1,908.00 CENTRAL VALLEY VETERINARY CLINIC GENERAL (1) 2021 VACCINE CLINIC, 250CT RABIES, 150 CT DAPP
July 28, 2022 52053 $ 175.00 COMMUNITY MEDICAL CENTER GENERAL (1) BLOOD DRAW JUNE 2022 (PD)
July 28, 2022 52054 $ 1,530.00 CORRPRO WATERWORKS WATER SYS#-14878&17121 MENDOTA NORTH & SOUTH TANK CONT EXP 2/28/23 July 28, 2022 52055 $ 4,283.53 CORE & MAIN LP WATER
(6) 1" BADGER METER E-SERIES & ORION CELLULAR SERVICE, (240)

ORION CELLULAR LTE SERVICE
July 28, 2022 52056 $ 442.98 CROWN SERVICES CO. GENERAL-SEWER (1) TOILET 1XWK JUNE 2022 (PD, POOL PARK, LOZANO PARK), (1) TOILET 1XWK SINK JUNE 2022 (WWTP)
July 28, 2022 52057 $ 1,063.55 CROWN SHORTLOAD CONCRETE STREETS (5) YD CONCRETE FOR CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY
July 28, 2022 52058 $ 890.79 DELTA SAND, GRAVEL & RECYCLING STREETS CLASS II BASE ROCK (33) TONS STREETS
July 28, 2022 52059 $ 1,054.06 EINERSON'S PREPRESS WATER-SEWER 10,000 UTILITY BILLING PRINTING PAPER
July 28, 2022 52060 $ 373.44 INDUSTRIAL CHEM LAB SEWER
(50) LB LIFT STATION DEGREASER
July 28, 2022 52061 $ 245.00 MODESTO INDUSTRIAL ELECTRICAL SEWER (1) HR LABOR ON AERATOR, (1) HR LABOR- EVALUATION
July 28, 2022 52062 $ 80.41 J.P. COOKE RABIES & LICENSE TAGS GENERAL (200) A-26 BLUE AA LIC TAGS: & 200 FLAT HOOKS FOR DOG LICENSE July 28, 2022 52063 $ 1,727.60 SIMPLOT GROWER SOLUTIONS WATER-SEWER (10) GALLON ROUNDUP POWER MAX (WTP & WWTP), (60) OZ TREEVIX July 28, 2022 52064 $ 25.00 RAMON'S TIRE & AUTO SERVICE GENERAL M82-EXPLORER (1) TIRE REPAIR (INSIDE PATCH) (PD)
July 28, 2022 52065 $ 535.00 TECH MASTER PEST MANAGEMENT GENERAL-WATER-SEWER PEST CONTROL SERV. CITYHALL/DMV/YOUTH CENTER, PD, PW, WWTP 6/28/22, ROJAS-PIERCE PARK SERVICE GOPHER MOUNDS
July 29, 2022 52066 $ 4,239.76 ACME ROTARY BROOM SERVICE STREETS (1)58" 4/3 HUB MAIN BROOM (20EACH) GUTTER BROOMS, (6 EACH) E5TH

SCHWARZE AVALANCHE GUTTER BROOMS

CITY OF MENDOTA

CASH DISBURSEMENTS
7/20/2022-8/2/2022
CK# 52029-52133
July 29, 2022 52067 $ 31,220.94 AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY GENERAL MEDICAL INSURANCE FOR AUGUST 2022
July 29, 2022 52068 $ 70.53 AG & INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC. STREETS (3) HYDRAULIC HOSE,(1) FITTING (1) FLAT FACE PC & CAP
July 29, 2022 52069 $ 512.82 AT&T MOBILITY GENERAL
POLICE DEPT CELL PHONE SERVICES 7/1/22-7/11/22
July 29, 2022 52070 $ 23.07 AUTOZONE, INC. GENERAL
(1) ARMORALL ORIGINAL-TURTLE WAX CAR WASH SOAP-(PD)
July 29, 2022 52071 $ 22.94 BOBCAT OF FRESNO WATER-SEWER (1) WASHER CAST. (1) PLUG
July 29, 2022 52072 $ 380.00 BOUNCE HOUSE BONANZA DONATIONS (1) DUNK TANK BONANZA FOR NATIONAL NIGHT OUT
July 29, 2022 52073 $ 494.05 CORE & MAIN LP WATER
(200) 1X100' CTS PE TUBING (4) WRENCH
July 29, 2022 52074 $ 500.00 OPHELIA LUGO MARADIAGA DONATIONS 2022 NATIONAL NIGHT OUT
July 29, 2022 52075 $ 580.98 M.C REPAIRS FULL DIAGNOSTIC GENERAL M87 POLICE INTERCEPTOR-OIL CHANGE, BRAKES,AIR FILTER
July 29, 2022 52076 $ 70.00 MENDOTA SMOG & REPAIR WATER-SEWER OIL CHANGE 2021 DODGE RAM LIC 1624608
July 29, 2022 52077 $ 450.00 MENDOTA YOUTH BASEBALL GENERAL FACILITY USE DEPOSIT REFUND-BASEBALL DIAMOND 4/25/22
July 29, 2022 52078 $ 2,077.06 MUTUAL OF OMAHA GENERAL
LIFE, AD&D, LTD & STD INSURANCE FOR AUGUST 2022
July 29, 2022 52079 $ 2,386.75 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL WATER (850) GALLON SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 12.5%
July 29, 2022 52080 $ 904.11 PETERS BROTHERS NURSERY & GARDEN GENERAL (4) BERMUDA SEED 25 LB BAGS
July 29, 2022 52081 $ 1,645.60 SIGNMAX GENERAL-STREETS
(4) 30X30 HIP ALUM BLK/YEL, ISRAEL EDDIE PORRAS BASKETBALL COURT SIGN, (15) 18X24 ALUM - NO PARKING NO SMOKING RULES July 29, 2022 52082 $ 577.26 THE HOME DEPOT WATER-STREETS (2) EVERBILT 10X10 CANOPY-GREY, (6) 1" SHARKBITE X MALE ADAPTER, (10) COUPLINGS
July 29, 2022 52083 $ 875.95 TRIANGLE ROCK PRODUCTS, LLC STREETS HMA -SP-A 1/2" 64-10 QTY:11.23 STREET PATCHING
August 1, 2022 52084 $ 1,240.82 AGRI VALLEY IRRIGATION, INC. SEWER (2) ELBOW 90 SCHEDULE 40 S 6" -WWTP, (6) GASKETS WWTP, RELINING

OF FLUME RENTAL WWTP
August 1, 2022 52085 $ 121.12 AT&T GENERAL-WATER-SEWER
CITYWIDE PHONE SERVICES 6/25/22-6/30/22
August 1, 2022 52086 $ 450.00 BAR PSYCHOLOGICAL GROUP GENERAL (1) PRE-EMPLOYMENT PSYCHOLOGICAL SCREEN L. GUTIERREZ
August 1, 2022 52087 $ 1,792.53 BELSON OUTDOORS GENERAL (1) BENCH
August 1, 2022 52088 $ 1,344.18 BSK ASSOCIATES WATER-SEWER WW WEEKLY GRAB SAMPLE 3/8/22, 5/31/22, GENERAL EDT WEEKLY TREATMENT & DISTRIBUTION 6/7/22
August 1, 2022 52089 $ 99.43 CINTAS CORPORATION NO. 2 GENERAL-WATER-SEWER FIRST AID KIT SUPPPLIES FOR CITY HALL 5/4/22
August 1, 2022 52090 $ 275.00 CIVICPLUS, LLC GENERAL-WATER-SEWER (1) MUNICODE ADMIN SUPPORT FEE 6/1/22-5/31/23
August 1, 2022 52091 $ 5,911.81 COOK'S COMMUNICATIONS GENERAL 2021 FORD F-250 CSO BUILD & INTALLATION MAT. BUNDLE
August 1, 2022 52092 $ 520.02 EXCEL SIGN CO. GENERAL
(1) INSTALL VEHICLE GRAPHICS FOR PATROL CAR (KIA) (PD)
August 1, 2022 52093 $ 1,153.53 BARTLEY WAYNE FIELDER GENERAL-WATER-SEWER (10) TECHNOLOGY SERVICE, HARD DRIVE &REBUILD (PD)
August 1, 2022 52094 $ 209.08 FILTRONICS, INC. WATER
(4) MANWAY GASKET ACCESS HATCH (WATER)
August 1, 2022 52095 $ 15,472.58 GIERLICH-MITCHELL, INC. SEWER (1) EBARA MODEL PUMP (WASTEWATER)
August 1, 2022 52096 $ 200.00 GONZALEZ TRANSPORT, INC. WATER-SEWER (1) TOW 2009 FORD F150 TO RAMONS TIRE SHOP
August 1, 2022 52097 $ 610.72 INDUSTRIAL CHEM LAB SEWER (50) LB POWDERED CITRUS CLEANER DEGREASER (WWTP), (25) LB

GRANULAR CITRUS ODOR CONTROL CLEANER (WWTP)
August 1, 2022 52098 $ 534.26 MENDOTA SMOG & REPAIR STREETS WATER PUMP,THERMOSTAT, ROD CLIPS 2005 CHEVY -2593
August 1, 2022 52099 $ 897.57 METRO UNIFORM GENERAL
(1)LISTEN ONLY MIC(1)JACKET(2)EARMOLD J. URBIETA,
(1)MICROSTREAM LED (2) VEHICLE CODE (1) HCUFF M.KAWANA
August 1, 2022 52100 $ 74,369.78 MID VALLEY DISPOSAL, INC REFUSE SANITATION CONTRACT SERVICES JUNE 2022
August 1, 2022 52101 $ 879.53 MUNICIPAL MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT STREETS (1) 5 STAGE DIAPHRAM PUMP FOR SWEEPER
August 1, 2022 52102 $ 4,710.78 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL WATER (800, 625, 500) GALLON SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 12.5%
August 1, 2022 52103 $ 610.97 OFFICE DEPOT GENERAL-WATER-SEWER (2)PAPER PERFERATED COPY PAPER & SORTER WALL, (1)BOX
STORE,CORRECTION TAPE, GEL PENS, (2) COPY PAPER
August 1, 2022 52104 $ 20,890.57 PG&E
GENERAL-WATER-SEWERSTREETS-AIRPORT
CITYWIDE UTILITIES 6/8/2022-6/30/2022
August 1, 2022 52105 $ 97,324.38 PROVOST & PRITCHARD
GENERAL-WATER-SEWERSTREETS
PROF SERV SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL M.P.APRIL 2022 & JUNE 2022, PROF. SERV. STORM DRAIN MASTER PLAN- JUNE 2022

CITY OF MENDOTA

CASH DISBURSEMENTS
7/20/2022-8/2/2022
CK# 52029-52133
August 1, 2022 52106 $ 274.53 RAMON'S TIRE & AUTO SERVICE WATER-SEWER FORD F-250 SUPER DUTY XL#1202, DISCOVER HT3, TIRE
August 1, 2022 52107 $ 237.97 SIGNMAX GENERAL-WATER-SEWER (1) WATER TREATMENT PLANT SIGN, (4) 16X16 GLOSS SEAL WITH 80TH RIBBON
August 1, 2022 52108 $ 973.00 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY STREETS PUBLIC PROJECTS ENGINEERING ORDER#60497
August 1, 2022 52109 $ 137.50 THE BUSINESS JOURNAL GENERAL

AUDITING RFP
August 1, 2022 52110 $ 400.00 UNITED HEALTH CENTERS GENERAL PRE-EMPLOYMENT PHYSICAL EXAM (2)
August 1, 2022 52111 $ 3,178.85 USA BLUEBOOK WATER-SEWER (2) CONDUCTIVITY SOLUTION, REPLACEMENT ELITE PH SE, (1) TANK AIR CHARGING SYSTEM, (5) LYSOL DISINFECTANT ORIG.

August 1, 2022 52112 $ 16,586.21 WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC ATTORNEYS GENERAL-WATER-SEWER BOCA DEL RIO LEGAL SERVICES THRU 2/15/22, 3/15/22, 4/15/22, LEGAL SERV. RE: GENERAL LEGAL SERV. 6/15/22
August 1, 2022 52113 $ 64.80 WECO GENERAL-WATER-SEWER
RENT CYL ACETYLENE #4, OXYGEN D,OXYGEN K JUNE 2022
August 2, 2022 52114 $ 860.05 MENDOTA SMOG & REPAIR GENERAL TIRE 2019 DODGE CHARGER (PD), WATER PUMP 2019 DODGE CHARGER (PD), CHECK RIGHT REAR LIGHT 2021 FORD F-250 (CE)
August 2, 2022 52115 $ 70.00 MENDOTA COMMUNITY CORPORATION MCC (1) DEBIT TRANSACTION (2) HATS (1) SOFTBALL REGISTRATION August 2, 2022 52116 $ 1,512.24 METRO UNIFORM GENERAL
(3) UNIFORMS FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
August 2, 2022 52117 $ 1,150.00 MID VALLEY DISPOSAL, INC REFUSE-STREETS (50) YD ROLL OFF 2.55, 5.00, 10.72 TON, (10) YD ROLL OFF SERVICE 4.73 TON
August 2, 2022 52118 $ 801.32 PG&E GENERAL-STREETS
CITYWIDE UTITLITIES 6/8/22-6/30/22
August 2, 2022 52119 $ 11,178.55 SORENSEN MACHINE WORKS GENERAL-WATER-SEWER CITYWIDE DEPARTMENT SUPPLIES MAY & JUNE 2022
August 2, 2022 52120 $ 1,080.09 THOMASON TRACTOR COMPANY SEWER-STREETS

FUEL TANK
August 2, 2022 52121 $ 323.91 AM CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY, INC STREETS (1)AM ELITE MASTER-COMBO CONCRETE-ASPHALT
August 2, 2022 52122 $ 25.00 JOSE LARREYNAGA GENERAL
REFUND FOR PAYMENT MADE RE: CITATION #11299
August 2, 2022 52123 $ 6,240.04 PG&E
GENERAL-WATER-SEWERSTREETS-AIRPORT
CITYWIDE UTILITIES 7/1/2022- 7/7/2022
August 2, 2022 52124 $ 75.95 PURL'S SHEETMETAL & AIR GENERAL (8) 20162 AIR FILTER FOR CITY HALL 20X16X2
August 2, 2022 52125 $ 100.00 GAVINO ANTONIO RUIZ GENERAL REFUND FOR PAYMENT MADE RE: CITATION #003722
August 2, 2022 52126 $ 353.77 STEAM CLEANERS, INC. GENERAL-WATER-SEWER

HOSE, TRIGGER GUN, COUPLER
August 2, 2022 52127 $ 229.07 USA BLUEBOOK WATER
(3) CURB BOX (1) CURB BOX COVER
August 2, 2022 52128 $ 98.71 SERGIO G. FRANCO WATER
MQ CUSTOMER REFUND FOR FRA0009
August 2, 2022 52129 $ 12.86 IRMA LAINEZ WATER
MQ CUSTOMER REFUND FOR LAI0006
August 2, 2022 52130 $ 24.66 GLORIA MARQUEZ WATER
MQ CUSTOMER REFUND FOR MAR0119
August 2, 2022 52131 $ 11.24 IRMA MEZA WATER
MQ CUSTOMER REFUND FOR MEZ0014
August 2, 2022 52132 $ 8.02 ULISES Y EVELIA M. REYES REYES WATER MQ CUSTOMER REFUND FOR REY0052
August 2, 2022 52133 $ 12.32 JANLY YIM WATER
MQ CUSTOMER REFUND FOR YIM0002
$ 689,298.38
1 AGENDA ITEM – STAFF REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: NANCY BANDA, FINANCE DIRECTOR
VIA: CRISTIAN GONZALEZ, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: NEW WESTSIDE WATER TANK AND BOOSTER PUMP STATION DATE: AUGUST 9, 2022
ISSUE
Shall the City Council adopt Resolution No. 22-48, authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract with Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group for design and bid phase services for the Westside Water Storage and Pump Station?

BACKGROUND
The City of Mendota (the “City”) owns and operates a water treatment plant for the removal of iron and manganese with a nominal capacity of 3,000 gpm, located in the northern portion of the City. The treatment plant is currently the only source of supply for the distribution system and is able to meet peak hour demand. The topography of the City is relatively flat and currently, the entire system is one pressure zone. Due to the configuration of the existing system, with the sole water distribution source being at the northern end of the system, and with much of the anticipated development taking place in the southwest portion of the system, a new booster pump station located in the southwest corner of the City is recommended to correct the deficiencies noted in the City’s Water Master Plan – mainly pressure and velocity during Peak Hour Demand.

ANALYSIS
On February 28, 2020, Provost & Pritchard prepared a Basis of Design memo for this water tank and booster pump station. This proposal is for the design and construction of the tank and booster pump station outlined in that memo. We intend to incorporate this project into the overall California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) document for the Belmont Estates development project.

FISCAL IMPACT
The City was awarded $2.5 million in SLFRF/ARPA funding from Fresno County to implement this improvement. There will be no impact to the General Fund.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 22-48, authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract with Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group for design and bid phase services for the Westside Water Storage and Pump Station project. 2 Attachment(s):

1. Proposal from Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group

2. Consultant Services Agreement from Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group

3. Resolution No. 22-48
455 W Fir Avenue
Clovis, CA 93611-0242
Tel: (559) 449-2700
Fax: (559) 449-2715
www.provostandpritchard.com
\\ppeng.com\pzdata\clients\Mendota_City of-3336\3336OG01_On-Going\100\102 Contracts\102.45 Tank and Booster Pump\2022-0729 Mendota Tank Proposal.docx Engineering  Surveying  Planning  Environmental  GIS  Construction Services  Hydrogeology  Consulting Clovis  Bakersfield  Visalia  Modesto  Los Banos  Chico  Sacramento  Sonora July 29, 2022
Cristian Gonzalez
City of Mendota
643 Quince Street Address
Mendota, CA 93640
Subject: Proposal for Design of the New Westside Water Tank and Pump Station for the City of Mendota
Cristian,
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal to provide design and construction support services for the New Westside Water Tank and Pump Station project. This proposal discusses our understanding of the project, recommends a scope of services together with associated fees, deliverables and approximate schedules.

Project Understanding
The City of Mendota owns and operates a water treatment plant for the removal of iron and manganese with a nominal capacity of 3,000 gpm, located in the northern portion of the City. The treatment plant is currently the only source of supply for the distribution system and is able to meet peak hour demand. The topography of the City is relatively flat and currently, the entire system is one pressure zone. Due to the configuration of the existing system, with the sole water distribution source being at the northern end of the system, and with much of the anticipated development taking place in the southwest portion of the system, a new booster pump station located in the southwest corner of the City is recommended to correct the deficiencies noted in the City’s Water Master Plan – mainly pressure and velocity during Peak Hour Demand. On February 28, 2020, Provost & Pritchard prepared a Basis of Design memo for this water tank and booster pump station. We understand that the City was awarded $2.5 million in SLFRF/ARPA funding from Fresno County to implement this improvement. This proposal is for the design and construction of the tank and booster pump station outlined in that memo.

Scope of Services
Our proposed scope of work for this proposal is segregated into several phases, described below.

Phase SD: Schematic Design
a. Review and confirm design criteria in the Basis of Design memo. b. Hold schematic design review meeting to confirm site conditions and proposed layout in conceptual design drawings.
c. Conduct site topographic survey.
d. Prepare site base map based on topographic, boundary, and control surveys. e. Hire a subconsultant to conduct a geotechnical investigation and report City of Mendota July 29, 2022
Water Tank and Pump Station Page 2 of 4
\\ppeng.com\pzdata\clients\Mendota_City of-3336\3336OG01_On-Going\100\102 Contracts\102.45 Tank and Booster Pump\2022-0729 Mendota Tank Proposal.docx f. Hire a subconsultant to perform electrical design and application for new PG&E electrical power supply
Deliverables
• Attend one (1) Schematic Design review meeting
Phase CD: Construction Documents
A. Based on final Schematic Plans, prepare the following plans

1. Cover Sheet (1 Sheet)

2. Legend and Abbreviations (1 Sheet)

3. Design Criteria (1 Sheet)

4. Process Flow Diagram (1 Sheet)

5. Hydraulic Profile (1 Sheet)

6. General Notes 1 of 2 (1 Sheet)

7. General Notes 2 of 2 (1 Sheet)

8. Site Plan (1 Sheet)

9. Grading Plan (1 Sheet)

10. Piping Plan (1 Sheet)

11. Civil Details 1 of 3 (1 Sheet)

12. Civil Details 2 of 3 (1 Sheet)

13. Civil Details 3 of 3 (1 Sheet)

14. Tank Plan (1 sheet)

15. Tank Elevations and Details (1 sheet)

16. Pump Station Plan and Section (1 sheet)

17. Pump Station Details (1 sheet)

18. Process Details 1 of 3 (1 sheet)

19. Process Details 2 of 3 (1 sheet)

20. Process Details 3 of 3 (1 sheet)

21. Tank Foundation Plan and Section

22. Electrical Panel Shade Structure and Foundation(1 sheet)

23. Standby Generator Foundation (1 sheet)

24. Structural Detail Sheet 1 of 4 (1 sheet)

25. Structural Detail Sheet 2 of 4 (1 sheet)

26. Structural Detail Sheet 3 of 4 (1 sheet)

27. Structural Detail Sheet 4 of 4 (1 sheet)

28. Electrical cover sheet (1 sheet)

29. Electrical Single Line Diagram, Control Diagram, and Schedules (1 sheet)

30. Electrical Plan (1 sheet)

31. Electrical details 1 of 2 (1 sheet)

32. Electrical details 2 of 2 (1 sheet)

33. Instrumentation Cover Sheet (1 sheet)

34. Process and Control Symbols and Abbreviations (1 sheet)

35. Tank Fill P&ID (1 sheet)

36. Pump Station P&ID (1 sheet)

37. Instrumentation Details 1 of 2 (1 sheet)

38. Instrumentation Details 2 of 2 (1 sheet)
B. Prepare technical specifications in CSI format
C. Prepare Opinion of Probable Construction Cost.

City of Mendota July 29, 2022
Water Tank and Pump Station Page 3 of 4
\\ppeng.com\pzdata\clients\Mendota_City of-3336\3336OG01_On-Going\100\102 Contracts\102.45 Tank and Booster Pump\2022-0729 Mendota Tank Proposal.docx 90% CD Deliverables
• Submit 90% construction documents (PDF format)
• Submit Opinion of Probable Construction Cost. (PDF format) • Attend one (1) 90% review meeting
• Submit 90% construction documents (PDF format) to DDW for review and approval.

Final CD Deliverables
• Submit final construction documents for approval and bid. (PDF Format) • Submit final Opinion of Probable Construction Cost.

Phase BID: Bid Phase
• Advertise bid solicitation in the Fresno Business Journal and local Builder’s Exchanges, as well as direct solicitation to preferred contractors • Address bidder’s questions or request for information and prepare and issue addenda, as needed
• Conduct public bid opening
• Analyze bids received and provide recommendation for award of construction contract
Fee Estimate
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group will perform the services in this proposal on a time and materials basis, in accordance with the contract Terms and Conditions described below. These fees will be invoiced monthly as they are accrued, and our total fees, including reimbursable expenses, will not exceed the total estimated fee below without additional authorization.

Westside Water Tank and Pump Station
Phase Estimated Fee
SD: Schematic Design $33,000
CD: Construction Documents $155,000
BID: Bid Phase $10,000
Total Estimated Fee: $198,000
Schedule
Once we receive an executed copy of this Proposal together with the signed Consultant Services Agreement, and are authorized to proceed, we will work with the City to establish a mutually agreed upon schedule.

Assumptions
• Provost & Pritchard will make use of available CAD drawings to the extent feasible and augment the drawings with supplemental topographic survey data collected for this project
• The project will be designed in accordance with City of Mendota, AWWA and DDW requirements, as applicable.
• All permit fees will be paid by the contractor as part of the construction contract.

City of Mendota July 29, 2022
Water Tank and Pump Station Page 4 of 4
\\ppeng.com\pzdata\clients\Mendota_City of-3336\3336OG01_On-Going\100\102 Contracts\102.45 Tank and Booster Pump\2022-0729 Mendota Tank Proposal.docx • The project plans and specifications will require the contractor to prepare and implement the Storm Water Pollution Prevention and Dust Control Plans (if required). • Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Cost will be made on the basis of Consultant’s experience and qualifications and represents Consultant’s best judgement as to the probable construction costs. However, since consultant has no control over costs or the price of labor, equipment or materials, or over contractor’s method of pricing, such opinions of probable construction costs do not constitute representations, warranties or guarantees of the accuracy of such opinions, as compared to bid or actual costs. • Provost & Pritchard will prepare all front-end specifications for bid package, including bidding, contract and general requirements (Division 0 and 1) as well as the technical specifications.
• Provost & Pritchard’s current CAD version and CAD standards and title block will be used for the design of this project.
•
Additional Services
Provost & Pritchard can provide engineering support services outside of this scope of services, when authorized by the City and agreed to by Provost & Pritchard, on a time & materials basis.

The following services are not included in this proposal, however these and others can be provided at additional cost, upon request.
• Evaluation of existing water quality and treatment processes; • Construction Administration and Construction management services; • Field inspections and material testing;
• Environmental clearances or permitting services;
Terms and Conditions
If this proposal is acceptable, please sign the Consultant Services Agreement, and return a copy to our office. These documents will serve as our Notice to Proceed. This proposal is valid for 30 days from the date above.

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
Brandon Stipe, RCE 75956 Keith Mortensen, RCE 75865
Principal Engineer Director of Operations
Terms and Conditions Accepted
By: City of Mendota

Cristian Gonzalez, City Manager Date
Project Manager: BMS Prepared By: MRS

455 W Fir Avenue
Clovis, CA 93611-0242
(559)449-2700
FAX (559)449-2715
www.provostandpritchard.com

CONSULTANT

SERVICES

AGREEMENT
CSA No:

Client City of Mendota Proposal No.

Attention Cristian Gonzalez Telephone (559) 655-3291 x105 Bill To City of Mendota Fax (559) 655-4064
Billing Address 643 Quince Street E-Mail [email protected] City, Zip Code Mendota, CA 93640
Project Title Water Tank and Pump Station Location Mendota, CA Description of Services: Please refer to attached proposal dated July 29, 2022, “Proposal for Design of the New Westside Water Tank and Pump Station for the City of Mendota.” The provisions set forth below and on the following paragraphs 1 through 42 are incorporated into and made a part of this Agreement. In signing, the Client acknowledges that they have read and approved all such terms and hires Provost & Pritchard Engineering Group, Inc., dba Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group, (Consultant) to perform the above described services.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Client and Consultant agree that the following terms and conditions shall be part of this agreement:

1. In providing services under this Agreement, the Consultant shall perform in a manner consistent with that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the same profession currently practicing under similar circumstances at the same time and in the same or similar locality. The Consultant makes no warranty, express or implied, as to its professional services rendered under this Agreement.

2. Client acknowledges that Consultant is not responsible for the performance of work by third parties including, but not limited to, the construction contractor and its subcontractors.

3. Client agrees that if Client requests services not specified in the scope of services described in this agreement, Client will pay for all such additional services as extra services, in accordance with Consultant's billing rates utilized for this contract.

DOCUMENTS

4. Client acknowledges that all reports, plans, specifications, field data and notes and other documents, including all documents on electronic media, prepared by Consultant (collectively Work Product) are instruments of service which shall remain the property of Consultant and may be used by Consultant without the consent of Client. Consultant shall retain all common law, statutory law and other rights, including copyrights. Consultant grants Client a perpetual, royalty-free fully paid-up, nonexclusive and irrevocable license to copy, reproduce perform, dispose of, use and re-use the Work Product in connection with the Project, in whole or in part, and to authorize others to do so for the benefit of Client.

Client acknowledges that its right to utilize Work Product pursuant to this agreement will continue only so long as Client is not in default, pursuant to the terms and conditions of this agreement, and Client has performed all its obligations under this agreement.

5. Client agrees not to reuse Work Product, in whole or in part, for any project other than the project that is the subject of this agreement. Client further agrees to waive all claims against Consultant resulting in any way from any unauthorized changes or unauthorized reuse of the Work Product for any other project by anyone on Client’s behalf. Client agrees not to use or permit any other person to use versions of Work Product which are not final and which are not signed and stamped or sealed by Consultant.

City of Mendota July 29, 2022
Water Tank and Pump Station

Client shall be responsible for any such use of non-final Work Product. Client hereby waives any claim for liability against Consultant for use of non-final Work Product. If a reviewing agency requires that check prints be submitted with a stamp or seal, those shall not be considered final for purposes of this paragraph.

6. In the event Client (1) makes, agrees to, authorizes, or permits changes in Work Product, or (2) makes, agrees to, authorizes, or permits construction of such unauthorized changes, which changes are not consented to in writing by Consultant, or (3) does not follow recommendations prepared by Consultant pursuant to this agreement, resulting in unauthorized changes to the project, Client acknowledges that the unauthorized changes and their effects are not the responsibility of Consultant. Client agrees to release Consultant from all liability arising from such unauthorized changes, and further agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Consultant, its officers, directors, employees and subconsultants from and against all claims, demands, damages or costs, including attorneys' fees, arising from such changes.

7. Under no circumstances shall delivery of Work Product for use by the Client be deemed a sale by the Consultant, and the Consultant makes no warranties, either express or implied, of merchantability and fitness for any particular purpose. In no event shall the Consultant be liable for indirect or consequential damages as a result of the Client’s unauthorized use or reuse of the Work Product.

8. The Client is aware that differences may exist between electronic files delivered and the printed hardcopy construction documents. In the event of a conflict between the signed construction documents prepared by the Consultant and electronic files, the signed sealed hard-copy documents shall govern.

LIMITATIONS

9. Consultant makes no representations concerning soils or geological conditions unless specifically included in writing in this agreement, or by amendments to this agreement. If Consultant recommends that Client retain the services of a Geotechnical Engineer and Client chooses to not do so, Consultant shall not be responsible for any liability that may arise out of the making of or failure to make soils or geological surveys, subsurface soils or geological tests, or general soils or geological testing.

10. Client acknowledges that, unless specifically stated to the contrary in the proposal’s description of services to be provided, Consultant's scope of services for this project does not include any services related in any way to asbestos and/or hazardous or toxic materials. Should Consultant or any other party encounter such materials on the job site, or should it in any other way become known that such materials are present or may be present on the job site or any adjacent or nearby areas which may affect Consultant's services, Consultant may, at its option, suspend or terminate work on the project until such time as Client retains a qualified contractor to abate and/or remove the asbestos and/or hazardous or toxic materials and warrant that the job site is free from any hazard which may result from the existence of such materials.

INDEMNIFICATION

11. To the fullest extent allowed by law, Consultant will indemnify and hold harmless, but shall have no duty to defend Client, its officers, directors, employees, and agents (collectively, the "Client lndemnitees") from, for and against any and all claims, demands, damages, losses, expenses, liabilities, and penalties arising out of or relating to the Project, but only to the extent caused by the negligent or other wrongful acts or omissions of Consultant, its subconsultants, or any person or entity for whose acts or omissions any of them are responsible, or by the failure of any such party to perform as required by this Agreement. To the fullest extent allowed by law, Client will indemnify and hold harmless, but shall have no duty to defend Consultant and its officers, directors, employees and agents from, for and against any and all claims, demands, damages, losses, expenses, liabilities and penalties arising out of or relating to the Project, but only to the extent caused by the negligent or other wrongful acts or omissions of Client or any person or entity for whose acts or omissions it is responsible, or by the failure of any such party to perform as required by this Agreement. The obligations and rights of this Section are in addition to other obligations and rights of indemnity provided under this Agreement or applicable law.

FINANCIAL

12. All fees and other charges due Consultant will be billed monthly and shall be due at the time of billing unless specified otherwise in this agreement. If Client fails to pay Consultant within sixty (60) days after invoices are rendered, Consultant shall have the right in its sole discretion to consider such default in payment a material breach of this entire agreement, and, upon written notice, Consultant's duties, obligations and responsibilities under this agreement may be suspended or terminated for cause City of Mendota July 29, 2022
Water Tank and Pump Station

pursuant to Sections 26 through 31. In such event, Client shall promptly pay Consultant for all outstanding fees and charges due Consultant at the time of suspension or termination including all costs and expenses incurred in the performance of services up to suspension or termination.

13. Consultant shall not be liable to Client for any costs or damages that may result from the termination or suspension of services under this agreement due to Client’s failure to pay Consultant invoices in accordance with the terms of this paragraph. In the event that Consultant agrees to resume terminated or suspended services after receiving full payment of all late invoices, Client agrees that time schedules and fees, as applicable, related to the services will be equitably adjusted to reflect any delays or additional costs caused by the termination or suspension of services.

14. In all cases where the proposal calls for payment of a retainer, that payment shall be made by Client to Consultant prior to commencement of services under this agreement. Upon receipt of retainer payment, the Consultant shall commence services as provided for under this Agreement. Unless otherwise provided for in the project proposal, such retainer shall be held by Consultant throughout the duration of the contract, and shall be applied to the final project invoice, and to any other outstanding AR, including late payment charges, on the project. Any amount of said retainer in excess of the final invoice and other outstanding AR shall be returned to the Client within 30 days of issuance of the final project invoice.

15. Client agrees that all billings from Consultant to Client will be considered correct and binding on Client unless Client, within ten (10) days from the date of receipt of such billing, notifies Consultant in writing of alleged inaccuracies, discrepancies, or errors in billing. In the event of a dispute over any billing or portion of billing, Client agrees to pay the undisputed portion of any billings in accordance with the payment terms set forth in Section 18.

16. Client agrees to pay a monthly late payment charge, which will be the lesser of one and one half percent (1-1/2%) per month or a monthly charge not to exceed the maximum legal rate, which will be applied to any unpaid balance commencing thirty (30) days after the date of the billing. Client acknowledges that payments applied first to unpaid late payment charges and then to unpaid balances of invoices.

17. In the event Consultant's fee schedule changes due to any increase of costs such as the granting of wage increases and/or other employee benefits to field or office employees or any taxes or fees imposed by local, state, or federal government on consultants’ fees during the lifetime of this agreement, the new fee schedule shall apply to all subsequent work on time-and-materials contracts.

18. If payment for Consultant's services is to be made on behalf of Client by a third party lender, Client agrees that Consultant shall not be required to indemnify the third party lender, in the form of an endorsement or otherwise, as a condition to receiving payment for services. Client agrees to reimburse Consultant for all collection agency fees, legal fees, court costs, reasonable consultant staff costs and other expenses paid or incurred by Consultant in the event that collection efforts become necessary to enforce payment of any unpaid billings due to Consultant in connection with the services provided in this agreement.

LIMITATION OF LIABILITY

19. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement to the contrary, the aggregate liability of the Consultant under this Agreement, whether for breach of contract, tort, strict liability or any other legal theory, will not exceed the total amount of Consultant's compensation for performing services under this Agreement or $50,000, whichever is greater, however this limitation of Consultant's liability does not apply to third-party claims, or to the Client's reasonable attorneys' fees and expert witnesses' fees and litigation expenses arising out of or related to such third-party claims for which Consultant is liable.

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

20. In an effort to resolve any conflicts or disputes that arise regarding performance under this agreement by either party, Client and Consultant agree that all such disputes shall be submitted to nonbinding mediation, using a mutually agreed upon mediation services experienced in the resolution of construction disputes. Unless the parties mutually agree otherwise, such mediation shall be a precondition to the initiation of any litigation. The parties further agree to include a similar mediation provision in their agreements with other independent contractors and consultants retained for the project and require them to similarly agree to these dispute resolution procedures. This provision shall not be interpreted to restrict the right of either party to file an action in a court of law, in the County of Fresno, State of California, having appropriate jurisdiction or to preclude or limit the Consultant’s right to record, perfect or to enforce any applicable lien or Stop Notice rights.

City of Mendota July 29, 2022
Water Tank and Pump Station

CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

21. If the scope of services contained in this agreement does not include construction phase services for this project, Client agrees that such construction phase services will be provided by Client or by others.

Client assumes all responsibility for interpretation of the contract documents and for construction observation and supervision and waives any claim against Consultant that may in any way be connected thereto. In addition, Client agrees to indemnify and hold Consultant harmless from any loss, claim, or cost, including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of defense, arising or resulting from the performance of such services by other persons or entities and from any and all claims arising from the modification, clarification, interpretation, adjustments or changes made to the contract documents to reflect changed field or other conditions, except for claims arising from the negligence or other wrongful acts of Consultant, its employees, its subconsultants, or any other person or entity for which Consultant is responsible.

22. Client agrees to include provisions in its contract with the construction contractor to the effect that in accordance with generally accepted construction practices, the construction contractor will be required to assume sole and complete responsibility for job site conditions during the course of construction of the project, including safety of all persons and property, and that this requirement shall apply continuously and not be limited to normal working hours. Neither the professional activities of Consultant nor the presence of Consultant or its employees or subconsultants at a construction site shall relieve the contractor and its subcontractors of their obligations, duties and responsibilities including, but not limited to, construction means, methods, sequence, techniques or procedures necessary for performing, superintending or coordinating all portions of the work of construction in accordance with the contract documents and applicable health or safety requirements of any regulatory agency or of state law.

23. Client agrees to require its contractor and subcontractors to review the plans, specifications and documents prepared by Consultant prior to the commencement of construction phase work. If the contractor and/or subcontractors believe there are deficiencies, conflicts, errors, omissions, code violations, or other deficiencies in the plans, specifications and documents prepared by Consultant, contractors shall notify Client so those deficiencies may be corrected or otherwise addressed by Consultant prior to the commencement of construction phase work.

24. If, during the construction phase of the project, Client discovers or becomes aware of changed field or other conditions which necessitate clarifications, modifications or other changes to the plans, specifications, estimates or other documents prepared by Consultant, Client agrees to notify Consultant and, at Client’s option, retain Consultant to prepare the necessary changes or modifications before construction activities proceed. Further, Client agrees to require a provision in its construction contracts for the project which requires the contractor to promptly notify Client of any changed field or other conditions so that Client may in turn notify Consultant pursuant to the provisions of this paragraph.

25. If, due to the Consultant's error, omission or negligence, a required item or component of the Project is omitted from the Consultant's construction documents, the Consultant shall not be responsible for paying the cost required to add such item or component to the extent that such item or component would have been required and included in the original construction documents. The Consultant will not be responsible for any cost or expense that enhances the value of the Project.

SUSPENSION AND TERMINATION

26. If the Project or the Consultant’s services are suspended by the Client for more than thirty (30) consecutive calendar days, the Consultant shall be compensated for all services performed and reimbursable expenses incurred prior to the receipt of notice of suspension. In addition, upon resumption of services, the Client shall compensate the Consultant for expenses incurred as a result of the suspension and resumption of its services, and the Consultant’s schedule and fees for the remainder of the Project shall be equitably adjusted.

27. If the Consultant’s services are suspended for more than ninety (90) days, consecutive or in the aggregate, the Consultant may terminate this Agreement upon giving not less than five (5) calendar days’ written notice to the Client.

28. If the Client is in breach of the payment terms or otherwise is in material breach of this Agreement, the Consultant may suspend performance of services upon five (5) calendar days’ notice to the Client. The Consultant shall have no liability to the Client, and the Client agrees to make no claim for any delay or damage as a result of such suspension caused by any breach of this Agreement by the Client. Upon receipt of payment in full of all outstanding sums due from the Client, or curing of such other breach that caused the Consultant to suspend services, the Consultant shall resume services, and there shall be an equitable adjustment to the remaining project schedule and fees as a result of the suspension.

City of Mendota July 29, 2022
Water Tank and Pump Station

29. Client acknowledges Consultant has the right to complete all services included in this agreement. In the event this agreement is terminated before the completion of all services, unless Consultant is responsible for such early termination, Client agrees to release Consultant from all liability for services not performed or completed by Consultant and from liability for any third-party reliance, use, interpretation or extrapolation of Consultant’s work product. In the event all or any portion of the services by Consultant are suspended, abandoned, or otherwise terminated, Client shall pay Consultant all fees and charges for services provided prior to termination, not to exceed the contract limits specified herein, if any. Client acknowledges if the project services are suspended and restarted, there will be additional charges due to suspension of the services which shall be paid for by Client as extra services pursuant to Section 26. Client acknowledges if project services are terminated for the convenience of Client, Consultant is entitled to reasonable termination costs and expenses, to be paid by Client as extra services pursuant to Section 31.

30. The Client may terminate this Agreement for the Client's convenience and without cause upon giving the Consultant not less than seven (7) calendar days' written notice.

31. In the event of termination of this Agreement by either party, Consultant shall invoice Client for all outstanding services and expenses reasonably incurred by the Consultant in connection with the orderly termination of this Agreement, including but not limited to demobilization, reassignment of personnel, associated overhead costs and all other expenses directly resulting from the termination.

The Client shall within thirty (30) calendar days of termination pay the Consultant for all services rendered and all reimbursable costs incurred by the Consultant up to the date of termination, in accordance with the payment provisions of this Agreement.

OTHER

32. This agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of Client and Consultant.

33. This agreement shall not be assigned by either Client or Consultant without the prior written consent of the other.

34. Consultant's or Client's waiver of any term, condition or covenant shall not constitute the waiver of any other term, condition or covenant. Consultant's or Client's waiver of any breach of this agreement shall not constitute the waiver of any other breach of the Agreement.

35. Client and Consultant agree that if any term or provision of this Agreement is determined to be illegal, in conflict with any law, void or otherwise unenforceable, and if the essential terms and provisions of this Agreement remain unaffected, then the validity of the remaining terms and provisions will not be affected and the offending provision will be given the fullest meaning and effect allowed by law.

36. This agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

37. Within the limits of the approved scope and fee, Consultant may engage the services of any subconsultants when, in the Consultant's sole opinion, it is appropriate to do so. Such subconsultants may include testing laboratories, geotechnical engineers and other specialized consulting services deemed necessary by the Consultant to carry out the scope of the Consultant's services.

38. Consultant shall be entitled to immediately, and without notice, suspend the performance of any and all of its obligations pursuant to this agreement if Client files a voluntary petition seeking relief under the United States Bankruptcy Code or if there is an involuntary bankruptcy petition filed against Client in the United States Bankruptcy Court, and that petition is not dismissed within fifteen (15) days of its filing. Any suspension of services made pursuant to the provisions of this paragraph shall continue until such time as this agreement has been fully and properly assumed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the United States Bankruptcy Code and in compliance with final order or judgment issued by the Bankruptcy Court.

39. This agreement shall not be construed to alter, affect or waive any design professional's lien, mechanic's lien or stop notice right, which Consultant may have for the performance of services pursuant to this agreement. Client agrees to provide to Consultant the current name and address of the record owner of the property upon which the project is to be located. Client also agrees to provide Consultant with the name and address of any and all lenders who may loan money on the project and who are entitled to receive a preliminary notice.

40. Consultant shall not be liable for damages resulting from the actions or inactions of governmental agencies including, but not limited to, permit processing, environmental impact reports, dedications, general plans and amendments thereto, zoning matters, annexations or consolidations, use or conditional use permits, project or plan approvals, and building permits. Client agrees that it is the City of Mendota July 29, 2022
Water Tank and Pump Station

responsibility of Client to maintain in good standing all governmental approvals or permits and to timely apply for any necessary extensions thereof.

41. Consultant and Client each agree to waive consequential damages for claims, disputes or other matters in question arising out of or relating to this Agreement. This mutual waiver is applicable, without limitation, to all consequential damages due to either party’s termination in accordance with paragraphs 26 through 31, except for termination expenses provided for in said paragraph 31. Client further agrees that to the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall not be liable to Client for any special, indirect or consequential damages whatsoever, whether caused by Consultant's negligence, errors, omissions, strict liability, breach of contract, breach of warranty or other cause or causes whatsoever, including but not limited to, loss of use of equipment or facility, and loss of profits or revenue.

42. This Agreement is the entire Agreement between the Client and the Consultant. It supersedes all prior communications, understandings and agreements, whether oral or written. Amendments to this Agreement must be in writing and signed by both the Client and the Consultant.

Client City of Mendota
Provost & Pritchard Engineering Group, Inc.,
dba Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
By By
Name Cristian Gonzalez Name Keith Mortensen, RCE 75865
Title Title Director of Operations
Date Signed Date Signed July 29, 2022
1 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE

CITY OF MENDOTA, COUNTY OF FRESNO
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 22-48

OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA AUTHORIZING

THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A

CONTRACT WITH PROVOST & PRITCHARD

CONSULTING GROUP FOR DESIGN AND

BID PHASE SERVICES FOR THE WESTSIDE

WATER STORAGE TANK AND PUMP STATION
WHEREAS, the City of Mendota (the “City”) owns and operates a water treatment plant and distribution system for domestic water; and WHEREAS, the City’s Water Master Plan identified pressure and velocity deficiencies during the Peak Hour Demand in the southwest region of the City’s system; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer, Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group, prepared a basis of design memo dated February 28, 2020, for a new water tank and pump station otherwise referred to as the Westside Water Tank and Pump Station project; and WHEREAS, the City has been awarded $2.5 million in SLFRF/ARPA funding from Fresno County to implement the proposed Westside Water Tank and Pump Station project; and
WHEREAS, the City intends to retain Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group to provide design services necessary to prepare construction-ready bid documents and assist with the bidding process; and
WHEREAS, the Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group has submitted a proposal for this bid preparation work that is acceptable to City staff.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mendota hereby authorizes the City Manager or his designee to execute a contract with Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group for the design and bid phase support services required for the Westside Water Tank and Pump Station project. ______________________________
Rolando Castro, Mayor
2 ATTEST:

I, Celeste Cabrera-Garcia, City Clerk of the City of Mendota, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted and passed by the City Council at a regular meeting of said Council, held at the Mendota City Hall on the 9th day of August, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Celeste Cabrera-Garcia, City Clerk
1 AGENDA ITEM – STAFF REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: MICHAEL OSBORN, CITY ENGINEER
VIA: CRISTIAN GONZALEZ, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF WATER, WASTEWATER AND STORM DRAIN MASTER PLANS DATE: AUGUST 9, 2022
ISSUE
Shall the City Council adopt Resolution No. 22-49, adopting the Water Master Plan, Wastewater Master Plan and Storm Drain Master Plan documents?

BACKGROUND
Since being retained as City Engineer in 2009, Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group encouraged City staff to authorize preparation of Master Plans for each of the three major utilities operated by the City, namely Water, Sewer and Wastewater Treatment, and Storm Drain.

Staff found a way to fund these Master Plans without impact to the General Fund or to the utility operating funds and in late 2018, work began to prepare the documents. There are three major reasons for the City to have current and complete utility master plans.

First, Master Plans provide a solid legal basis for calculation of Development Impact Fees. At the regular City Council meeting held on April 24, 2018, the City Council approved an agreement with the City Engineer for preparation of new studies to allow setting of Development Impact Fees and application processing fees. These two reports have both been in progress. One of the necessary elements of the Development Impact Fee Study is a comprehensive list of water, sewer and storm drain system improvements necessary to support future growth. The costs of these projects can be assessed to the development projects as they occur. Without an approved project plan, there is no way to calculate necessary fees. With a plan in place, Development Impact Fees can be set and collected, creating funds the City can use to build new and expanded utility infrastructure without affecting the General Fund.

Second, having the Master Plans in place gives the City the engineering support needed to prepare complete grant applications. Without that support, requests for funding are very difficult to justify and the success rate of the grant applications is low. With the support, and with Mendota’s status as a Severely Disadvantaged Community, we expect that we will be more successful in applying for State and Federal grant funding.

Lastly, the Master Plans serve a very practical purpose in understanding the condition of each utility, and the capacity remaining before expansion or repairs are needed. With that understanding the City can more responsibly plan for capital improvements well in advance, leaving time to assemble funding, whether it be from ratepayers, Development Impact Fees, outside loans and grants, or some combination of all those sources. Having a structured capital 2 improvement plan based on solid engineering will give the City much more confidence in approving development projects, knowing what improvements will be needed and imposing appropriate development conditions as necessary.

ANALYSIS
The comprehensive documents utilized the best available data, mapping and analysis methods to provide guidance both for necessary repairs for the existing systems and for capital improvements to accommodate future development, as outlined in the 2025 General Plan. These completed Master Plans will allow for the preparation of more accurate fees to complete the Development Impact Fee study.

FISCAL IMPACT
Adoption of these plans have no direct fiscal impact.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 22-49, adopting the Water Master Plan, Wastewater Master Plan and Storm Drain Master Plan documents.

Attachment(s):

1. Resolution No. 22-49

2. Exhibit “A” - Water Master Plan

3. Exhibit “B” - Wastewater Master Plan

4. Exhibit “C” - Storm Drain Master Plan
1 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE

CITY OF MENDOTA, COUNTY OF FRESNO
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 22-49

OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA ADOPTING

THE WATER MASTER PLAN, WASTEWATER

MASTER PLAN AND STORM DRAIN MASTER

PLAN DOCUMENTS
WHEREAS, the City of Mendota (“City”) operates certain municipal infrastructure utilities, including a water system, a sewer collection and treatment system, and a storm drain system; and
WHEREAS, prudent and responsible management of the City’s General and Development Impact Funds requires a thorough understanding of the condition of each of these infrastructure systems; and
WHEREAS, the City must also know what repairs and improvements will be required to keep each of these infrastructure systems operating smoothly to responsibly accommodate the demands of future growth; and
WHEREAS, the City may only assess Development Impact Fees to the limit of the costs required to build facilities to support planned development; and WHEREAS, in the past, the City has never had the utility Master Plans necessary to inform long-term planning and cost estimating needed to accomplish these objectives; and
WHEREAS, the completed Water, Wastewater, and Storm Drain Master Plan documents, attached hereto as Exhibits A, B, and C, allow for a better and more thorough preparation of accurate fees for the Development Impact Fee study that is currently in process; and
WHEREAS, City staff have reviewed these Master Plan documents and find they meet the expectations and forecasted needs of the City.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mendota hereby adopts the Water Master Plan, Wastewater Master Plan, and Storm Drain Master Plan documents attached hereto as Exhibits A, B, and C. ______________________________
Rolando Castro, Mayor
2 ATTEST:

I, Celeste Cabrera-Garcia, City Clerk of the City of Mendota, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted and passed by the City Council at a regular meeting of said Council, held at the Mendota City Hall on the 9th day of August, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Celeste Cabrera-Garcia, City Clerk
Exhibit A
City of Mendota
Water Master Plan
Mendota, CA
November 2019
Prepared for:

City of Mendota
Mendota, CA
Prepared by:

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
286 W. Cromwell Ave. Fresno, CA 93711
City of Mendota
Water Master Plan
Mendota, CA
November 2019
Prepared for:

City of Mendota
Mendota, CA
Prepared by:

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
286 W. Cromwell Ave. Fresno, CA 93711
Report Prepared for:

City of Mendota
643 Quince St.

Mendota, CA 93640
Contact:

Cristian Gonzalez, City Manager
(559) 655-4298
[email protected]
Report Prepared by:

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
David McGlasson, PE, PLS
Nicholas Jacobson, PE
Mariham Iskandar, EIT
Contact:

David McGlasson, PE, PLS
[email protected]
Michael Osborn, PE
[email protected]
(559) 449-2700
COPYRIGHT 2019 by PROVOST & PRITCHARD CONSULTING GROUP

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group expressly reserves its common law copyright and other applicable property rights to this document. This document is not to be reproduced, changed, or copied in any form or manner whatsoever, nor are they to be assigned to a third party without first obtaining the written permission and consent of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group In the event of unauthorized reuse of the information contained herein by a third party, the third party shall hold the firm of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group harmless, and shall bear the cost of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group's legal fees associated with defending and enforcing these rights.
11/14/2019 11/14/2019
City of Mendota
Water Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2019 i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary......................................................................................................................................................ES-1 1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Purpose and Goals......................................................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Physical Setting ............................................................................................................................................1-1

1.3 System Description .....................................................................................................................................1-4

1.3.1 Groundwater Wells.......................................................................................................................1-4

1.3.2 Water Treatment Plant.................................................................................................................1-4

1.3.3 Distribution System......................................................................................................................1-4

1.4 Existing System Remaining Capacity Estimate ......................................................................................1-5 2 Water System Demands........................................................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Existing Demands.......................................................................................................................................2-1

2.1.1 Residential Demands....................................................................................................................2-1

2.1.2 Commercial Users.........................................................................................................................2-1

2.1.3 Industrial Users .............................................................................................................................2-2

2.1.4 Other Users....................................................................................................................................2-2

2.1.5 Large Water Users.........................................................................................................................2-2

2.2 Title 22 Demand Estimates.......................................................................................................................2-2

2.2.1 Average Day Demand..................................................................................................................2-2

2.2.2 Maximum Month Average Day Demand .................................................................................2-2

2.2.3 Maximum Day Demand and Peak Hour Demand..................................................................2-4

2.2.4 Fire Protection...............................................................................................................................2-4

2.3 Future Demand Estimates.........................................................................................................................2-5

2.3.1 Land Use Based Demand Estimate ...........................................................................................2-5

2.3.2 Title 22 Future Demand Estimates............................................................................................2-8

2.3.3 Future Average Day Demand.....................................................................................................2-9

2.3.4 Future Maximum Day Demand .................................................................................................2-9

2.3.5 Future Peak Hour Demand.........................................................................................................2-9 3 Water Supply...........................................................................................................................................................3-1

3.1 River Wells ...................................................................................................................................................3-1

3.1.1 Growth Potential ..........................................................................................................................3-3

3.2 Supply and Demand Reconciliation.........................................................................................................3-4

3.3 Other Potential Sources.............................................................................................................................3-5 City of Mendota
Water Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2019 ii

3.3.1 Additional Groundwater Wells West of the San Joaquin River............................................3-5

3.3.2 Contracting for Surface Water....................................................................................................3-5

3.3.3 Development of Recycled Water Supply ..................................................................................3-6

3.4 Permitting Issues.........................................................................................................................................3-6 4 Water Quality..........................................................................................................................................................4-1

4.1 River Wells 7, 8 and 9.................................................................................................................................4-1

4.2 Other Sources..............................................................................................................................................4-1 5 Water Treatment....................................................................................................................................................5-1

5.1 Existing Water Treatment Plant ...............................................................................................................5-1

5.2 Water Treatment Plant Capacity...............................................................................................................5-1

5.3 Other Treatment Options..........................................................................................................................5-1

5.3.1 Additional Groundwater Wells...................................................................................................5-2

5.3.2 New Centralized Water Treatment Plant..................................................................................5-3

5.3.3 Decentralized Water Treatment Plants .....................................................................................5-3 6 Distribution System...............................................................................................................................................6-1

6.1 Overview.......................................................................................................................................................6-1

6.2 Anticipated Growth Areas.........................................................................................................................6-1

6.3 Pressure Zones ............................................................................................................................................6-3

6.4 Water Storage...............................................................................................................................................6-3

6.5 Pumping Capacity .......................................................................................................................................6-3 7 Hydraulic Model and Analysis.............................................................................................................................7-1

7.1 Modeling Software ......................................................................................................................................7-1

7.2 Hydraulic Model Development ................................................................................................................7-1

7.2.1 Modeled Water Sources...............................................................................................................7-1

7.3 Scenario Development ...............................................................................................................................7-5

7.4 Demand Allocation.....................................................................................................................................7-5

7.4.1 Existing System Demand Allocation.........................................................................................7-5

7.4.2 Buildout System Demand Allocation ........................................................................................7-6

7.5 Model Verification and Calibration..........................................................................................................7-6

7.6 Modeling Evaluation Criteria ....................................................................................................................7-8

7.6.1 Pressure ..........................................................................................................................................7-8

7.6.2 Velocity...........................................................................................................................................7-9

7.6.3 Headloss Gradient ........................................................................................................................7-9

7.7 Model Results...............................................................................................................................................7-9 City of Mendota
Water Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2019 iii

7.7.1 Existing System Normal Operating Scenarios.........................................................................7-9

7.7.2 Existing System Fire Flow Scenario........................................................................................ 7-20

7.7.3 Future System Normal Operating Scenarios......................................................................... 7-20

7.7.4 Future System Fire Flow Scenario .......................................................................................... 7-30

7.8 Future System Improvements................................................................................................................ 7-31 8 Capital Improvements...........................................................................................................................................8-1

8.1 Assumptions and Limitations....................................................................................................................8-1

8.1.1 Capital Costs..................................................................................................................................8-1

8.1.2 Cost Components.........................................................................................................................8-2

8.2 Capital Projects............................................................................................................................................8-3

8.2.1 Near Term Capital Projects.........................................................................................................8-3

8.2.2 Long Term Capital Projects........................................................................................................8-3

8.3 Permitting Issues.........................................................................................................................................8-4

8.3.1 Caltrans...........................................................................................................................................8-4

8.3.2 County Encroachment.................................................................................................................8-4 9 Public Benefit Versus Development Charges...................................................................................................9-1 City of Mendota
Water Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2019 iv Table of Figures
Figure 1-1. Regional Map................................................................................................................................................1-2 Figure 1-2. Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................................................1-3 Figure 2-1. Annual Water Demands 2008-2018 .........................................................................................................2-1 Figure 2-2. Proposed Land Use.....................................................................................................................................2-6 Figure 2-3. Future Demand Projection........................................................................................................................2-7 Figure 3-1. Existing Groundwater Supply Infrastructure ........................................................................................3-2 Figure 6-1. Existing Water Distribution System.........................................................................................................6-2 Figure 7-1. AutoCAD Based Water Distribution System Map ................................................................................7-2 Figure 7-2. WaterCAD Based Water Distribution System Map...............................................................................7-3 Figure 7-3. Geocoded Water Meters ............................................................................................................................7-7 Figure 7-4. Average Day Demand Pressures............................................................................................................ 7-11 Figure 7-5. Maximum Day Demand Pressures........................................................................................................ 7-12 Figure 7-6. Peak Hour Demand Pressures ............................................................................................................... 7-13 Figure 7-7. Average Day Demand Velocities........................................................................................................... 7-14 Figure 7-8. Maximum Day Demand Velocities ....................................................................................................... 7-15 Figure 7-9. Peak Hour Demand Velocities............................................................................................................... 7-16 Figure 7-10. Average Day Demand Headloss Gradient......................................................................................... 7-17 Figure 7-11. Maximum Day Demand Headloss Gradient ..................................................................................... 7-18 Figure 7-12. Peak Hour Demand Headloss Gradient............................................................................................. 7-19 Figure 7-13. Fire Flow Analysis.................................................................................................................................. 7-21 Figure 7-14. Available Fire Flow (North) ................................................................................................................. 7-22 Figure 7-15. Available Fire Flow (Central) ............................................................................................................... 7-23 Figure 7-16. Available Fire Flow (South).................................................................................................................. 7-24 Figure 7-17. Near Term Development...................................................................................................................... 7-25 Figure 7-18. Future System Peak Hour Demand Pressures................................................................................... 7-26 Figure 7-19. Future System Peak Hour Demand Velocities.................................................................................. 7-28 Figure 7-20. Future System Peak Hour Demand Headloss Gradient.................................................................. 7-29 Figure 7-21. Future System Fire Flow Analysis....................................................................................................... 7-32 Figure 7-22. Future System Peak Hour Demand Pressures with Tank and Booster Pump............................. 7-33 Figure 7-23. Future System Peak Hour Demand Velocities with Tank and Booster Pump ............................ 7-34 Figure 7-24. Future System Peak Hour Demand Headloss Gradient with Tank and Booster Pump ............ 7-35 Figure 7-25. Future System Fire Flow Analysis with Tank and Booster Pump ................................................. 7-36 City of Mendota
Water Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2019 v
Figure 8-1. Capital Improvement Projects...................................................................................................................8-5 Table of Tables
Table ES-1. Water System Component Capacity Summary ..................................................................................ES-1 Table ES-2. Near Term Capital Improvement Project...........................................................................................ES-2 Table 1-1. Water System Component Capacity Summary ........................................................................................1-5 Table 2-1. Fiscal Year 2017-2018 Largest Water Users.............................................................................................2-3 Table 2-2. Summary of Title 22 Water System Demands.........................................................................................2-4 Table 2-3. Single Family Residential Minimum Fire Protection Requirements.....................................................2-4 Table 2-4. Land Use Specific Demand Factors ..........................................................................................................2-5 Table 2-5. SOI Buildout Demand Estimate ................................................................................................................2-7 Table 3-1. Summary of Existing Groundwater Wells................................................................................................3-1 Table 3-2. Well Production Summary ..........................................................................................................................3-3 Table 3-3. Title 22 Source Capacity Analysis...............................................................................................................3-3 Table 3-4. 2040 Supply and Demand Reconciliation.................................................................................................3-5 Table 4-1. Water Quality Summary for River Wells 7, 8 and 9 ................................................................................4-1 Table 4-2. Water Quality Summary for Well 5............................................................................................................4-2 Table 6-1. Summary of Pipe Length by Diameter......................................................................................................6-1 Table 6-2. Water Treatment Plant Booster Pump Information...............................................................................6-4 Table 7-1. System Pressure Criteria ..............................................................................................................................7-8 Table 7-2. Pipeline Velocity Criteria .............................................................................................................................7-9 Table 7-3. Maximum Allowable Headloss Gradient Exceedances....................................................................... 7-10 Table 7-4. Near Term Development Pressure Deficiencies.................................................................................. 7-27 Table 7-5. Near Term Development Velocity Exceedances.................................................................................. 7-27 Table 7-6. Near Term Development Maximum Allowable Headloss Gradient Exceedances......................... 7-30 Table 7-7. Maximum Allowable Headloss Gradient Exceedances....................................................................... 7-31 Table 8-1. Near Term Capital Improvement Projects...............................................................................................8-6 City of Mendota
Water Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2019 vi Abbreviations
AACE .............................................................................................................American Association of Cost Engineers AC...........................................................................................................................................................Asbestos-Concrete ADD ................................................................................................................................................Average Day Demand AWMC............................................................................................................ Agricultural Water Management Council CCR.................................................................................................................................. California Code of Regulations C-factors................................................................................................................................... Hazen-Williams C-factors CFC.....................................................................................................................................................California Fire Code CIP ..................................................................................................................................Capital Improvements Program City ............................................................................................................................................................ City of Mendota County ..........................................................................................................................................................Fresno County CVP...................................................................................................................................................Central Valley Project DDW ...............................................................................................................................Department of Drinking Water DWR..............................................................................................................................Department of Water Resources GIS ..............................................................................................................................Geographical Information System GSA...........................................................................................................................Groundwater Sustainability Agency GSP ................................................................................................................................Groundwater Sustainability Plan MCL...................................................................................................................................Maximum Contaminant Level MDD............................................................................................................................................Maximum Day Demand MDD+FF ........................................................................................................Maximum Day Demand Plus Fire Flow MMADD........................................................................................................ Maximum Month Average Day Demand PHD.................................................................................................................................................... Peak Hour Demand PVC........................................................................................................................................................ Polyvinyl Chloride SDWIS..........................................................................................................State Drinking Water Information System SGMA.........................................................................................................Sustainable Groundwater Management Act SOI....................................................................................................................................................... Sphere of Influence TDS................................................................................................................................................. Total Dissolved Solids VFD ...........................................................................................................................................Variable Frequency Drive WELO.................................................................................................................Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance WMP...................................................................................................................................................... Water Master Plan WTP................................................................................................................................................Water Treatment Plant City of Mendota
Water Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2019 ES-1 Executive Summary
The City of Mendota operates a municipal water system serving approximately 2,040 residential customers and 170 commercial customers and 20 industrial customers as of 2018. Water supply is entirely from groundwater; no surface water supplies are available. Nearly all water system facilities are 30 or more years old and many are nearing the ends of their anticipated service lives. Since construction of the major system facilities the City has experienced substantial growth. After a several-year period in the middle-2000s where homebuilding was nearly stopped, the City has enjoyed a resurgence in growth, with residential building permits approaching 100 per year.

The system is starting to near its capacity threshold. The City has questions and concerns about how much additional development can occur prior to implementing future capital improvements. Currently, the City water system has capacity to meet peak demands. The individual components of the water system, as described in previously in Section 1.3, each have unique capacity limitations. Table ES-1 summarizes the individual water system component capacity limitations.

Table ES-1. Water System Component Capacity Summary
Water System Component Capacity Summary
Water System Water System Component Capacity Criteria Supply Capacity (gallons) Raw Water
Raw Water Supply1
PHD for 4 hours
624,000
Raw Water Transmission2 924,000
WTP
Filtration3,6
PHD for 4 hours
720,000
Storage4 2,000,000
Finished Water Pumping5 912,000
The capacity limitations of the distribution system are a more complex analysis and is summarized later in this report in Section 7. Based on the information shown in Table ES-1 the existing system is constrained by the ground water supply. Given the current water system limitations it is estimated that approximately six hundred (600) additional single-family residential homes can be built and connected to the existing system before the need arises for a new well needs to be constructed.

The City has developed a plan for development out the boundary of its current sphere of influence (SOI).

Large uncertainties exist around the timing of the buildout of the SOI. Due to these uncertainties, this report is focused on a 20-year planning horizon, through 2040.

For the purposes of the report horizon the City has identified two specific areas of where development is anticipated:
• In the southwest part of the City near the intersection of Gregg Court and Belmont Avenue • North of Bass Avenue between Derrick Avenue and Barboza Street Based on the analysis completed as part of this water master plan process, Table ES-2 summarizes the recommended capital improvements plan was prepared to support anticipated development over the near term report planning horizon.

City of Mendota
Water Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2019 ES-2 Table ES-2. Near Term Capital Improvement Project
Item No. Description Alignment Limits Status Recommended Improvement Cost
Pipeline Improvements
Length (LF)
P-1 12" Water Main in Amador Ave Amador Ave Oxnard Ave to Belmont Ave New 2,800 $340,000 P-2 12" Water Main in Belmont Ave Belmont Ave Amador Ave to Gregg Ave New 1,300 $160,000 P-3 12” Water Main in Belmont Ave Belmont Ave Derrick Ave (SR 33) to the west 180 feet New 180 $22,000
Subtotal, Pipe Cost: $522,000
Tank Improvements
Volume (gallons)
T-1
Storage Tank Near Intersection
of Belmont Ave and Oxnard
Ave
New 200,000 $400,000
Pump Station Improvements Firm Capacity
(gpm)
PS-1 2,000 GPM Pump Station New 2,000 $300,000
Water Source Improvements Capacity (gpm)
W-1 River Well New 1,000 $3,000,000
Near Term Total $4,222,000
Note:

1. Minimum to support Westlands subdivision would be tank, pump station, Belmont and Amador water lines.

2. These could be phased, depending upon where the subdivision construction began.

Section One: Introduction
Water Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2019 1-1 1 Introduction
The City of Mendota operates a municipal water system serving approximately 2,040 residential customers and 170 commercial customers and 20 industrial customers as of 2018. Water supply is entirely from groundwater; no surface water supplies are available. Details of the water supply, water quality, and system facilities are provided in the sections below. Nearly all water system facilities are 30 or more years old and many are nearing the ends of their anticipated service lives. Since construction of the major system facilities the City has experienced substantial growth. After a several-year period in the middle-2000s where homebuilding was nearly stopped, the City has enjoyed a resurgence in growth, with residential building permits approaching 100 per year.

This report has been prepared as a tool to help City leaders understand the current and upcoming challenges to the water system resulting from growth, and to plan for necessary capital improvements to keep the water system’s capacity sufficient to serve the City’s growing needs.

1.1 Purpose and Goals
This Water Master Plan (WMP) has a broad-based purpose and is intended to achieve multiple goals:
• Analyze the elements of the water system and identify current and future weaknesses and deficiencies • Evaluate options for maintaining and/or replacing the water supply • Determine appropriate capital improvement projects to address equipment and facility needs • Evaluate potential environmental and permitting issues • Provide budget-level estimates of needed capital over the report’s planning horizon • Determine the proportion of each project benefitting the existing service area versus costs which should be borne by development
The City has adopted a general plan sphere of influence (SOI) boundary which is anticipated to reach buildout over the course of many years. Planning infrastructure over a long period of years is challenging given the large number of uncertainties that can come into play over time. Given the uncertainties associated with of long-term infrastructure planning, where appropriate this WMP will provide insights into the impacts of the buildout of the general plan SOI, but the focus of the analysis and the associated recommendations will be geared towards development impacts expected to occur through a report horizon of 2040.

1.2 Physical Setting
The City is located in northwestern Fresno County (County) near the confluence of the Fresno Slough and the San Joaquin River, in the heart of California’s Central Valley. The City is located about ten miles southeast of the City of Firebaugh and about thirty-five miles west of the City of Fresno. Agriculture plays a large part in the local economy. According to 2010 United States census data approximately 11,014 people live in Mendota. The City’s climate features hot and dry summers and mild winters. Temperatures in the winter months are in the upper 30s (Fahrenheit) while summer temperatures are in the mid 90’s (Fahrenheit) on average. Historically the City receives about 12 inches of annual rainfall, with approximately sixty percent occurring in the winter months. Figure 1-1 provides a regional context for the City’s location in California.

Figure 1-2 shows the Mendota city limits.

Aþ
AÎ
A÷
A÷
Aw
?c
?ü
Fresno County
Fresno County
Kings County
Fresno
!"^$
Dos
Palos
Huron
Coalinga
Lemoore
Fresno County
Madera County
Merced County
Fresno
Kerman
Mendota
Firebaugh
San Joaquin
Sources: Esri, USGS, NOAA
0 2.5 5
Miles
º Figure 1-1
Regional Map
Water Master Plan
City of Mendota
Legend
Highway
City of Mendota
County
City/Town
8/8/2019 : G:\Mendota_City of-3336\333618013-Water System Master Plan\GIS\Map\Figure 1-1 Regional Map.mxd City of
Mendota
Fresno
County

BELMONT
BASS
?ü
Aw
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
º Figure 1-2
Vicinity Map
Water Master Plan
City of Mendota
Legend
Mendota City Limits
Highway
County
8/7/2019 : \\ppeng.com\pzdata\clients\Mendota_City of-3336\333618013-Water System Master Plan\GIS\Map\Figure 1-2 Vicinity Map.mxd Section One: Introduction
Water Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2019 1-4

1.3 System Description

1.3.1 Groundwater Wells
The City provides potable water to its residents via a water distribution system comprising several groundwater supply wells, a Water Treatment Plant (WTP), and a network of distribution mains. The City relies solely on groundwater for its water supply. Groundwater is extracted through five groundwater wells, of which three are active wells and two which are on standby status. Wells 7, 8, and 9 are the City’s active wells which provide water to the existing Water Treatment Plant (WTP). Wells 3 is a standby well, used only in emergency situations. Well 5 is unique. It is not fully active, in that it cannot be used under every circumstance, but it can be used anytime one of the river wells is down for service or repair. As such Well 5 provides additional reliable production capacity to the City.

Wells 7, 8 and 9 are located east of the Fresno Slough, connected to the WTP via a steel raw water transmission main that ranges in diameter from 18-20 inches. Wells 3 and 5 are located west of the Fresno Slough, along the west side of Bass Avenue in the northeast part of the City. The Fresno Slough is the dividing line between two very different aquifers, which means the two sets of wells pump from distinct aquifers with widely varying quality. This is discussed in more detail below.

As part of the Reach 2B Project of the San Joaquin River Restoration Program, Well 7 will be abandoned and a replacement well will be constructed, in order to keep the City’s facilities clear of the southerly flood levee of the reconstructed river. This project is currently in preliminary design, and the new well together with its associated water main extension is planned to be online by late 2020. The new well, to be known as Well 10, is planned to have nearly the same production and water quality as Well 7 and will connect to the WTP through the same raw water main, therefore the impacts to the existing system of changing from Well 7 to Well 10 are anticipated to be minor.

1.3.2 Water Treatment Plant
The City’s WTP has the capacity to treat up to 3,000 gallons per minute (gpm) of raw water through four pressurized green sand media filter vessels. The raw water is treated with sodium bisulfite to oxidize iron and manganese. The treated water is injected with sodium hypochlorite before it is stored one of the two 1- million-gallon (MG) steel water storage tanks. The WTP has a finished water booster pump station that comprises five pumps ranging from 15 hp up to 75 hp. The pump station has two jockey pumps to service low demand periods and three larger booster pumps to service high demand periods. The pump station pumps are each controlled by a variable frequency drives (VFDs) which allow the pumps to provide a wide range of flow to meet system demands while maintaining a constant pressure. The pump station has a theoretical maximum pumping capacity of approximately 5,925 gpm at 56 psi, but since the VFD regulates the pumps within an operating window of 58 to 62 psi, the maximum pumping capacity is approximately 5,700 gpm.

1.3.3 Distribution System
The distribution system is comprised of approximately 35.5 miles of pipeline with pipe diameters ranging from 4-inches up to 24-inches. Existing pipe materials are believed to be limited to either asbestos-concrete (AC) or polyvinyl chloride (PVC). We understand the City’s construction standard changed from AC to PVC sometime in the 1980s. The entire distribution system is operated as a single pressure zone.

Section One: Introduction
Water Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2019 1-5

1.4 Existing System Remaining Capacity Estimate
The system is starting to near its capacity threshold. In the southwest corner of the City there are low pressure concerns for existing development. The City has questions and concerns about how much additional development can occur prior to implementing future capital improvements. Currently, the City water system has capacity to meet peak demands (demand estimates are discussed in the next section). The individual components of the water system, as described in previously in Section 1.3, each have unique capacity limitations. Table 1-1 summarizes the individual water system component capacity limitations.

Table 1-1. Water System Component Capacity Summary
Water System Component Capacity Summary
Water System Water System Component Capacity Criteria Supply Capacity (gallons) Raw Water
Raw Water Supply1
PHD for 4 hours
624,000
Raw Water Transmission2 924,000
WTP
Filtration3,6
PHD for 4 hours
720,000
Storage4 2,000,000
Finished Water Pumping5 912,000
Notes

1. This is firm capacity which includes wells 5, 7, and 8. Well 9 is excluded from firm capacity. Firm capacity is 2,600 gpm for 4 hours

2. Flow capacity is determined by limiting the velocity to 5 ft/sec in the 18-inch length of existing pipe. Flow in 18-inch pipe at 5 fps is approximately 3,850 gpm for 4 hours

3. This consists of four 750 gpm Filtronics filters, assumed to be running simultaneously or 3,000 gpm for 4 hours

4. Consists of two 1 MG storage tanks for a total of 2,000,000 gallons

5. This is firm capacity which consists of pumps 3 and 4 only. Jockey pumps and pump 5 are excluded. Firm capacity is 3,800 gpm for 4 hours

6. Filtration equipment will be first facility to exceed capacity with development under existing system condition. Based on PHD for 4 hours this leaves about 400 gpm of additional capacity ((720,000-624,000)/(4*60).

The capacity limitations of the distribution system are a more complex analysis and is summarized later in this report in Section 7. Based on the information shown in Table 1-1 the existing system is constrained by the ground water supply. Given the current water system it is estimated that approximately six hundred (600) additional single family residential homes can be built and connected to the existing system before the need arises for a new well needs to be constructed.

Section Two: Water System Demands
Water Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2019 2-1 2 Water System Demands
This section of the report summarizes existing water demands and future water demand estimates.

2.1 Existing Demands
City water meter billing data from 2008 through 2018 were used to estimate demands for this study. Figure 2-1 shows a comparison the total billed volume for the years 2008 through 2018. Data for Fiscal year 2017- 2018 were chosen because they reflect conservation efforts mandated in response to the recent drought period (2011 – 2017) and also capture an upward trend in demands due to recent development within the City. During the 2017-2018 fiscal year the City had a total of 2,236 metered accounts, which accounted for a total water demand of approximately 1,485 acre-feet (AF) of water.

Figure 2-1. Annual Water Demands 2008-2018

2.1.1 Residential Demands
The City has a population of approximately 11,000 people. It was estimated that during the 2017-2018 fiscal year, the City had approximately 2,035 residential service connections, with the implicit per-unit population being 5.4 persons per dwelling unit, which is exceptionally high. Typical values in Valley communities and counties are approximately 3.2 persons per single-family unit and 2.5 persons per multi-family unit.

Residential demands are inclusive of low density, medium density, medium-high density, and high-density residential land use types. The total residential demand for the 2017-2018 fiscal year was approximately 997 AF, which is approximately 67% of the total City demand.

2.1.2 Commercial Users
During the 2017-2018 fiscal year, it was estimated that the City had approximately 169 commercial service connections. Commercial demands are inclusive of general and community commercial land use types. The total commercial demand for the fiscal year was approximately 213 AF, which is approximately 14% of the total City demand.
0 250
500
750
1,000
1,250
1,500
1,750
2,000
Billed Water Volume (AF)
Fiscal Year
2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013
2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018
Section Two: Water System Demands
Water Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2019 2-2

2.1.3 Industrial Users
During the 2017-2018 fiscal year, it was estimated that the City had approximately 21 industrial service connections. Industrial demands are inclusive of light and heavy industrial land use types. The total industrial demand for the fiscal year was approximately 10 AF, which is approximately 1% of the total City demand.

2.1.4 Other Users
During the 2017-2018 fiscal year, it was estimated that the City had approximately 11 service connections that were classified as agricultural or public facilities (including schools and parks). The total demand for these services for the fiscal year was approximately 265 AF, which is approximately 18% of the total City demand.

2.1.5 Large Water Users
As part of the review of the billing data, the thirty largest water users were identified for the fiscal year 2017- 2018. The thirty largest water users represent approximately 1.3% of the total services connections, yet account for approximately 36% of the total annual water demand. Table 2-1 summarizes the thirty largest water users. The top five water users account for approximately 24% of the total water use for the fiscal year.

2.2 Title 22 Demand Estimates
The California Code of Regulations (CCR) is the codification of the general and permanent rules and regulations announced in the California Regulatory Notice register by California state agencies. Title 22 of the CCR covers rules and regulations associated with Social Security which includes Environmental Health (Division 4). Chapter 16 of Division 4 covers California Waterworks Standards, which provide rules and regulations pertaining to public water systems. Chapter 16 provides recommendations for estimating water system demands. The recommendations pertaining to estimating water demands are summarized in the following sections and are used for model demand estimates.

2.2.1 Average Day Demand
2017-2018 data shows that over the course of the year approximately 484 MG of water were recorded through customer meters. The reported total volume used by the City system equates to an Average Day Demand (ADD) of approximately 920 gpm. ADD is calculated by dividing the entire year’s water consumption by the number of days in a year and converting that number of gallons into a flow rate.

2.2.2 Maximum Month Average Day Demand
According to Title 22, Maximum Month Average Day Demand (MMADD) can be used as the basis for estimating peak demands. MMADD is defined as the largest monthly demand during the year and is taken from water records. The largest total volume of water consumed during a month period in 2017-2018 was in August 2017 when metered volume was approximately 84 MG. From that volume, MMADD was calculated to be approximately 1,880 gpm.

Section Two: Water System Demands
Water Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2019 2-3 Table 2-1. Fiscal Year 2017-2018 Largest Water Users
2017-2018 Largest Water Users
Location ID Address Metered Volume (gallons) % of Total FED0002 47 S DERRICK AVE 4,919,200 10.17%
BUS0002 BELMONT ST 2,643,140 5.47%
MEN0075 605 BASS AVENUE 1,426,392 2.95%
HIG0002 BELMONT ST. 1,319,271 2.73%
VIL0030 647 PEREZ ST 1,273,388 2.63%
BAS0001 DERRICK BASEBALL FIELD 671,800 1.39%
PUM0001 459,990 0.95%
COU0003 1000 2ND ST 410,300 0.85%
MEN0022 1100 2ND ST 387,700 0.80%
SON0002 1867 7TH ST 375,620 0.78%
ALI0007 580 DERRICK AVE 326,644 0.68%
MEN0036 785 OLLER ST 285,180 0.59%
MEN0007 202 I ST 276,400 0.57%
WON0001 900 AIRPORT BLVD. 244,170 0.50%
MIR0002 901 MARIE ST 222,490 0.46%
LOZ0032 800 GARCIA 216,210 0.45%
MEN0021 1100 2ND ST 192,190 0.40%
LAA0001 300 RIOS ST. 165,500 0.34%
CAP0003 1161 OLLER ST 144,636 0.30%
CIT0116 DERRICK/SMOOT 143,970 0.30%
BUC0003 550 DERRICK AVE 140,700 0.29%
GAR0015 202 I ST 116,800 0.24%
GAR0013 202 I ST 106,806 0.22%
GOM0002 1225 OLLER ST 99,216 0.21%
FRE0004 778 QUINCE ST 92,470 0.19%
CAP0004 1161 OLLER ST 92,215 0.19%
CEN0004 121 BARBOZA "A" 90,700 0.19%
CAS0064 654 LOZANO ST 82,900 0.17%
CIT0057 248 TUFT A,B,C,D 80,460 0.17%
CIT0068 277 TUFT A & B 78,959 0.16%
Section Two: Water System Demands
Water Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2019 2-4

2.2.3 Maximum Day Demand and Peak Hour Demand
Title 22 evaluates water systems by their ability to satisfy peak demands such as Maximum Day Demand (MDD) and Peak Hour Demand (PHD). Both of these are calculated by use of peaking factors, not by direct measurement of data from water records.

Peaking factors were applied to the MMADD calculated above to estimate MDD and PHD for Mendota.

Title 22 recommends applying a peaking factor of 1.5 to MMADD to estimate MDD. PHD is estimated by applying a peaking factor of 1.5 to the estimated MDD. Using these peaking factors, the MDD is estimated at 2,820 gpm and the PHD is estimated at 4,230 gpm. Table 2-2 summarizes the estimated system demands.

Table 2-2. Summary of Title 22 Water System Demands
Summary of Water System Demands
Demand Condition Demand (gpm)
ADD 920
MDD 2,820
PHD 4,230

2.2.4 Fire Protection
The City has adopted the 2016 California Fire Code (CFC) for guidance in determining fire protection requirements. CFC fire flows are based on several criteria including land use, building type, and building footprint. A majority of the City’s existing land uses are single family residential with a footprint less than or equal to 3,600 square feet. According to CFC, Appendix B, Table B105.1(1), required fire flow for lowdensity residential land use, which makes up most of the City, is 1,000 gpm for a minimum of one hour.

SFR with a footprint larger than 3,600 square feet, multi-family residential, commercial and institutional (other than schools) accounts make up the remainder of the existing land use in the City. Each of those land use classifications requires higher fire flow than does single-family residential, and fire flow requirements for each are to be determined based on building size and construction type as required by Appendix B, Table B105.1(2), of the 2016 CFC. Minimum fire protection requirements are summarized in Table 2-3.

Based on the minimum requirements, the total required fire flow capacity of the existing water system is 3,820 gpm, sustainable for two hours at 20 psi.

Table 2-3. Single Family Residential Minimum Fire Protection Requirements Minimum Fire Protection Requirements
Requirement Value
Flow Rate MDD + 1,000 gpm1
Duration 1 Hour1
Residual Pressure 20 psi
Notes:

1. Minimum fire flow and duration for SFR with a footprint less than or equal to 3,600 SF. Single family residential with a footprint larger than 3,600 square feet, multi-family residential, commercial, and institutional (other than schools) land uses are subject to requirements stated in Table B105.1(2) of Appendix B of the 2016 CFC. Schools are subject to Table BB105.1 of Appendix BB in the 2016 CFC.

Section Two: Water System Demands
Water Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2019 2-5

2.3 Future Demand Estimates

2.3.1 Land Use Based Demand Estimate
Part of the master planning effort is estimating future demands for infrastructure evaluation. As stated in a previous section, the City has developed a land use plan that covers development to the extent of its General Plan SOI boundary. The amount of time it will take to fully build out the General Plan SOI boundary is not really known. In an effort to minimize the uncertainties, the future demand estimates for this WMP will only project out to the report horizon of 2040. Land use specific demand factors were developed to estimate future demands. Table 2-4 summarizes the unit demands used for the future demand estimates.

Table 2-4. Land Use Specific Demand Factors
Land Use Specific Demand Factors
Land Use Unit Demand (AFY/acre)
Community Commercial 2.9
General Commercial 2.9
High Density Residential 4.7
Heavy Industrial 1.0
Low Density Residential 2.5
Light Industrial 1.0
Medium Density Residential 2.2
Medium-High Density Residential 3.3
Multi-Use/Open Space 1.5
Public/Quasi Public Facility 1.4
Recreational 3.0
There are approximately 12,400 acres within the SOI boundary, which includes all the land within the existing City limits. Figure 2-2 shows the land use plan for the buildout of the SOI. Within the SOI there are approximately 6,360 acres of land planned for agriculture and buffer area land uses. For the purpose of the future demand estimate, areas identified as agriculture and buffer are not factored into the future demand estimates since they are assumed to not be served by the City system. The remaining area within the SOI boundary amounts to approximately 6,000 acres. Using the land use specific demand factors shown in Table 2-4 and applying them to the remainder of the SOI boundary, a future buildout demand can be estimated.

Table 2-5 summarizes the future buildout demand based on land use within the SOI boundary. The estimated annual demand for the buildout of the SOI is approximately 10,642 AFY. As previously stated, knowing when the City will reach full buildout of the SOI boundary is uncertain at best. Given that fact, using an abbreviated report horizon up to 2040, the land use demand factors in Table 2-4, and an assumed annual growth rate of 1.5%, the City will have an estimate water demand of approximately 2,100 AFY at this report’s 2040 horizon year. Figure 2-3 shows graphically the future demand projection to the year 2040 assuming a linear 1.5% annual growth over time.

CALIFORNIA

PANOCHE

SAN BENITO
OHIO

WHITESBRIDGE

BELMONT

MCKINLEY
Aw
?ü
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
º
Figure 2-2
Proposed Land Use
Water Master Plan
City of Mendota
Legend
Existing City Limits
General Plan Land Use
General Commercial
Community Commercial
Light Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Public/Quasi-Public Facility
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Medium-High Density Residential
High Density Residential
Recreational
Multi-Use/Open Space
10/28/2019 : G:\Mendota_City of-3336\333618013-Water System Master Plan\GIS\Map\Figure 2-2 - Proposed Land Use.mxd Section Two: Water System Demands
Water Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2019 2-7 Table 2-5. SOI Buildout Demand Estimate
SOI Buildout Demand Estimate
Land Use Area (acre) Estimated Demand (AFY)
Community Commercial 179 518
General Commercial 68 197
High Density Residential 51 239
Heavy Industrial 481 481
Low Density Residential 883 2,207
Light Industrial 1,108 1,108
Medium Density Residential 1,002 2,203
Medium-High Density Residential 205 678
Multi-Use/Open Space 125 188
Public/Quasi Public Facility 1,872 2,621
Recreational 67 201
Total 6,041 10,642
Figure 2-3. Future Demand Projection
0 250
500
750
1,000
1,250
1,500
1,750
2,000
2,250
2,500
20092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022202320242025202620272028202920302031203220332034203520362037203820392040 Demand (AFY)
Year
Historical Demand Future Demand to 2040
Section Two: Water System Demands
Water Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2019 2-8

2.3.1.1 Factors Affecting Future Demand Estimates
Many factors will drive the change in water consumption going forward. Two major drivers of change will be:
• State-mandated reductions in indoor and outdoor residential water use • State-mandated Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) legislation affecting all land use classifications

2.3.1.1.1 State-Mandated Reductions in Indoor and Outdoor Residential Water Use Through recent State of California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Urban Water Management Plan efforts, State mandated water conservation efforts, particularly changes in indoor plumbing fixture demands resulting from implementation of the 2013 CalGreen building code, have reduced per-capita indoor water demands. Where less than 15 years ago it was not uncommon for Central Valley communities, including Mendota, to average 200 to as much as 300 gallons per connection per day water use, real water use in new developments is being measured at just over 100 gallons per connection per day – a very substantial reduction.

Through the Urban Water Management Plan process, to which Mendota will soon be subject, water providers are required to meet forecasted per capita water use reductions, calculated based on mandated state use guidelines, or face penalties. Thanks to the demonstrated lower per-unit water use in new homes, the overall effect of new housing growth is that though population and overall water use continue to grow, the rate of water use growth is substantially reduced and the overall per-connection water demand is reduced, both of which help the community comply with state water use targets.

Many approximations of water demands by land use are available, whether they are measured per person, per housing unit, per commercial square foot, or per plumbing fixture unit. For a water master plan, where use is being projected into areas where little is known about the anticipated future development, many of these methods provide false precision. For example, the model could assume that 70 homes will be built on 10 acres and could then apply a per-connection water use factor. But the reality is that until the development is proposed, we don’t know if there will be 60 or 70 or 80 homes or maybe 200 apartments on that parcel.

Rather than speculate at that level of precision, the Water Master Plan will apply overall water use factors at a per-acre level.

2.3.1.1.2 State-Mandated Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) Legislation As part of the ongoing State effort to promote water conservation efforts, the State enacted changes to the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. The revised version, called Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, established practices for landscape design and management suited to state climate and conditions. Ultimately WELO will significantly reduce the urban water utilized for outdoor irrigation. WELO requirements have been in effect for new homes and commercial developments since 2015 and must be accounted for in future demand estimates.

2.3.2 Title 22 Future Demand Estimates
Using the 2040 report horizon demand estimate, as stated in Section 2.3.1 of approximately 2,100 AFY, along with the Title 22 recommendations stated in Section 2.2 future water demands can be estimated. For the future demand estimates, the Title 22 recommendations have been calculated using projected ADD rather than working from an actual Maximum Month, since there’s no better data available. MDD and PHD have Section Two: Water System Demands
Water Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2019 2-9 been calculated using these future ADD values, using peaking factors recommended by the Waterworks standards for water systems of this size.

2.3.3 Future Average Day Demand
As stated above the 2040 average annual demand is projected to be approximately 2,100 AFY, which is equal to production of approximately 1,300 gpm over the entire year.

2.3.4 Future Maximum Day Demand
Title 22 recommends applying a peaking factor of 2.25 to the ADD to estimate a MDD, for water systems of this size. In general, smaller systems use larger peaking factors while larger systems are less prone to spikes in demand and use smaller peaking factors. Applying this peaking factor, the estimated future MDD is approximately 2,925 gpm.

2.3.5 Future Peak Hour Demand
In a similar manner, Title 22 recommends applying an additional peaking factor of 1.5 to the MDD to estimate a PHD for a water system of this size. The PHD estimates the total water demand which can be expected in the highest-demand hour of the highest-demand day of the year. It is one measure of the required system delivery capacity. Applying this peaking factor, the estimated future PHD is approximately 4,400 gpm.

Section Three: Water Supply
Water Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2019 3-1 3 Water Supply
The City relies solely on groundwater to satisfy water demands. The City has five existing groundwater wells, of which, three are currently active (Wells 7, 8, and 9) and two (Wells 3 and 5) are on reserve or standby status.

3.1 River Wells
The Fresno Slough is the dividing line between two very different subsurface aquifers, which means the two sets of wells pump from distinct water supplies with widely varying quality. Well water quality will be discussed in more detail in Section 4. Wells 7, 8 and 9 are located east of the Fresno Slough, connected to the WTP via a 20-inch steel raw water transmission main. These three wells are collectively known as the River Wells. Wells 3 and 5 are located west of the Fresno Slough, along the west side of Bass Avenue in the northeast part of the City and are also connected to the 20-inch raw water transmission main. These wells are considered standby wells and are used sparingly.

As part of the Reach 2B Project of the San Joaquin River Restoration Program, Well 7 will be abandoned and a replacement well will be constructed, in order to keep the City’s facilities outside of the southerly flood levee of the reconstructed river. The well replacement project is currently in preliminary design, and the new well together with its associated water main extension is planned to be online by late 2020. The new well, to be known as Well 10, is planned to have nearly the same production and water quality as Well 7 and will connect to the WTP through the same raw water main, therefore the impacts to the existing system are anticipated to be minor. Figure 3-1 summarizes the capacities of the City’s existing groundwater wells.

Figure 3-1 shows the locations of the City’s current groundwater supply wells.

Historical pumping data for the River Wells was provided by the City for the years 2015 -2017. Production data for these wells is summarized in Table 3-2.

Table 3-1. Summary of Existing Groundwater Wells
Summary of Existing Groundwater Wells
Well Number Status Power Rating (HP) Capacity (gpm)
3 Stand by 75 950
5 Stand by 75 600
7 1 Active 100 1,000
8 Active 100 1,000
9 Active 100 1,000
Note:

1. This well to be replaced by a new Well 10 in 2020
[Q
?
?
? ?
?
?
]^
?ü
Mowry Bridge
Bass Ave
Well 9
Well 8 Well 7
Well 5
Well 3
Well 10
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community 0 500 1,000
Feet
º
Figure 3-1
Existing Groundwater
Supply Infrastructure
Water Master Plan
City of Mendota
Legend
]^ Existing Tank
[Q Existing WTP
? Stand-by Well
? Active Well
? Future Well
Existing Distribution Mains
Raw Water Supply Pipe
18-Inch
20-Inch
24-Inch
10/29/2019 : G:\Mendota_City of-3336\333618013-Water System Master Plan\GIS\Map\Figure 3-1 Existing Groundwater Supply Infrstructure.mxd Section Three: Water Supply
Water Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2019 3-3 Table 3-2. Well Production Summary
Well Production Summary (AF/year)
Year
Well Number
7 1 8 9
2015 708 5142 6232
2016 792 326 656
2017 821 403 646
Average 774 414 642
Note:

1. This well to be replaced by a new Well 10 in 2020

2. January 2015 data was omitted due to anomalous negative volume readings for both wells 8 and 9

3.1.1 Growth Potential
As discussed in Section 2, the City has developed a plan to build out to its current sphere of influence boundary. With growth comes the need for additional water source capacity. Article 2 Section 64554 of Title 22 states that for systems with 1,000 or more service connections, the system shall be able to meet four hours of peak hourly demand (PHD) with source capacity, storage capacity, and/or emergency capacity, and/or emergency source connections. The City has an existing firm well pumping capacity of approximately 2,600 gpm.

Firm capacity is defined as the capacity with the largest source offline and is used to evaluate source capacity.

Since the three river wells are the City’s largest sources and are all of the same capacity, the City’s firm capacity is defined as any two of the river wells, plus Well 5. This assumes that one of the river wells is offline. Under the permit granted by Department of Drinking Water, the City may operate Well 5 only when one of the river wells is offline, as a means of maintaining the highest possible firm capacity.

The City also has 2.0 MG of existing storage capacity. As stated in Section 2.2.3, the existing City PHD is estimated at 4,230 gpm, or a total of 1.02 MG over four hours. Therefore, the City meets Title 22 requirements for source capacity. Table 3-3 summarizes the existing available supply capacity according to Title 22 standards.

Table 3-3. Title 22 Source Capacity Analysis
Title 22 Source Capacity Analysis
Source Supply (gallons) Demand (gallons)
Wells (2,600 gpm for 4 hours)1 624,000 -
Storage (total volume) 2,000,000 -
Total Source Volume 2,624,000 -
PHD (4,230 gpm for 4 hours) - 1,015,200
Total Demand - 1,015,200
Source Capacity Excess 1,608,800
Section Three: Water Supply
Water Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2019 3-4 Note:

1. Total well capacity is approximately 3,600 gpm. However, water systems are evaluated using firm capacity which is the capacity assuming the largest source offline. Wells 7,8, and 9 each have a capacity of 1,000 gpm, while Well 5 has a capacity of 600 gpm, therefore firm capacity would be 2,600 gpm,

2. Existing WTP finished water booster pump station has a maximum capacity 5,700 gpm which equates to approximately 1,368,000 gallons over a four-hour period.

Despite the apparent available capacity to support growth as shown in Table 3-3, the ability for the City to adequately provide water service to growth areas within the SOI is limited. The main limitations are:
• Hydraulic limitations in the existing well manifold piping (3,800 gpm max) • Hydraulic limitations for existing WTP (3,000 gpm max) The existing manifold piping that conveys raw groundwater to the WTP for treatment was sized for the current groundwater well capacity and has little excess capacity for new wells. Pipelines are typically sized to limit flow velocities to five feet per second (fps) during an average demand period. The existing raw water transmission main ranges from 18-20 inches in diameter. 18-inch pipe has capacity to convey up to approximately 3,800 gpm while maintaining flow velocities under five fps. Firm capacity of the system in accordance with State Waterworks Standards is the production of all wells with the largest well out of service.

In the City’s case, that is Well 5 plus any two of the river wells, or approximately 2,600 GPM. Firm capacity is an industry standard measure of water system supply capacity. Because of the inferior quality of the water produced by Well 5, the City water system permit limits use of Well 5 to times when one of the River wells (7, 8 or 9) is out of service.” By limiting flow velocity to five fps, given the existing well capacity of approximately 2,600 gpm, hydraulic calculations show that there is approximately 1,200 gpm of additional flow capacity in the existing raw water pipeline.

The existing WTP is sized to treat the combined capacity of wells 7, 8, and 9 which is approximately 3,000 gpm. The WTP treatment system consists of four filter tanks which are each sized to treat a flow rate of 750 gpm or 3,000 gpm total. Based on the capacity of the filter tanks, there is no additional capacity to additional raw water. In order to service growth using through the existing WTP an expansion would have to occur to allow for additional water to be treated to Title 22 standards.

3.2 Supply and Demand Reconciliation
Existing and future water demands were summarized in Section 2 of this report. As previously discussed in this section, the existing system has available capacity to support growth according to Article 2 Section 64554 under Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. However, due to the configuration of the system, the existing system is hydraulically constrained and has little ability to support new development. The analysis to support the hydraulic limitations is discussed later in this report. An important part of a water supply plan is to reconcile water demands against the available supplies to estimate how much additional source capacity will be needed to support future development. It is estimated that to support growth consistent with the land use plan for the 2040 report horizon, the City will need to have water supply in excess of 2,100 AFY. The City currently has supply totaling approximately 4,197 AFY. The City will have to track supply and demand over the report horizon to ensure the system can continue to adequately service development within the SOI. Table 3.4 summarizes the reconciliation of the projected water demands against the projected supplies for the buildout of the SOI.

Section Three: Water Supply
Water Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2019 3-5 Table 3-4. 2040 Supply and Demand Reconciliation
2040 Supply and Demand Reconciliation
Source Supply (AFY) Demand (AFY)
Existing Capacity 4,1941-
2040 Demand Estimate - 2,1002
Source Capacity Surplus (Deficit) 2,094
Note:

1. Firm capacity of existing well supply (2,600 gpm.)

2. Estimated using the demand factors previously stated in Section 2 of this report and applying them to the future land use plan

3.3 Other Potential Sources
As stated previously, the City currently relies solely on groundwater treated at its WTP to satisfy water demands. The City currently has no access to surface water supplies. Several options exist for the City to expand its source water capacity including:
• Additional groundwater wells west of the San Joaquin River • Contracting for surface water
• Development of Recycled Water Supply

3.3.1 Additional Groundwater Wells West of the San Joaquin River The City has almost entirely relied on groundwater from west of the San Joaquin River for its water supply.

Water quality east of the Fresno Slough is of much higher quality than the water west of the Fresno Slough.

Water west of the Fresno Slough has numerous water quality issues that makes it largely unusable for potable water supply. However, in the deeper aquifers, there may be opportunities to source water that may be suitable for potable use.

Delivering untreated groundwater is not expected to be a feasible option. All groundwater expansion options, no matter the well location, will involve expanded or additional water treatment facilities. Additional riverarea wells will overtax the existing WTP, which would require expansion. Wells west of the slough would require more extensive treatment, which could take the form of either wellhead treatment systems or a new water treatment plant in the western part of the City. If the City decides to drill groundwater wells west of the Fresno Slough, proper due diligence should be performed by the City prior to constructing the well, including coordination with the Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) to ensure that the requirements of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) with regard to ground subsidence are met.

3.3.2 Contracting for Surface Water
Surface water is scarce on the Westside of the Central Valley, and due to environmental constraints surface water has become increasingly unreliable during both dry and “normal” periods. Obtaining contracted surface water could be attractive to the City to help offset groundwater pumping to comply with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). The City of Firebaugh has a DWR contract, and it is possible that the City of Mendota could secure a quantity of water for itself. Mendota is extremely well positioned to take delivery of State Contract water. The Delta-Mendota Canal, one of two primary delivery facilities for the State Section Three: Water Supply
Water Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2019 3-6 Water Project, actually crosses the City’s 20-inch Raw Water Transmission Main at Bass Avenue and connection at that point would be a matter of constructing a pipe connection and pumping station.

Aside from actual availability of contracted supplies, the issue of reliability would be foremost. Based on recent (past 10 years) history, the City would be unwise to rely on more than 30 to 40 percent of the contracted supply to be available in any given water year. While the State has delivered more than that in some years, 30 to 40 percent has become an increasingly familiar number as the State has increased its deliveries of Project water for environmental mitigation purposes and shortchanged municipal and agricultural contracts. Securing surface water supplies could provide a means to allow the City to reduce groundwater pumping and assist with SGMA compliance. The City is currently having discussions with Central California Irrigation District regarding securing or exchanging for surface water supply. At this time it’s unclear if the City will be successful in securing a reliable surface water allocation.

Ultimately this becomes a financial decision. If the City chooses to purchase 3,000 AF/year, for example, in order to have some reasonable assurance of seeing 1,000 AF/year, it might be able to accomplish that, at a substantial cost. However, that cost would have to be compared with the alternative cost of developing wells and treatment facilities and could turn out to be a good value for the City. This report does not have sufficient information available to make such a decision and recommends that additional study be done.

A variation on this option would be to purchase surface water rights from a third party. Such water deals are made every year and can be beneficial. However, most such deals between third parties are single-year or short-term and don’t commit either party to a set of financial terms over the long term. It seems most likely that a short-term deal will not serve the City’s interests well and so a third party deal may prove difficult to structure in a satisfactory manner.

3.3.3 Development of Recycled Water Supply
Application of recycled water involves treating wastewater to California Code of Regulations Title 22 water quality standards and using it in ways permitted by the law. For water treated to Title 22 requirements for tertiary, disinfected effluent, permitted uses include unrestricted irrigation of public landscapes, parks, sports fields and more. In a municipal setting, replacement of potable irrigation water with recycled water for just those uses can make a meaningful difference in overall potable water demand.

In order to make use of recycled water, the City would have to upgrade its wastewater treatment process, or at least increase the treatment of a portion of the wastewater, to the tertiary, disinfected level mentioned above. While construction of irrigation pipes to serve all the parks and school yards within the City may not be economically practical, Mendota Elementary School and Lozano Park are both relatively close to the WWTP and could be candidates for recycled water irrigation.

3.4 Permitting Issues
All of the water supply alternatives above come with additional permitting issues. Both surface water and recycled water would require permitting above and beyond what the City is currently used to. Additional groundwater wells west of the Fresno Slough would require additional permitting pertaining to potential groundwater quality issues, but the permitting would be similar to what the City historically has dealt with.

Additional groundwater wells will require permits from Department of Drinking Water (DDW) after demonstration that the water produced meets all Federal and State primary and secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) after treatment, which may include blending with other sources. These permits are familiar ground for the City and have always applied to the existing wells. No additional permitting Section Three: Water Supply
Water Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2019 3-7 programs would apply as the City’s water production expands. Calculation of the City’s firm water supply would always be done as it is now, as the production of all the wells with the largest well out of service. So, the more wells there are, the less effect having the largest well out of service has on the overall firm supply.

Adding additional wells adds significantly to overall system reliability.

Permitting for surface water deliveries is not the same as for groundwater deliveries. The same primary and secondary MCLs apply, but additional rules must be followed. Most importantly, the Surface Water Treatment Rule, which requires settling, flocculation, filtration and disinfection of all surface water supplies, must be implemented. There are also rules with respect to removal of giardia and cryptosporidium, which are microorganisms which may be found in surface waters. They are harmful to humans and must be removed as part of the water treatment process. All treatment processes must be cleared through DDW and proper operation demonstrated before a permit to operate is issued.

Section Four: Water Quality
Water Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2019 4-1 4 Water Quality
As stated previously, Mendota relies solely on groundwater. Groundwater quality can vary greatly by location and by depth. In general, the wells that are located east of the Fresno Slough produce water of a higher quality than wells west of the Fresno Slough. The main concern for groundwater in the Mendota area is total dissolved solids (TDS). TDS levels east of the slough are generally much lower than TDS levels west of the slough.

4.1 River Wells 7, 8 and 9
Water quality for Wells 7, 8, and 9 in general meets Title 22 water quality standards without treatment.

Pumping records for the years 2015 – 2017 were provided. Table 4-1 summarizes the water quality for Wells 7, 8, and 9. A review of the Division of Drinking Water (DDW) State Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) shows that currently the City does not have any ongoing water quality violations. Historically, the City has not had any nitrate issues, which tend to be common in rural agricultural areas like the area around the City.

Table 4-1. Water Quality Summary for River Wells 7, 8 and 9 Summary of River Wells Water Quality By Year
Constituent MCL
Well Number
7 8 9
2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018
Iron (µg/L)1 300 35 0 5 139 51 46 20 0 37
Manganese
(µg/L))
1 50 26 28 31 8 20 19 21 18 22
Sulfate (mg/L1 250 - - 120 - - 74 - - 85
Total Dissolved
Solids (mg/L)1
500 486 506 528 322 426 380 455 452 437
Specific
Conductance
(µs/cm)
1 900 768 799 814 485 664 579 717 694 685
Arsenic (µg/L)2 10 - - 8.4 - - 4.3 - - 3.8
Note:

1. This contaminant is regulated to a secondary water quality standard

2. This contaminant is regulated to a primary water quality standard

4.2 Other Sources
The City also has limited ability to use the existing Wells 3 and 5. These wells are largely inactive due to DDW permit limitations and poor water quality. Major water quality issues include high levels of iron, manganese and total dissolved solids, which results in high specific conductance. All four of these constituents are regularly measured above their respective MCLs. Table 4-2 shows recent water quality results for some of the major constituents for Well 5, which were taken as part of the City’s application to return the well to partially Section Four: Water Quality
Water Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2019 4-2 active status. Recent water quality data for Well 3 was not available on the SDWIS site due to the well being placed on standby status.

The City does not have any rights to surface water supplies nor any other potential water sources at this time.

Table 4-2. Water Quality Summary for Well 5
Summary of Well 5 Water Quality By Year
Constituent Secondary MCL 20161 20171 2018
Iron (µg/L) 300 - - 5802
Manganese (µg/L) 50 - - 6902
Sulfate (mg/L) 250 - - 6802
Total Dissolved Solids
(mg/L)
500 - - 1,6002
Specific Conductance
(µs/cm)
900 - - 2,3702
Note:

3. Most recent SDWIS water quality data for these constituents prior to 2018 was 2010.

4. Level is in excess of the MCL
Section Five: Water Treatment
Water Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2019 5-1 5 Water Treatment
Details pertaining to the water treatment plant (WTP) are presented in the following section.

5.1 Existing Water Treatment Plant
The City treats its groundwater supply through a single central water treatment plant located on 2nd Street between Marie Street and L Street. Record drawings show the existing WTP being constructed in approximately 1981, making the plant nearly 40 years old. The City’s WTP has the capacity to treat up to 3,000 gallons per minute (gpm) of raw water through four pressurized green sand media filter vessels. The raw water is treated with sodium bisulfite to treat for iron and manganese, and then sodium hypochlorite is injected into the treated water before it is stored two 1-million-gallon (MG) steel water storage tanks.

The pressure filters were renewed in 2016, with new green sand media, and are in excellent condition. The disinfection system was replaced in 2015 and is also in excellent condition. The VFDs at the distribution pump station were all replaced in 2015 as part of a new maintenance agreement.

The condition of the interior coating of the steel tanks is not known. The date of the last coating inspection was October 2017.

Overall condition of the site and the office reflects the 40-year age of the facility and needs maintenance work. Both the site and the office function adequately but will require work in the next several years to avoid continued deterioration that will result in damage to the facilities.

5.2 Water Treatment Plant Capacity
The WTP and the River wells are well-matched as a production and treatment system, with both sized to deliver a maximum of 3,000 gpm on a sustained basis. The sustainable water production from the supply and treatment system defines a water system’s ability to meet a Maximum Day Demand, which must be repeatable day after day and typically cannot be met by drawing water from a storage tank. This suggests that the City would be limited to a Maximum Day Demand of 3,000 gpm at the very highest, without any margin of safety.

Currently, the City’s highest demand days run between 2,300 and 2,400 gpm, suggesting adequate safety for the time being but also that there is a need to be planning for building and financing additional supply options.

Expansion of the existing WTP will be complicated by the small size of the WTP site and geometric constraints of the current filter and tank layout. Addition of filters may be possible but new filters likely would have to be separated and in a different location on the site than the older filters, which would not be ideal for operational personnel. While that is unfortunate, it’s not uncommon for expansion of older facilities where the original design may have never considered the expansion that could be needed decades later.

5.3 Other Treatment Options
With development having already occurred or planned adjacent to the existing WTP site the City is limited by the amount of expansion that can take place at the existing WTP site. Also, given the centralized nature of the source water, the City has begun to experience issues with providing adequate distribution pressures to all Section Five: Water Treatment
Water Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2019 5-2 parts of the system under high-demand conditions. While that issue can be addressed through distribution system improvements to some extent (see Section 6), ultimately there will be need for water supplies to be introduced at other parts of the system.

Give the water quality issues associated with the aquifers that underly the City and the surrounding development area, additional treatment is likely to be required. The City has potentially three means to treat future water sources should treatment be required. The alternatives are:
• Additional groundwater wells distributed around the City, with appropriate wellhead treatment systems
• Additional centralized WTP in an area of the City away from the current WTP • Decentralized WTPs, similar to the alternative above but smaller and not limited to one single new WTP
Each of these treatment alternatives is discussed in the following sections. Each comes with large capital and operations and maintenance costs (O&M). Whichever option(s) is selected, the City is going to have to devise a water portfolio strategy to address demands up through the report horizon.

5.3.1 Additional Groundwater Wells
The river wells provide the highest quality groundwater to the City, requiring the least treatment, and expanding the river wellfield along with the City’s growth would seem to be an ideal solution. However, there are two substantial challenges to that expansion which may prove to be insurmountable.

First, the City doesn’t own the land on which the wells are drilled and would need to negotiate additional land leases to secure drilling rights for additional wells in the area. These well leases were difficult and expensive to secure 35 years ago. Since then, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) has come into play, potentially limiting every landowner’s right to extract groundwater from his own land and thereby limiting the opportunity to enter into groundwater sale or exchange agreements such as BB Ranch has had with the City.

Second, the raw water transmission main is nearing its capacity. While the production from one more well might reasonably be transported through the pipeline, more than that would have adverse effects on the production of the original wells unless the pumps were changed to higher horsepower units capable of producing higher head pressures.

Developing new groundwater supplies to serve the ongoing growth of the City will require looking west of the Fresno Slough to source groundwater. The aquifers west of the Fresno Slough have high levels of iron and manganese, in excess of the State secondary MCLs, and have total dissolved solids (TDS) levels above the secondary MCL of 1,000 milligrams per liter (mg/L). If those aquifers are tapped for water supply, the City will have to treat the water to reduce those concentrations to meet State requirements.

Several years ago, Dr. Ken Schmidt prepared a hydrogeological report for the City that suggested that deeper aquifers, beneath the Corcoran Clay at a depth of approximately 500 feet, may have water with TDS levels below the secondary MCL. A test well should be constructed to test this proposition. If better water is available at that depth, substantial treatment savings may be realized even with the additional costs associated with constructing wells to those depths. The water beneath the Corcoran Clay is very commonly used by other communities, particularly in the southern part of the San Joaquin Valley, for the same reasons that it would be considered here. It is simply the best groundwater available in many locations. The City should coordinate with all relevant GSP stakeholders if it decides to investigate sourcing groundwater west of the Section Five: Water Treatment
Water Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2019 5-3 Fresno Slough in aquifers beneath confining clay layers (like the Corcoran Clay), in an effort to avoid undesirable results like subsidence.

5.3.2 New Centralized Water Treatment Plant
Another approach to supplying water to meet future demands would be to construct a new second centralized WTP. A new WTP, if planned properly, could be scaled to meet new demands over time so the City doesn’t have to pay the upfront capital costs for a plant to service the entire buildout of the SOI before it’s needed. The City would have to decide where to locate source water to feed the plant. Sourcing groundwater to supply the new water treatment plant would require a large well field and a large transmission main to get water to the plant. A new centralized WTP would also require large transmission mains to move water to remote areas of the SOI in an energy efficient manner. This option does not provide a lot of flexibility for development to leapfrog to remote areas of the SOI without constructing infrastructure to move water to those areas.

5.3.3 Decentralized Water Treatment Plants
This approach involves developing WTPs at strategic locations throughout the SOI with the intent of treating groundwater from several wells located in close proximity to each decentralized plant. The wells feeding each plant would pump water into a common manifold pipe which would convey water to the WTP where it would be treated and pumped out to the distribution system. This option allows the City the flexibility to locate critical water infrastructure adjacent to wherever development is taking place at that point in time.

Section Six: Distribution System
Water Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2019 6-1 6 Distribution System
Details pertaining to the water distribution system are presented in the following section.

6.1 Overview
The distribution system comprises approximately 35.5 miles of pipeline with pipe diameters ranging from 4 inches up to 24 inches. Existing pipe materials are believed to be either asbestos-concrete (AC) or polyvinyl chloride (PVC), with a few very old steel and cast iron pipelines in the oldest areas of downtown. Table 6-1 summarizes the lengths of pipe for each pipe size. Figure 6-1 shows a map of the City’s existing water distribution system. The entire distribution system is operated as a single pressure zone.

Table 6-1. Summary of Pipe Length by Diameter
Summary of Pipe Length by Diameter
Pipe Diameter
(inches) Length (feet) Length (miles) Percent of Total (%) 4 3,893 0.7 2.1
6 60,935 11.5 32.6
8 65,616 12.4 35.1
10 24,176 4.6 12.9
12 11,300 2.1 6.1
14 1,192 0.2 0.6
16 205 0.1 0.1
18 2,586 0.5 1.4
20 15,836 3.0 8.5
24 1,101 0.2 0.6
Total 186,840 35.5 100

6.2 Anticipated Growth Areas
The City has developed a plan for development out the boundary of its current sphere of influence (SOI).

Figure 2-2 (see Section 2) shows the various land uses planned for the buildout of the SOI. Large uncertainties exist around the timing of the buildout of the SOI. Due to these uncertainties, this report is focused on a 20-year planning horizon, through 2040.

For the purposes of the report horizon the City has identified two specific areas of where development is anticipated:
• In the southwest part of the City near the intersection of Gregg Court and Belmont Avenue • North of Bass Avenue between Derrick Avenue and Barboza Street [Q
Aw
?ü

GUILLAN PARK

BELMONT
BASS
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 500 1,000
Feet
º
Figure 6-1
Existing Water
Distribution System
Water Master Plan
City of Mendota
Legend
[Q Existing WTP
Pipe Diameter
4-Inch
6-Inch
8-Inch
10-Inch
12-Inch
14-Inch
24-Inch
10/29/2019 : G:\Mendota_City of-3336\333618013-Water System Master Plan\GIS\Map\Figure 6-1 - Existing Water Distribution System.mxd Section Six: Distribution System
Water Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2019 6-3 Figure 6-1 identifies the two areas identified for near term development. The near-term development areas are anticipated to build out over the next 15-20 years and will be the focus of the capital improvement plan, discussed later in this section.

6.3 Pressure Zones
As stated previously, the City distribution system operates on a single pressure zone. Given the generally flat topography of the City, along with the single a single pressure zone works to serve the entire system with similar service pressures. Depending on how the City develops in the future it may make sense to separate the distribution system into distinct pressure zones to ensure similar service pressures City wide.

6.4 Water Storage
The City has two existing one-million-gallon finished water storage tanks located at the existing WTP site.

Total existing water storage is 2 million gallons (MG). Article 2 Section 64554 of Title 22 states that for systems with 1,000 or more service connections, the system shall be able to meet four hours of peak hourly demand (PHD) with source capacity, storage capacity, and/or emergency capacity, and/or emergency source connections. Given the existing water demands estimated stated in Section 2 of this report, to comply with Title 22 requirements the City needs to have at least 1.25 MG, therefore the existing system complies with Title 22 using water storage alone. Considering the existing groundwater pumping capacity, according to Title 22, the City has excess source capacity to serve development. Issues arise, when the system configuration is examined. With all the existing water storage and pumping capacity centralized at the WTP, the system will have issues serving growth areas outside of the current City limits without additional decentralized water sources (i.e. wells or tanks/booster pumps) constructed at strategic locations throughout the SOI.

6.5 Pumping Capacity
The WTP has a finished water booster pump station that is comprised of five pumps ranging from 15 hp up to 75 hp. The pump station has two jockey pumps to service low demand periods and three larger booster pumps to service high demand periods. The pump station pumps are controlled by VFDs which allow the pumps to provide a wide range of flow to meet system demands while maintaining a constant pressure. The pump station has a theoretical maximum pumping capacity of approximately 5,925 gpm, but since the pumps are controlled by a VFD, which operates the pumps between 58-62 psi, the maximum pumping capacity is approximately 5,700 gpm. Pump station pumping capacity is often expressed as firm pumping capacity, or the capacity with the largest pump offline. The pump station has a firm pumping capacity of approximately 3,800 gpm. Table 6.2 provides a summary of the design details for the existing WTP pump station.

Section Six: Distribution System
Water Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2019 6-4 Table 6-2. Water Treatment Plant Booster Pump Information Water Treatment Plant Booster Pump Information
Pump Number Pump Type Power Rating (HP) Capacity (gpm)
1 Jockey 15 320
2 Jockey 25 600
3 Booster 75 1,9001
4 Booster 75 1,9001
5 Booster 75 1,9001
Note:

1. Pumping capacity at 58 psi according the manufacturer’s pump curve.

Given the demands stated in Section 2, the City has sufficient pumping capacity to meet both current PHD and fire flow demands. Again, the system, while adequate for the existing system, is limited due to its physical layout and configuration which has all system pumping capacity centralized at the existing WTP. To support growth outside of the current City limits the City will have to look to construct additional water sources (wells or tanks/booster pumps) at strategic locations throughout the SOI.

Section Seven: Hydraulic Model and Analysis
Water Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2019 7-1 7 Hydraulic Model and Analysis
This section summarizes the development of the City’s water distribution system hydraulic model. The hydraulic model was utilized to evaluate the existing water system and develop future system improvements.

7.1 Modeling Software
The City does not have an existing computerized hydraulic model of its water distribution system. As part of the Water Master Plan process, a computerized model has been developed using Bentley’s WaterCAD version 8i modeling software. WaterCAD is a decision support tool for water distribution infrastructure. It operates in both AutoCAD and MicroStation computer-aided design platforms and also as a standalone software. In this case we took advantage of its AutoCAD compatibility so we could make use of existing City base mapping. It has numerous features that streamline the modeling development process, allowing an accurate model to be developed in an expedient manner, and has advanced modeling capabilities which allow a modeler to easily manage and manipulate database and customer information to streamline the analysis process.

7.2 Hydraulic Model Development
The basis for the water system layout was the AutoCAD-based distribution system bas map which we maintain in our library as part of our City Engineering responsibilities. Figure 7-1 shows the Auto-CAD based distribution system map. The system map was loaded into the water model as a shapefile and digitized to create the existing system pipe layout. In order to create a true three-dimensional model and account for pressure variations due to elevation change, ground elevations for the junctions were assigned from USGS contour data. Model facility attributes were then inputted into the model based on data compiled during the research phase of the master planning effort. Figure 7-2 shows the existing system as represented in the hydraulic model.

7.2.1 Modeled Water Sources

7.2.1.1 Groundwater Wells
All City wells are located along and connected to a 18-inch to 20-inch raw water transmission main that conveys water to the WTP, where it is treated, stored, and ultimately distributed to the end users. The groundwater wells are hydraulically disconnected from the distribution system by the existing water storage tanks. As a result, while essential to the operation of the distribution system, the groundwater wells are not part of the distribution system modeling. They serve only to keep the storage tanks full, or within their operating range.

Figure 7-1
[Q
Aw Aü GUILLAN PARK
BASS

BELMONT
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 500 1,000
Feet
º
Figure 7-2
WaterCAD Based Water
Distribution System Map
Water Master Plan
City of Mendota
Legend
Pipe Diameter
4-Inch
6-Inch
8-Inch
10-Inch
12-Inch
14-Inch
24-Inch
[Q Existing WTP
10/30/2019 : G:\Mendota_City of-3336\333618013-Water System Master Plan\GIS\Map\Figure 7-2 - WaterCAD Based Water Distribution System.mxd Section Seven: Hydraulic Model and Analysis
Water Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2019 7-4

7.2.1.2 Water Treatment Plant
For the purposes of the hydraulic model, there is only one water supply to the distribution system: the WTP.

As mentioned, none of the wells add to the distribution capacity. They all serve to fill the storage tanks. They have to do that job effectively, but the only water available to the distribution system is pumped from the single pump station at the WTP.

The WTP pump station comprises five pumps in parallel, each of which is controlled by VFDs allowing more precise control of WTP production to meet system demand. According to City Water Department staff, the pumps are set to maintain a system pressure measured at the WTP of between 58-62 pounds per square inch (psi).

This pressure range is relatively small and allows an opportunity to simplify the model. Rather than try to electronically re-create the five pumps, their pump curves, their VFDs, and exactly how each will react under varying demand, we can assume that the pumps do react in some reasonable manner and do maintain system pressure in the desired range. We know that because the performance can be observed under a variety of operating conditions. Since that is the case, we can for modeling purposes replace the five-pump station with a fixed-head reservoir, set to provide flow at a pressure of 58 psi. At times and under certain conditions this simplification may be a little bit conservative, but overall it will provide a more stable and reliable model for the system.

In the language of a water model, a reservoir doesn’t have to be a lake, although it can be. A reservoir in the water model is simply a supply of water of up to a certain flow rate, delivered at a specific pressure. In the case of the WTP pump station, it can be modeled as a reservoir producing as much as 5,700 gpm at 58 psi.

System demands over and over that amount cannot be met by the current pumping station.

Section Seven: Hydraulic Model and Analysis
Water Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2019 7-5

7.3 Scenario Development
Water demand scenarios are established to conduct hydraulic analysis under different demand or operational conditions. For this master planning effort, four primary demand scenarios have been be analyzed. These are:
• Average Day Demand (ADD)
• Maximum Day Demand (MDD)
• Peak Hour Demand (PHD)
• Maximum Day Demand Plus Fire Flow (MDD+FF)
These four scenarios have been analyzed to assess the system’s operation both under low- and high-demand “normal” conditions, such as a typical winter and summer day, as well as to point out potential deficiencies in the existing system under high-stress conditions including the highest demand hour on a high-demand day, and potential fire flow demands added on top of that high-demand day. These conditions are commonly used in the industry to assess system health, and often lead to analysis of other, more focused scenarios if particular weaknesses are revealed. In addition to analyzing existing system performance, these analyses also help to determine the improvements that will be needed to provide adequate water service throughout the City as it grows to full buildout.

7.4 Demand Allocation

7.4.1 Existing System Demand Allocation
Existing system demands were located in the hydraulic model through a process called geocoding.

Geocoding is the process of transforming a description of a location, such as a postal address, into a location on the earth’s surface. Geocoding produces an accurate spatial depiction of the elements being located. As stated previously, the City provided billing data for the ten most recent fiscal years. Included with the data was a physical address for each meter. This data was checked against County Geographical Information System (GIS) parcel data to locate water meters on the ground.

As discussed above, the 2017-2018 billing data was used as the basis for model demands. The geocoding process successfully yielded a physical location for over ninety-one percent of the meters provided by the City, which translated to over ninety-four percent of the 2017-2018 metered consumption. The end result of the geocoding was the creation of a point shapefile, which represented water meter locations and contained annualized water consumption data for each geocoded meter. Figure 7-3 shows the spatial depiction of the meters that were successfully geolocated in the master planning effort.

Using the geocoded meter shapefile, meter demands were allocated in the model using a “nearest node” methodology. The nearest node demand allocation method utilizes the Thiessen polygon method1to assign a unique tributary area to each model junction. Junctions are locations in the model that connect pipes hydraulically and places where water demands enter or exit the system. Once the Thiessen polygons are established and assigned to a junction, a spatial analysis is conducted that links each geocoded meter within a given polygon to that junction, and then sums the meter demands allocated to the junction. 1 Thiessen polygons are generated from the meter locations and model junctions such that each polygon defines a group of meters (with their associated water use) around each model junction, so that any meter inside the polygon is closer to that junction than to any of the other junctions.

Section Seven: Hydraulic Model and Analysis
Water Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2019 7-6

7.4.2 Buildout System Demand Allocation
The future system demand estimate will utilize a land use-based demand allocation methodology. Figure 2-2 (See Section 2) shows the future development areas along with the proposed land uses. Similar to the existing system demand allocation, model junctions will be assigned a tributary area using the Thiessen polygon method. The polygons will then be spatially analyzed against the land use map shown in Figure 2-2. Land use specific unit demands will be inputted into the model and used to determine demand allocations at each model junction.

The City is not currently tracking demands by land use or customer class. Land use specific unit demands (discussed below) were determined by reviewing unit demands for similar cities in the Central Valley.

7.5 Model Verification and Calibration
Upon completion of the existing system model development a verification process was performed to check that model facilities were behaving as expected. The verification process showed that the model was operating as expected given the inputs entered, which is an excellent result.

Upon completion of the model verification, it is very common to have to calibrate the model using an iterative computerized process to fine-tune the model such that model output matches existing data records, within a specific tolerance. The computer algorithm typically attempts to adjust Hazen-Williams C-factors (Cfactors) system wide until model results satisfactorily compare to observed data.

In Mendota’s case, the water distribution system is known to be a mix of Asbestos-Cement and PVC pipe, which are not known to corrode internally under normal conditions. Very old pipe materials, such as unlined cast iron pipe, do commonly corrode internally and would be good candidates for a C-factor adjustment performed in a calibration. Given the materials of the existing pipes it is not likely that model calibration would yield C-factors that reflect the existing internal pipe conditions, therefore a calibration effort could artificially manipulate model results. Given the operational set up of the system and the existing pipe materials, a full water model calibration is considered unnecessary and is not recommended for this master planning effort.
[Q
?ü
Aw

GUILLAN PARK

BELMONT
BASS
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 500 1,000
Feet
º
Figure 7-3
Geocoded Water Meters
Water Master Plan
City of Mendota
Legend
Geocoded Meters
[Q WTP
8/8/2019 : G:\Mendota_City of-3336\333618013-Water System Master Plan\GIS\Map\Figure 7-3 Geocoded Water Meters.mxd Geocoded Meter Data From
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Section Seven: Hydraulic Model and Analysis
Water Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2019 7-8

7.6 Modeling Evaluation Criteria
System modeling criteria must be established to determine existing system deficiencies and the adequacy of future improvements. Typical criteria used to evaluate water distribution systems include:
• System Pressure
• Pipeline Velocity
• Pipeline Headloss
The following section summarizes the modeling criteria that will be used to evaluate the existing and future systems.

7.6.1 Pressure
Service pressure is a basic level of service requirement to maintain good system operations and a reliable water supply to customers. Service pressures will vary depending on elevation, proximity to sources of supply, and by demand condition. Thus, pressure criteria must be established to mitigate unnecessary reductions in levels of service. These criteria are established to avoid undesirable flow reductions that can occur when service pressures are too low, or the damage and unnecessarily high flow rates that can occur when service pressures are routinely too high. High and low system pressures can often occur due to elevation changes. As the ground rises, water pressure in the system falls and flows decline.

The converse is also true. If the land falls, the pressure in the water system increases, and can increase to the point of being destructive. In systems such as that, the system can be broken into pressure zones by use of pressure reducing valves or pressure sustaining valves as needed. The City of Reedley is a local example, as the city lands fall toward the Kings River there is a separate pressure zone to keep system pressure from getting too high.

Because Mendota is so nearly flat, the City operates as a single pressure zone, which means that the water pressure in every part of the system is directly related to the pressure in every other part of the system. This results in satisfactory pressure performance in all areas of the City at normal flow rates, so we don’t see any reason to plan for implementation of pressure zones in the foreseeable future.

Table 7-1 summarizes the recommended pressure ranges for the City. Fire flow requirements dictate that residual pressures during a fire flow stay above 20 psi at all times during the fire flow event.

Table 7-1. System Pressure Criteria
System Pressure Criteria
Demand Scenario Minimum Pressure (psi) Maximum Pressure (psi) ADD 50 80
MDD (existing development) 35 80
MDD (future development) 40 80
PHD 35 80
Section Seven: Hydraulic Model and Analysis
Water Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2019 7-9

7.6.2 Velocity
In addition to pressure criteria, distribution systems are evaluated on flow velocities throughout the entire system. Pipelines are designed to convey the maximum expected flow condition. High flow velocities create high head loss and can lead to pipe damage, mostly caused by sand abrasion.

In certain cases, much more catastrophic damage can be caused by sudden changes in high velocities, which create reflective pressure waves within the water system known as “water hammer.” This phenomenon is well named, as it can burst pipe, damage fittings and water services, and wreck all sorts of havoc on a water system. The best cure is avoidance, which is best achieved through reasonable limitation of water main velocities. Therefore, it is desirable to keep the velocity below a predetermined limit. Table 7-2 summarizes the criteria for maximum pipeline velocities.

Table 7-2. Pipeline Velocity Criteria
Pipeline Velocity Criteria
Demand Scenario Maximum Velocity (ft/sec)
ADD 5
MDD 5
PHD 7
MDD+FF 10

7.6.3 Headloss Gradient
Headloss is a loss of energy within pipes that results in reduced pressure within the water system. In an effort to mitigate the potential loss of pressure, water systems typically are sized to reduce the potential for headloss.

Though systems can and do operate with more headloss in most or all of the distribution piping, the guideline for maximum headloss in the pipes is 10 ft/1,000ft of pipeline, or 0.010 ft/ft.

7.7 Model Results
The following section summarizes the results stemming from the analysis of normal operating scenarios and fire flow scenarios.

7.7.1 Existing System Normal Operating Scenarios
A steady-state analysis performed on the existing system model against the criterial previously stated in this section. The existing system was analyzed under the following demand scenarios: ADD, MDD, and PHD.

The following discussion summarizes the findings of the analysis.

7.7.1.1 System Pressures
Table 7-1, above, shows the minimum and maximum allowable pressures for each of the demand scenarios analyzed. The model results show that the existing system can provide pressures in the distribution system above the minimum 35 psi requirement up to the PHD. No pressure related deficiencies were identified in the existing system. Figure 7-4, Figure 7-5, and Figure 7-6 show the pressure results for ADD, MDD, and PHD, respectively.

Section Seven: Hydraulic Model and Analysis
Water Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2019 7-10

7.7.1.2 Flow velocities
Table 7-2, above, shows the maximum allowable flow velocities for each of the demand scenarios analyzed.

The model results show that the existing system flow velocities in the distribution system were below the maximum allowable velocities for all the demand scenarios analyzed. No velocity related deficiencies were identified in the existing system. Figure 7-7, Figure 7-8, and Figure 7-9 show the flow velocity results for ADD, MDD, and PHD, respectively.

7.7.1.3 Headloss Gradient
Section 7.6.3, above, discussed the maximum allowable headloss gradient for pipelines. The model results show several segments of pipeline within the existing system that exceed the maximum allowable headloss gradient of 0.01 FT/FT. Table 7-3 summarizes the pipeline alignments that exceed maximum allowable headloss gradient guidelines. Figure 7-10, Figure 7-11, and Figure 7-12 show the headloss gradient results for ADD, MDD, and PHD, respectively.

High headloss gradient results indicate that energy is not being expended efficiently and that a pipeline is reaching its maximum flow capacity. Despite the design criteria exceedances identified, flow velocities in these pipelines are below the maximum allowable velocities shown in Table 7-2. In addition, system pressures are above the minimum requirements shown in Table 7-1. The City will need to decide whether to make improvements to these pipes, but because velocities and pressures are still within overall design criteria, any improvements should be considered lower priority repairs. Improving these sections of pipe alone likely won’t provide the system with additional capacity to support the growth forecasted for the planning horizon of this report.

Table 7-3. Maximum Allowable Headloss Gradient Exceedances Maximum Allowable Headloss Gradient Exceedances
Model
Pipeline ID
Pipe Diameter
(in.)
Pipeline Alignment Description Headloss Gradient
(FT/FT)
Demand
Scenario
P-239 6 Belmont Ave. at 8th Street 0.011/0.013/0.014 ADD/MDD/PHD P-87 6 Intersection of Smoot Ave. and Sorensen Ave 0.011 PHD P-264 8 2
nd Street between Naples St. and Oller St. 0.013 PHD
P-364 6 Intersection of Divisadero St. and Lolita St. 0.014 PHD P-405 8 Intersection of 2nd St. and Naples St. 0.016 PHD P-460 8 Intersection of 2nd St. and L St. 0.020 PHD
P-406 10 Intersection of 2nd St. and Naples St. 0.012 PHD P-402 8 Intersection of 2nd St. and L St. 0.012 PHD
P-253 6 Intersection of Smoot Ave. and Sorensen Ave 0.011 PHD P-238 6 Belmont Ave. at 8th Street .010 PHD
[Q
?ü
AwH
BASS

BELMONT

GUILLAN PARK
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 500 1,000
Feet
º
Figure 7-4
Average Day Demand
Pressures
Water Master Plan
City of Mendota
Legend
[Q WTP
Existing Pipes
Pressure
< 20 PSI
20 - 30 PSI
30 - 40 PSI
40 - 50 PSI
50 - 60 PSI
60 - 70 PSI
70 - 80 PSI
> 80 PSI
10/29/2019 : G:\Mendota_City of-3336\333618013-Water System Master Plan\GIS\Map\WMP Figures\DRAFT\Figure 7-4 ADD Pressures.mxd [Q
BASS

BELMONT

GUILLAN PARK
?ü
AwH
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 500 1,000
Feet
º
Figure 7-5
Maximum Day Demand
Pressures
Water Master Plan
City of Mendota
Legend
[Q WTP
Existing Pipes
Pressure
< 20 PSI
20 - 30 PSI
30 - 40 PSI
40 - 50 PSI
50 - 60 PSI
60 - 70 PSI
70 - 80 PSI
> 80 PSI
10/29/2019 : G:\Mendota_City of-3336\333618013-Water System Master Plan\GIS\Map\WMP Figures\DRAFT\Figure 7-5 MDD Pressures.mxd [Q
BASS

BELMONT
?ü
AwH

GUILLAN PARK
P = 43 PSI
P = 37 PSI
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 500 1,000
Feet
º
Figure 7-6
Peak Hour Demand
Pressures
Water Master Plan
City of Mendota
Legend
[Q WTP
Existing Pipes
Pressure
< 20 PSI
20 - 30 PSI
30 - 40 PSI
40 - 50 PSI
50 - 60 PSI
60 - 70 PSI
70 - 80 PSI
> 80 PSI
10/29/2019 : G:\Mendota_City of-3336\333618013-Water System Master Plan\GIS\Map\WMP Figures\DRAFT\Figure 7-6 PHD Pressures.mxd [Q
BASS

BELMONT
?ü
AwH

GUILLAN PARK
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 500 1,000
Feet
º
Figure 7-7
Average Day Demand
Velocities
Water Master Plan
City of Mendota
Legend
[Q WTP
Flow Velocity
0 - 1 FT/SEC
1 - 3 FT/SEC
3 - 5 FT/SEC
5 - 7 FT/SEC
> 7 FT/SEC
10/29/2019 : G:\Mendota_City of-3336\333618013-Water System Master Plan\GIS\Map\WMP Figures\DRAFT\Figure 7-7 ADD Velocities.mxd [Q
BASS

BELMONT
?ü
AwH

GUILLAN PARK
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 500 1,000
Feet
º
Figure 7-8
Maximum Day Demand
Velocities
Water Master Plan
City of Mendota
Legend
[Q WTP
Flow Velocity
0 - 1 FT/SEC
1 - 3 FT/SEC
3 - 5 FT/SEC
5 - 7 FT/SEC
> 7 FT/SEC
10/29/2019 : G:\Mendota_City of-3336\333618013-Water System Master Plan\GIS\Map\WMP Figures\DRAFT\Figure 7-8 MDD Velocities.mxd [Q
BASS

BELMONT
?ü
AwH

GUILLAN PARK
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 500 1,000
Feet
º
Figure 7-9
Peak Hour Demand
Velocities
Water Master Plan
City of Mendota
Legend
[Q WTP
Flow Velocity
0 - 1 FT/SEC
1 - 3 FT/SEC
3 - 5 FT/SEC
5 - 7 FT/SEC
> 7 FT/SEC
10/29/2019 : G:\Mendota_City of-3336\333618013-Water System Master Plan\GIS\Map\WMP Figures\DRAFT\Figure 7-9 PHD Velocities.mxd [Q
BASS

BELMONT
?ü
AwH

GUILLAN PARK
P-239
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 500 1,000
Feet
º
Figure 7-10
Average Day Demand
Headloss Gradient
Water Master Plan
City of Mendota
Legend
[Q WTP
Headloss Gradient
< 0.001 FT/FT

0.001 - 0.005 FT/FT

0.005 - 0.01 FT/FT
> 0.01 FT/FT
10/29/2019 : G:\Mendota_City of-3336\333618013-Water System Master Plan\GIS\Map\WMP Figures\DRAFT\Figure 7-10 ADD Headloss Gradient.mxd See Report Table 7.3 for
additional details.
[Q
BASS

BELMONT
?ü
AwH

GUILLAN PARK
P-239
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 500 1,000
Feet
º
Figure 7-11
Maximum Day Demand
Headloss Gradient
Water Master Plan
City of Mendota
Legend
[Q WTP
Headloss Gradient
< 0.001 FT/FT

0.001 - 0.005 FT/FT

0.005 - 0.01 FT/FT
> 0.01 FT/FT
10/29/2019 : G:\Mendota_City of-3336\333618013-Water System Master Plan\GIS\Map\WMP Figures\DRAFT\Figure 7-11 MDD Headloss Gradient.mxd See Report Table 7.3 for
additional details.
[Q
P-239
P-87
P-264
P-364
P-405
P-460
P-406
P-402
P-253
P-238
BASS

BELMONT
?ü
AwH

GUILLAN PARK
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 500 1,000
Feet
º
Figure 7-12
Peak Hour Demand
Headloss Gradient
Water Master Plan
City of Mendota
Legend
[Q WTP
Headloss Gradient
< 0.001 FT/FT

0.001 - 0.005 FT/FT

0.005 - 0.01 FT/FT
> 0.01 FT/FT
10/29/2019 : G:\Mendota_City of-3336\333618013-Water System Master Plan\GIS\Map\WMP Figures\DRAFT\Figure 7-12 PHD Headloss Gradient.mxd See Report Table 7.3 for
additional details.

Section Seven: Hydraulic Model and Analysis
Water Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2019 7-20

7.7.2 Existing System Fire Flow Scenario
A separate analysis was performed to check the system response during a fire emergency. WaterCAD has a fire flow analysis tool that performs a steady-state analysis and also checks available fire flow at each active model node. For the fire flow scenario, a fire demand of 1,000 gpm was applied to each active model node during a MDD demand scenario. A flow of 1,000 gpm has been established by ISO as the minimum desirable residential fire flow for a municipal water system, and must be maintained, with a 20 psi residual pressure, at all points in the distribution system, in order for the water system to maintain a favorable ISO rating, which is very important to residents’ fire insurance rates.

The system was evaluated on its ability to provide at least 20 psi system wide during a MDD event with the minimum required fire flow of 1,000 psi. Figure 7-13 shows the results of the fire flow analysis. In general, the nodes identified as deficient in Figure 7-13 are due to dead end water mains. It is common to see deadend mains fail to meet the minimum fire flow requirements due to the lack of a looped feed and due to high flow velocities generated by the large flows required for firefighting. Two locations were identified in the existing system model where fire flow deficiencies were identified. The deficiencies were not triggered by limitations associated with dead-end water mains. The two areas are as follows:
• Tuft Street/Arnaudon Drive neighborhood
• Intersection of 10th Street and Oller Avenue
Figure 7-13 shows the overall fire flow results along with the areas identified as deficient. Figure 7-14, Figure 7-15, and Figure 7-16 show the available fire flow for the existing system while maintaining 20 psi across the system.

7.7.3 Future System Normal Operating Scenarios
Based on input from the City, the focus of the future system analysis was too be placed on development that is anticipated over the course of the nest 15-20 years. This timeframe includes two areas:
• To the southwest near Belmont and Derrick Avenues
• Along the Bass Avenue corridor
Areas included in the modeling analysis for the near-term future system are shown in Figure 7-17. These areas accounted for 748 AFY of additional demand on average. A steady-state analysis of the PHD was performed using the existing system model along with the additional development mentioned above.

7.7.3.1 System Pressures
Table 7-1, above, shows the minimum and maximum allowable pressures for each of the demand scenarios analyzed. The model results show that the existing system, along with pipeline infrastructure to serve the additional development can provide pressures in the distribution system above the minimum 35 psi requirement up to the PHD with the exception of near the existing prison to the south of the City. Figure 7-18 shows the pressure results for PHD, with the near-term development accounted for. Table 7-4 summarizes the deficiencies shown in Figure 7-18.
[Q
BASS

BELMONT
?ü
AwH

GUILLAN PARK
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 500 1,000
Feet
º
Figure 7-13
Fire Flow Analysis
Water Master Plan
City of Mendota
Legend
[Q WTP
Existing Pipes
Available Fire Flow
< 1,000 GPM
≥ 1,000 GPM
10/29/2019 : G:\Mendota_City of-3336\333618013-Water System Master Plan\GIS\Map\WMP Figures\DRAFT\Figure 7-13 Fire Flow Analysis.mxd BASS

DOS PALOS
865
872
1883
1430
2090
1230
1989
1863
1774
2073
2100
1942 1735 2195 1651
1567
1949 1948 1946 1937 1920 1911 1890
2182
2604
2744
3051
2379 3059
2622
2115
2380
2750
2870
2681
2888
2887
2921
3094
3069
2953
3086
3353
2990
3214
3251
2917
1552
0 250 500
Feet
º
Figure 7-14
Available Fire Flow (North)
Water Master Plan
City of Mendota
Legend
Available Fire Flow
500 - 1,000 GPM
1,000 - 1,500 GPM
1,500 - 2,000 GPM
2,000 - 2,500 GPM
2,500 - 3000 GPM
3,000 - 3500 GPM
Pipe Diameter
6-Inch
8-Inch
10-Inch
10/29/2019 : G:\Mendota_City of-3336\333618013-Water System Master Plan\GIS\Map\WMP Figures\DRAFT\Figure 7-14 Available Fire Flow (North).mxd City of Mendota adheres to the requirements set forth in the California Fire Code.

Minimum fire flows shall be in accordance with Appendices B and BB of the California Fire Code.

Available fire flow shown is the flow available while providing at least 20 psi and with flow velocities less than 10 ft/sec.

Flow units are gallons per minute.

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
[Q

BELMONT

DERRICK

GUILAN PARK
?ü
AwH
757
818
872
869
865
871
865
877
859
858
392
875
856
856
880
818
818
818
871
818
818
879 880
3500 3500
1332
1530
1075
1386
1958
1957
3500
1824
1365 1858
2253
1435
1939
1198
1370
1342
1547
1304
1418
3500
1911
1651
2659
3500
1249
1526
1735 2195
1961
1931
1737 1646
2314 2487
2686 2742
2541 2497 2635
2524
1607
2073
2202
2484
2404
2353
2373
2036
2419
2034
2731
2723
1282 2644
2672
2678
2677
2292
2764
2778
2795
2810
3028
2856
3261
3080
2860
2868
1781
3318
2525
2534
2821
3221
3101
3500
2488
2410
3471 3021
1580
1781
1879
2393
3080
3500 2939
3500
2952
2612
1272
1740
1923 1945
1606
1744
1425
1592 1739
1386
1369
1267
1902
1996
1727
1708
2139
1287
1189 1562
2374
2581
1351
1716
2282
1771
2489
2429
1359
1637
3225
3074
3049
3088
2237
1524
1538 1548
1515 1543
1502 1565
1996
1562 1388
1480 1554 1521
3001
1634
2943
2393
1626
1180 2618
2521
1848
1602
1454
1361 1638
1671
1557 1950
1562 1949
1567
1942
1567
1949 1949 1949
1950
1559
1962
1962
1951 1951
1953
1956
1958 1963 1971 1974
1967
1579 2045
1545
2193
1961
1812 1769
1754
1493
1936
2072
2116
1915 1913
1946
1955 1951
1962
1973
1981
1991
2005
1903
1831
1920 1911 1890
1937
1946
1949 1948
2953
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community 0 250 500
Feet
º
Figure 7-15
Available Fire Flow (Central)
Water Master Plan
City of Mendota
Legend
[Q WTP
Available Fire Flow
0 - 500 GPM
500 - 1,000 GPM
1,000 - 1,500 GPM
1,500 - 2,000 GPM
2,000 - 2,500 GPM
2,500 - 3000 GPM
3,000 - 3500 GPM
> 3,500 GPM
Pipe Diameter
4-Inch
6-Inch
8-Inch
10-Inch
12-Inch
14-Inch
24-Inch
10/29/2019 : G:\Mendota_City of-3336\333618013-Water System Master Plan\GIS\Map\WMP Figures\DRAFT\Figure 7-15 Available Fire Flow (Central).mxd City of Mendota adheres to the requirements set forth in the California Fire Code.

Minimum fire flows shall be in accordance with Appendices B and BB of the California Fire Code.

Available fire flow shown is the flow available while providing at least 20 psi and with flow velocities less than 10 ft/sec.

Flow units are gallons per minute.

BELMONT
?ü
AwH

GUILLAN PARK
757
905
924
859
877
856
856
871
1332
1530
1386
1223
1365 1858
1435
2810 2952
1272
1740
1923 1945
1386
1369
1267
1902
1996
1727
1708
2139
1287
1189 1562
2374
2581
1716
2282 1442
2489
2429
1359
1637
3225
3074
3049
2237
1524
1538 1548
1515 1543
1502 1565
1562 1388
1480 1554 1521
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community 0 250 500
Feet
º
Figure 7-16
Available Fire Flow (South)
Water Master Plan
City of Mendota
Legend
Available Fire Flow
500 - 1,000 GPM
1,000 - 1,500 GPM
1,500 - 2,000 GPM
2,000 - 2,500 GPM
2,500 - 3000 GPM
3,000 - 3500 GPM
Pipe Diameter
4-Inch
6-Inch
8-Inch
10-Inch
12-Inch
14-Inch
10/28/2019 : G:\Mendota_City of-3336\333618013-Water System Master Plan\GIS\Map\WMP Figures\DRAFT\Figure 7-16 Available Fire Flow (South).mxd City of Mendota adheres to the requirements set forth in the California Fire Code Minimum fire flows shall be in accordance with Appendices B and BB of the California Fire Code.

Available fire flow shown is the flow available while providing at least 20 psi and with flow velocities less than 10 ft/sec.

Flow units are gallons per minute.

DERRICK

CALIFORNIA

WHITESBRIDGE

BELMONT

PANOCHE

SAN BENITO
Aw
?ü Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 500 1,000
Feet
º
Figure 7-17
Near Term Development
Water Master Plan
City of Mendota
Legend
Existing City Limits
Future Development
General Plan Land Use
Community Commercial
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Public/Quasi-Public Facility
Recreational
8/8/2019 : G:\Mendota_City of-3336\333618013-Water System Master Plan\GIS\Map\WMP Figures\DRAFT\Figure 7-17 Near Term Development.mxd [Q
?ü
Aw J-469
J-519
J-190

GUILLAN PARK
BASS

BELMONT
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 500 1,000
Feet
º
Figure 7-18
Future System Peak
Hour Demand Pressures
Water Master Plan
City of Mendota
Legend
[Q WTP
Existing Pipes
Pressure
< 20 PSI
20 - 30 PSI
30 - 40 PSI
40 - 50 PSI
50 - 60 PSI
60 - 70 PSI
70 - 80 PSI
> 80 PSI
8/8/2019 : G:\Mendota_City of-3336\333618013-Water System Master Plan\GIS\Map\WMP Figures\DRAFT\Figure 7-18 Future PHD Pressures.mxd See Table 7.4 for
additional information.

Section Seven: Hydraulic Model and Analysis
Water Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2019 7-27 Table 7-4. Near Term Development Pressure Deficiencies
Near Term Development Pressure Deficiencies
Model
Junction ID
Location Description Pressure (psi)
J-469 Near Prison 34
J-190 Near Prison 34
J-519 Near Prison 34

7.7.3.2 Flow Velocities
Table 7-2, above, shows the maximum allowable flow velocities for each of the demand scenarios analyzed.

The model results show that the existing system, along with pipeline infrastructure to serve the additional development flow velocities in the distribution system exceeding the maximum allowable velocity during PHD. Figure 7-19 show the flow velocity results for PHD. Table 7-5 summarizes the velocity exceedances shown in Figure 7-19. It is worth noting that the same pipes show velocity exceedances during MDD of the near-term development scenario; these are short-term issues that need to be addressed over the next few years, not long-term issues that can be postponed well into the future.

Table 7-5. Near Term Development Velocity Exceedances
Near Term Development Velocity Exceedances
Model
Pipeline ID
Pipe Diameter
(in.)
Pipeline Alignment Description Velocity (ft/sec) Demand Scenario
P-460 8 Intersection of 2nd St. and L St. 5.23/7.54 MDD/PHD P-406 10 Intersection of 2nd St. and Naples St. 5.98/8.45 MDD/PHD P-405 8 Intersection of 2nd St. and Naples St. 6.35/8.70 MDD/PHD

7.7.3.3 Headloss Gradient
Section 7.6.3, above, discussed the maximum allowable headloss gradient for pipelines. The model results for the near-term development show several segments of pipeline within the existing system that exceed the maximum allowable headloss gradient of 0.01 FT/FT. Figure 7-20 shows the headloss gradient results for the PHD. Table 7-6 summarizes the pipeline alignments that violate maximum allowable headloss gradient. [Q
?ü
Aw
P-405
P-406
P-460

GUILLAN PARK

BELMONT
BASS
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 500 1,000
Feet
º
Figure 7-19
Future System Peak
Hour Demand Velocities
Water Master Plan
City of Mendota
Legend
[Q WTP
Flow Velocity
0 - 1 FT/SEC
1 - 3 FT/SEC
3 - 5 FT/SEC
5 - 7 FT/SEC
> 7 FT/SEC
8/8/2019 : G:\Mendota_City of-3336\333618013-Water System Master Plan\GIS\Map\WMP Figures\DRAFT\Figure 7-19 Future PHD Velocities.mxd See Report Table 7.5 for
additional information.
[Q
?ü
Aw
P-364
P-405
P-460
P-75
P-406 P-57
P-264
P-238
P-59
P-402
P-458
P-289
P-258
P-368
P-53
P-54
P-51
P-58
P-404

GUILLAN PARK
BASS

BELMONT
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 500 1,000
Feet
º
Figure 7-20
Future System Peak Hour
Demand Headloss Gradient
Water Master Plan
City of Mendota
Legend
[Q WTP
Headloss Gradient
< 0.001 FT/FT

0.001 - 0.005 FT/FT

0.005 - 0.01 FT/FT
> 0.01 FT/FT
8/8/2019 : G:\Mendota_City of-3336\333618013-Water System Master Plan\GIS\Map\WMP Figures\DRAFT\Figure 7-20 Future PHD Headloss Gradient.mxd See Report Table 7.6 for
additional information.

Section Seven: Hydraulic Model and Analysis
Water Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2019 7-30 Table 7-6. Near Term Development Maximum Allowable Headloss Gradient Exceedances Near Term Development Maximum Allowable Headloss Gradient Exceedances Model
Pipeline ID
Pipe Diameter
(in.)
Pipeline Alignment Description Headloss Gradient
(FT/FT)
Demand
Scenario
P-405 8 Intersection of 2nd St. and Naples St. 0.018/0.032 MDD/PHD P-460 8 Intersection of 2nd St. and L St. 0.013/0.025 MDD/PHD P-75 6 Sorensen Ave between Fleming Ave.
and McCabe Ave.

0.013/0.023 MDD/PHD
P-406 10 Intersection of 2nd St. and Naples St. 0.012/0.024 MDD/PHD P-364 6 Intersection of Divisidero St. and Lolita St. 0.17 PHD P-57 6 Rowe Ave between Fleming Ave.
and McCabe Ave

0.010/0.017 MDD/PHD
P-264 8 In 2nd Street between Naples St. and Oller St. 0.016 PHD P-238 6 Intersection of 8th Street and Belmont Ave. 0.010/0.015 MDD/PHD P-59 6 Rowe Ave between Fleming Ave.
and Black Ave

0.015 PHD
P-402 8 2nd St. between K St. and L St. 0.014 PHD
P-458 6 Belmont Ave. between 8th St. and 9th St. 0.012 PHD P-258 8 Derrick Ave. between Tuft St. and Straw St. 0.011 PHD P-289 8 Intersection of 9th St. and Naples St. 0.011 PHD P-368 10 In 2nd Street between Marie St. and L St. 0.011 PHD P-53 8 In Givens St. between Selzer Ct.
and Gurrola St.

0.011 PHD
P-54 8 In Gurrola St. between Holmes Ave.
and Givens Ct.

0.011 PHD
P-51 8 In Givens St. between Castro St. and Silva Ct. 0.011 PHD P-58 6 In Rowe Ave. between Fleming Ave.
and Black Ave.

0.010 PHD
P-404 8 Intersection of 2nd St. and Naples St. 0.010 PHD

7.7.4 Future System Fire Flow Scenario
Fire flow analysis was performed on the future system to account for near-term development. The results for the near term were similar to the existing system fire flow analysis discussed above. Figure 7-21 shows the overall fire flow results along with the areas identified as deficient.

Section Seven: Hydraulic Model and Analysis
Water Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2019 7-31

7.8 Future System Improvements
As discussed previously, the anticipated development in the near-term future triggers deficiencies in the system. The hydraulic deficiencies should be remedied before additional development takes place to ensure adequate water service to throughout the City. Due to the configuration of the existing system, with the sole water distribution source being at the northern end of the system, and with much of the anticipated development taking place in the southwest portion of the system, a new distribution source is recommended to help rectify the deficiencies identified. A water storage tank and a booster pump system located near the intersection of Belmont Ave and Gregg Court is recommended to correct the deficiencies noted previously.

Figure 7-22 through Figure 7-25 show the model results if a tank and booster pump station are constructed at Belmont Avenue and Gregg Court. Pressure and velocity deficiencies during the PHD are remedied. The analysis shows several headloss gradient exceedances with the new tank and booster pump station. Table 7-7 summarizes the headloss gradient exceedances identified due to the tank and booster pump station addition.

Table 7-7. Maximum Allowable Headloss Gradient Exceedances Maximum Allowable Headloss Gradient Exceedances
Model
Pipeline ID
Pipe Diameter
(in.)
Pipeline Alignment Description Headloss Gradient
(FT/FT)
Demand
Scenario
P-460 8 Intersection of 2nd St. and L St. 0.017 PHD
P-406 10 Intersection of 2nd St. and Naples St. 0.012 PHD P-402 8 2nd St. between K St. and L St. 0.011 PHD
[Q
?ü
Aw

GUILLAN PARK

BELMONT
BASS
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 500 1,000
Feet
º
Figure 7-21
Future System Fire Flow
Analysis
Water Master Plan
City of Mendota
Legend
[Q WTP
Existing Pipes
Available Fire Flow
< 1,000 GPM
≥ 1,000 GPM
8/8/2019 : G:\Mendota_City of-3336\333618013-Water System Master Plan\GIS\Map\WMP Figures\DRAFT\Figure 7-21 Future System Fire Flow Analysis.mxd )!
[Q
?ü
Aw

GUILLAN PARK

BELMONT
BASS
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 500 1,000
Feet
º
Figure 7-22
Future System Peak Hour Demand
Pressures with Tank and Pump
Water Master Plan
City of Mendota
Legend
Existing Pipes
[Q WTP
)! Tank and Booster Pump
Pressure
< 20 PSI
20 - 30 PSI
30 - 40 PSI
40 - 50 PSI
50 - 60 PSI
60 - 70 PSI
70 - 80 PSI
> 80 PSI
8/8/2019 : \\ppeng.com\pzdata\clients\Mendota_City of-3336\333618013-Water System Master Plan\GIS\Map\WMP Figures\DRAFT\Figure 7-22 Future PHD Pressures With Tank and Pump.mxd )!
[Q
?ü
Aw

GUILLAN PARK

BELMONT
BASS
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 500 1,000
Feet
º
Figure 7-23
Future System Peak Hour Demand
Velocities with Tank and Pump
Water Master Plan
City of Mendota
Legend
[Q WTP
)! Tank and Booster Pump
Flow Velocity
0 - 1 FT/SEC
1 - 3 FT/SEC
3 - 5 FT/SEC
5 - 7 FT/SEC
> 7 FT/SEC
8/8/2019 : G:\Mendota_City of-3336\333618013-Water System Master Plan\GIS\Map\WMP Figures\DRAFT\Figure 7-23 Future PHD Velocities With Tank and Pump.mxd )!
[Q
?ü
Aw
P-460
P-406
P-402

GUILLAN PARK

BELMONT
BASS
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 500 1,000
Feet
º
Figure 7-24
Future System Peak Hour Demand
Headloss Gradient with Tank and Pump
Water Master Plan
City of Mendota
Legend
[Q WTP
)! Tank and Booster Pump
Headloss Gradient
< 0.001 FT/FT

0.001 - 0.005 FT/FT

0.005 - 0.01 FT/FT
> 0.01 FT/FT
8/8/2019 : G:\Mendota_City of-3336\333618013-Water System Master Plan\GIS\Map\WMP Figures\DRAFT\Figure 7-24 Future PHD Headloss With Tank and Pump.mxd See ReportTable 7.7 for
additional information.
[Q
)!
?ü
Aw

GUILLAN PARK

BELMONT
BASS
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 500 1,000
Feet
º
Figure 7-25
Future System Fire Flow
Analysis with Tank and Pump
Water Master Plan
City of Mendota
Legend
[Q WTP
)! Tank and Booster Pump
Existing Pipes
Available Fire Flow
< 1,000 GPM
≥ 1,000 GPM
8/8/2019 : G:\Mendota_City of-3336\333618013-Water System Master Plan\GIS\Map\WMP Figures\DRAFT\Figure 7-25 Future Fire Flow Analysis.mxd Section Eight: Capital Improvements
Water Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2019 8-1 8 Capital Improvements
As the City embarks on urbanization in growth areas beyond the current city limit it will trigger a need to expand the existing water distribution system. Water demands will require the City to construct additional infrastructure to deliver water supplies to the growth areas. The purpose of this chapter is to develop a capital improvements program (CIP) which the City can use a road map for the expansion of its water distribution system.

This section provides an overview of the primary components associated with the proposed CIP. Major components include 1) cost assumptions, 2) cost components, 3) buildout conditions, and 4) phasing.

8.1 Assumptions and Limitations
A number of assumptions were made in development of this section of the Water Master Plan. Should any of these assumptions be modified or turn out to be incorrect, recommendations contained herein may need to be updated as well. Given that most of the proposed facilities will be installed by and are triggered by new development, the City should revisit this plan and update this plan when conditions vary from those stated herein. Below is a list of assumption instrumental in development of this section. • Facilities sizing are influenced by land uses from the land uses shown in Figure 2-2. • Unit costs are consistent with a Class 3/4 designation as defined by the American Association of Cost Engineers and are appropriate for feasibility studies and master plan level work. • Capital projects only include infrastructure associated with the “backbone” of the water distribution system and as such other local improvements may be necessary for connecting to this system. • Land acquisition cost was excluded from unit cost values and as such should be incorporated into project level budgets as needed, unless noted otherwise. It’s worth noting that land value varies widely based on land use in the area, but given that a large portion of land in the future development area is agricultural land, the value is assumed to be representative for planning purposes. • Sub-mains and local piping necessary for connecting to the “backbone” of the water system are the responsibility of developers of projects that will utilize this resource. • Lengths are based on data obtained from hydraulic modeling software. • Costs include construction contingency of thirty percent (30%) and eighteen percent (18%) for engineering, survey, and project administration.

8.1.1 Capital Costs
A budget level estimate of the various costs associated with the conveyance of potable water supplies is presented in detail below. Although the potable water costs presented below include the capital construction costs, there will also be annual costs associated with the operation and maintenance of those facilities.

Section Eight: Capital Improvements
Water Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2019 8-2 Order-of-magnitude unit cost estimates were developed for pipelines, storage reservoirs, wells, and booster pump stations for 2016 conditions. Infrastructure cost estimates also include contingencies of twenty percent (20%) construction contingency for pipeline projects and thirty percent (30%) construction contingency for all other facilities and eighteen percent (18%) engineering, survey, and administration factors applied to unit costs.

Table 8-1 presents a summary of probable construction costs for major water infrastructure.

The cost estimates presented in this study are developed from cost curves, vendors, information obtained from previous studies, and recent project experience. The costs should be considered order-of-magnitude and have an expected accuracy range of +30 percent to -20 percent as defined by the American Association of Cost Engineers (AACE).

The cost estimates have been prepared for guidance in project evaluation and implementation from the information available at the time of the estimate. As constructed, final costs of the project will depend on actual labor and material costs, competitive market conditions, specific details of recommended modifications, final project scope, implementation schedule, and other variable factors. As a result, the final capital and operating project costs will vary from the estimates presented. Therefore, project feasibility and funding needs must be reviewed carefully prior to specific financial decisions to help ensure proper project evaluation and adequate funding.

8.1.2 Cost Components

8.1.2.1 Wells
Cost components for constructing new groundwater wells include test well construction, well development, furnishing and installation of controls and site work. Property acquisition costs were excluded because of the high level of variability of cost of property acquisition; some well sites do not necessitate property acquisition for a variety of reasons.

8.1.2.2 Pipelines
Construction cost for pipelines includes furnishing and installation of key components and activities necessary for a fully operational facility. Major components and activities include Class 235 (C-900) pressure pipe, valves, minor utility interference, and minor street resurfacing when connecting to the existing system. Easement costs were excluded because it was assumed construction activity occurs within existing rights-of-way for Mendota.

Since most of the water system is in future growth areas, street resurfacing was also assumed minimal because existing roadways in rural areas would be improved as part of the development work. Pipeline unit costs range from a low of one hundred dollars ($100) per linear foot (LF) for a ten (10) inch diameter pipeline up to one hundred twenty dollars ($120) per LF for a twelve (12) inch diameter pipeline.

8.1.2.3 Water Treatment Facilities
The existing WTP has a capacity of approximately 4.3 MGD. An expansion of the WTP would entail construction of new tanks, drying beds, a filtration system, new supply wells, new raw water pipeline capacity, and distribution system improvements. Land acquisition is not anticipated since property adjacent to the existing WTP is developed or in the process of being developed. Due to challenges related to expanding the existing WTP, it seems more practical to construct new WTPs. Additional WTPs, whether a single centralized Section Eight: Capital Improvements
Water Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2019 8-3 WTP or several decentralized WTPs, may be required to support future development with the SOI. Unit cost for this type of facility was based on a value of $1.50 per gpm.

8.1.2.4 Raw Water Facilities
The existing Water Treatment Plant (WTP) is supplied with ground water through manifold piping in Bass Avenue and out in the existing well field. A raw water pipeline ranging from 18-inch to 20-inch connects existing River Wells to the existing WTP. The existing raw water pipeline is nearing its capacity limit. It is not anticipated that the existing raw water line will be improved, but rather additional raw water lines may be required to supply future water treatment plants. Pipeline unit costs range from a low of one hundred dollars ($100) per linear foot (LF) for a ten (10) inch diameter pipeline up to three hundred ninety-two dollars ($392) per LF for a fortyeight (48) inch diameter pipeline

8.1.2.5 Booster Pump Station
Utilizing cost data from past projects along with estimates from recent bids, a preliminary opinion of probable cost was developed for a booster pump station. Unit cost for this type of facility was based on a value of $150 per gpm. The master planned infrastructure maps show one (1) booster pump station, at the proposed water storage tank.

8.1.2.6 Water Storage Tank
The costs for constructing water storage facilities was generated from past similar projects. The total cost for this type of project is based on a 200,000-gallon tank at $2.00 per gallon, including the site improvements and property acquisition. The lump sum cost including contingency and design is approximately $400,000. A single reservoir is planned in this CIP.

8.2 Capital Projects

8.2.1 Near Term Capital Projects
There are two main areas that are considered for the proposed potable water distribution system expansion in the near term including near the intersection of Derrick and Belmont Avenues in the southwest portion of the City and along Bass Avenue in the northern portion of the City.

The backbone infrastructure necessary for conveying potable water to these areas is shown in Figure 8-1. The total cost of the proposed water system improvements is approximately $1.3 million dollars. Table 8-1 shows the anticipated distribution of capital costs and cumulative length of pipe within each area associated with these facilities as well as the total capital cost for the potential infrastructure.

8.2.2 Long Term Capital Projects
Long term capital projects will be dependent on how the City continues to develop over time. If the City does continue to expand towards its SOI boundary, it’s imperative that it continues to construct additional supply, treatment, distribution, and storage facilities. Given large uncertainty of exactly how and when the City will develop over time, it is difficult to put together a capital improvement plan for the buildout of the SOI.

Section Eight: Capital Improvements
Water Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2019 8-4 Conceptually, it’s anticipated that the City will need a well looped grid like water distribution system comprised of mainly 12-inch (minimum) distribution mains. Alignments of these pipelines are yet to be determined since much of the SOI lies in existing farmland where City right-of-way does not exist. In addition to the 12-inch, larger diameter pipelines may be required around treatment and storage facilities to efficiently move water out to the distribution systems. The City will have to determine how it’s going to acquire the additional source capacity, whether via groundwater extraction or other means, that will be required to support development out to the SOI boundary.

8.3 Permitting Issues

8.3.1 Caltrans
A portion of CIP P-3 (see Figure 8-1 below), will lie within the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 6 ROW. As currently envisioned, CIP P-3 will connect to the existing main which is located within State Route (SR) 33 (Derrick Ave.). The City has existing water distribution system infrastructure that runs in SR 33 and some that crosses SR 180 (Oller Ave.). Accordingly, the City has experience with the Caltrans permitting process. It is anticipated that the Caltrans permitting process will be similar to what has been done in the past on other projects within the Caltrans ROW.

8.3.2 County Encroachment
CIPs P-2, T-1, and PS-1 will likely need an encroachment permit from the County of Fresno. This will depend on exactly where these projects are constructed. This assumes the projects, or portions thereof, will encroach in a County ROW, specifically County Road J1 (Belmont Ave.). It is anticipated that the permitting process with the County would be similar to the effort needed for obtaining Caltrans encroachment permits. [Q
)!

WHITESBRIDGE

BELMONT
P-1
P-2
PS-1
T-1 P-3
BASS
?üE
AwH
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 500 1,000
Feet
º
Figure 8-1
Capital Improvements
Projects
Water Master Plan
City of Mendota
Legend
)! Proposed Tank and Booster Pump
[Q Existing WTP
Proposed 12-Inch
Existing Pipes
10/29/2019 : G:\Mendota_City of-3336\333618013-Water System Master Plan\GIS\Map\WMP Figures\DRAFT\Figure 8-1 - Capital Improvement Projects.mxd Section Eight: Capital Improvements
Water Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2019 8-6 Table 8-1. Near Term Capital Improvement Projects
Item No. Description Alignment Limits Status Recommended Improvement Cost
Pipeline Improvements
Length (LF)
P-1 12" Water Main in Amador Ave Amador Ave Oxnard Ave to Belmont Ave New 2,800 $340,000 P-2 12" Water Main in Belmont Ave Belmont Ave Amador Ave to Gregg Ave New 1,300 $160,000 P-3 12” Water Main in Belmont Ave Belmont Ave Derrick Ave (SR 33) to the west 180 feet New 180 $22,000
Subtotal, Pipe Cost: $522,000
Tank Improvements
Volume (gallons)
T-1
Storage Tank Near Intersection
of Belmont Ave and Amador
Ave
New 200,000 $400,000
Pump Station Improvements Firm Capacity
(gpm)
PS-1 2,000 GPM Pump Station New 2,000 $300,000
Water Source Improvements Capacity (gpm)
W-1 River Well New 1,000 $3,000,000
Near Term Total $4,222,000
Note:

3. Minimum to support Westlands subdivision would be tank, pump station, Belmont and Amador water lines.

4. These could be phased, depending upon where the subdivision construction began.

Section Nine: Public Benefit Versus Development Charges Water Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2019 9-1 9 Public Benefit Versus Development
Charges
Many of the projects identified in this report will be required only as the City grows and will benefit only the growth areas. As a result, the cost of those projects should rightly be borne completely by the new water users. That can be accomplished by having the improvements constructed by developers as construction progresses, or by imposition of Development Impact Fees designed to capture the funds required for the City to construct the projects as they are needed. Calculation of the necessary Development Impact Fees is beyond the scope of this report but will be addressed in a separate Development Impact Fee Study prepared by the City.

Other projects will have a mixed benefit, in that they will allow for some new development but will also address deficiencies in current infrastructure. To the extent that these projects benefit current users, the costs must be borne by current users and cannot be pushed off onto development. The Development Impact Fee study will also consider this split of benefits for the recommended projects.

Exhibit B
7 City of Mendota
Wastewater Master Plan
Mendota, CA
March 2021
Prepared for:

City of Mendota
Mendota, CA
Prepared by:

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
286 W. Cromwell Ave. Fresno, CA 93711
City of Mendota
Wastewater Master Plan
Collection, Treatment and Disposal
March 2021
Prepared for:

City of Mendota
Prepared by:

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
286 W Cromwell Ave, Fresno, CA 93711
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • March 2021
Report Prepared for:

City of Mendota
643 Quince Street
Mendota, CA 93640
Contact:

Cristian Gonzalez, City Manager
(559) 655-4298
[email protected]
Report Prepared by:

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
David McGlasson, PE, PLS, Project Engineer
Matt Barnes, PE, Project Engineer
Michael Osborn, PE
Daniel Munn, PE
Kimberly Sobin, EIT
Cheryl Hunter, GIS
Contact:

Michael Osborn
559-449-2700
[email protected]
COPYRIGHT 2021 by PROVOST & PRITCHARD CONSULTING GROUP

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group expressly reserves its common law copyright and other applicable property rights to this document. This document is not to be reproduced, changed, or copied in any form or manner whatsoever, nor are they to be assigned to a third party without first obtaining the written permission and consent of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group In the event of unauthorized reuse of the information contained herein by a third party, the third party shall hold the firm of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group harmless, and shall bear the cost of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group's legal fees associated with defending and enforcing these rights.
04/15/2020 04/15/2020
City of Mendota
Wastewater Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • March 2021 i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary............................................................................................................................................................ 1 1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Purpose and Goals......................................................................................................................................1-1 2 Design Criteria........................................................................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Wastewater Generation Criteria................................................................................................................2-1

2.1.1 Residential Wastewater Generation for Future Development ..............................................2-1

2.1.2 Existing Wastewater Generation................................................................................................2-2

2.1.3 Future Wastewater Generation...................................................................................................2-2

2.2 Pipe Design Criteria....................................................................................................................................2-3 3 Collection Facilities................................................................................................................................................3-1

3.1 Overview.......................................................................................................................................................3-1

3.2 Existing Facilities.........................................................................................................................................3-1

3.3 Proposed Collection Zone 1 .....................................................................................................................3-1

3.3.1 Land Uses and Sewage Generation............................................................................................3-1

3.3.2 Collection Facilities.......................................................................................................................3-3

3.3.3 Necessary Projects........................................................................................................................3-3

3.3.4 Summary of Costs.........................................................................................................................3-3

3.4 Collection Zone 2........................................................................................................................................3-4

3.4.1 Land Uses and Sewage Generation............................................................................................3-4

3.4.2 Collection Facilities.......................................................................................................................3-4

3.4.3 Necessary Projects........................................................................................................................3-4

3.4.4 Summary of Costs.........................................................................................................................3-6

3.5 Collection Zone 3........................................................................................................................................3-6

3.5.1 Land Uses and Sewage Generation............................................................................................3-6

3.5.2 Collection Facilities.......................................................................................................................3-8

3.5.3 Necessary Projects........................................................................................................................3-8

3.5.4 Summary of Costs.........................................................................................................................3-8 4 Treatment Facilities and Effluent Disposal.......................................................................................................4-9

4.1 Treatment Process and Capacity...............................................................................................................4-9

4.2 Potential Biological and Hydraulic Capacity at Current Treatment Level ...................................... 4-10

4.3 Potential Disposal Capacity of Current Footprint.............................................................................. 4-11

4.4 Water Treatment Quality and Future Needs....................................................................................... 4-11 City of Mendota
Wastewater Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • March 2021 ii
5 Effluent Disposal Alternatives.............................................................................................................................5-1

5.1 Alternative 1 – On-Site Expansions.........................................................................................................5-1

5.2 Alternative 2 – Additional Evaporation on Surrounding Lands .........................................................5-2

5.3 Alternative 3 – Secondary Effluent to Contract Farmers.....................................................................5-4

5.4 Alternative 4 – Secondary Effluent to Farms on City Lands...............................................................5-5

5.5 Alternative 5 – Tertiary Effluent to Contract Farmers.........................................................................5-6

5.6 Alternative 6 – Tertiary Effluent to the Fresno Slough........................................................................5-8

5.7 Selection of Preferred Disposal Alternative............................................................................................5-9

5.7.1 Primary Options............................................................................................................................5-9

5.7.2 Secondary Options .................................................................................................................... 5-10 6 Public Benefit Versus Development Requirements.........................................................................................6-1 7 Environmental and Permitting ............................................................................................................................7-1 Appendix.............................................................................................................................................................................. 1 City of Mendota
Wastewater Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • March 2021 iii
List of Figures
Figure ES-1. Proposed Land Use..................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure ES-2. Collection Zones ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3-1. Existing Wastewater Collection Infrastructure.......................................................................................3-2 Figure 3-2. Collection Figure 1 ......................................................................................................................................3-2 Figure 3-3. Collection Zone 2........................................................................................................................................3-5 Figure 3-4. Collection Zone 3........................................................................................................................................3-7 Figure 4-1. Mendota Wastewater Treatment Facility.............................................................................................. 4-13 Figure 4-2. Flow Schematic......................................................................................................................................... 4-14 Figure 5-1. Possible Open/Idle Land...........................................................................................................................5-3 List of Tables
Table 2-1. City of Mendota Wastewater Generation Criteria ...................................................................................2-1 Table 2-2. Average Daily Flows for Residential Land Uses......................................................................................2-1 Table 2-3. Proposed SOI Buildout Wastewater Generation Estimate....................................................................2-2 Table 2-4. Minimum Sewer Pipe Slopes.......................................................................................................................2-3 Table 3-1. Summary of East Mendota Pipeline Replacement Costs.......................................................................3-1 Table 3-2. Collection Zone 1 .........................................................................................................................................3-3 Table 3-3. Summary of Wastewater Collection System Costs Collection Zone 1 ................................................3-3 Table 3-4. Collection Zone 2 .........................................................................................................................................3-4 Table 3-5. Summary of Wastewater Collection System Costs Collection Zone 2 ................................................3-6 Table 3-6. Collection Zone 3 .........................................................................................................................................3-8 Table 3-7. Summary of Wastewater Collection System Costs Collection Zone 3 ................................................3-8 Table 5-1. Alternative 1 Summary of Costs.................................................................................................................5-2 Table 5-2. Alternative 2 Summary of Costs.................................................................................................................5-4 Table 5-3. Alternative 3 Summary of Costs.................................................................................................................5-5 Table 5-4. Alternative 4 Summary of Costs.................................................................................................................5-6 Table 5-5. Alternative 5 Summary of Costs.................................................................................................................5-8 Table 6-1. Summary of Cost to Implement Recommended Infrastructure Upgrades........................................6-2 City of Mendota
Wastewater Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • March 2021 iv
Abbreviations
AWMC............................................................................................................ Agricultural Water Management Council CVP...................................................................................................................................................Central Valley Project WWTP..................................................................................................................................Wastewater Treatment Plant City .............................................................................................................................................................City of Mendota MGD............................................................................................................................................Million Gallons Per Day BOD...................................................................................................................................Biochemical Oxygen Demand TSS .................................................................................................................................................Total Suspended Solids EC......................................................................................................................................................... Electroconductivity DO ..........................................................................................................................................................Dissolved Oxygen TOC........................................................................................................................................................Table of Contents WWMP.........................................................................................................................................Wastewater Master Plan ADF .....................................................................................................................................................Average Daily Flow PHF............................................................................................................................................................Peak Hour Flow MFR ......................................................................................................................................... Multiple Family Residence SFR................................................................................................................................................Single Family Residence RCP........................................................................................................................................... Reinforced Concrete Pipe AC.............................................................................................................................................................Asphalt Concrete PVC...........................................................................................................................................................Polyvinylchloride SDR.......................................................................................................................................... Standard Dimension Ratio Lf ..........................................................................................................................................................................Lineal Feet Cfs ...................................................................................................................................................Cubic Feet Per Second City of Mendota
Mendota Wastewater Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • March 2021 ES-1
Executive Summary
On August 11, 2009 the City of Mendota (City) adopted a General Plan Update for the years 2005-2025 to outline the framework for planning the future of the City. To keep up with the projected City growth outlined in the General Plan the wastewater collection infrastructure must also develop. The primary focus of the City’s Wastewater Master Plan (WWMP) is to outline strategies to adequately convey and treat the City’s existing and future wastewater flows. This encompasses the maintenance of collection and conveyance infrastructure, the construction of new collection and conveyance infrastructure, and the expansion of the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). This WWMP will outline the future upgrades that are needed to address aging infrastructure and population growth within the City as outlined in the Mendota General Plan update. The future areas of development outlined in the General Plan update are shown in Figure ES-1 below.

The analyses performed in this WWMP were done in compliance with the City of Mendota’s Sewer Design Criteria (Appendix A). P&P utilized Autodesk’s Storm and Sanitary Analysis (SSA) software to create multiple hydraulic modeling scenarios in order to either demonstrate compliance with City’s Sewer Design Criteria or identify areas of need.

The City’s sanitary sewer collection system services the entire City with three (3) Collection Zones that funnel into two (2) primary trunk lines.

The first trunk line, known as the Southside Sewer Interceptor, originates at the prison, southwest of town as a 21” pipe and runs approximately ½-mile east before increasing in size to a 30” pipe and turning north for 2/3 -mile; from this location the line turns northeast and crosses State Route 180, and runs within Belmont Avenue, continuing north to the wastewater treatment plant located northeast of the City. The majority of the sewage in the Southside Sewer Interceptor is from the prison; few other service connections exist on this line.

The second trunk line, known as the Westside Sewer Interceptor, originates as a 24” pipe near the intersection of Castro Street and what was intended to be a roadway along the McKinley Avenue alignment north of the Las Palmas subdivision. This line runs east to where it merges with the Las Palmas sewer at the north east corner of the Las Palmas Storm Drainage basin and then heads northeasterly across the railroad tracks and State Route 33, continuing northeasterly in Bass Avenue to a location just north of H Street where sewage from the majority of the City enters the pipe. From there, the pipe increases to a 30-inch pipe and continues ½-mile in Bass Avenue to the abandoned Bass Avenue Lift Station where the line turns, flows east under the San Luis Drain and continues parallel to and on the east side of the San Luis Drain until it merges with the Southside Sewer Interceptor and discharges into the WWTP.

With relatively minor modifications and additions, the existing wastewater treatment facility has capacity to adequately treat the future anticipated wastewater flows. Upgrades to the existing effluent disposal methods will be needed to accommodate additional users and disposal alternatives are explored in Chapter 5 of this report.

Future sanitary sewer collection and wastewater treatment plant infrastructure needs were determined in accordance with calculations based on the Wastewater Generation Criteria established for this plan and provided in Table 2-1. An additional three (3) Collection Zones have been identified to address full development of the City’s 2025 General Plan. These Collection Zones all discharge to the existing trunk lines and can be viewed in Figure ES-2; Section 3 of this report covers recommended sanitary sewer collection infrastructure.

CALIFORNIA

PANOCHE
OHIO

SAN BENITO

WHITESBRIDGE

BELMONT

MCKINLEY
Aw
?ü
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
º
Figure ES-1
Proposed Land Use
Wastewater Master Plan
City of Mendota
General Plan Land Use
General Commercial
Community Commercial
Light Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Public/Quasi-Public Facility
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Medium-High Density Residential
High Density Residential
Recreational
Multi-Use/Open Space
3/11/2021 : G:\Mendota_City of-3336\333618012-Wastewater Treatment Master Plan\GIS\Map\Proposed Land Use.mxd Existing City Limits

CALIFORNIA

PANOCHE
OHIO

SAN BENITO

WHITESBRIDGE

BELMONT

MCKINLEY
Aw
?ü
Collection
Zone 3
Collection
Zone 1
Collection
Zone 2
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
º
Figure ES-2
Collection Zones
Wastewater Master Plan
City of Mendota
General Plan Land Use
General Commercial
Community Commercial
Light Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Public/Quasi-Public Facility
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Medium-High Density Residential
High Density Residential
Recreational
Multi-Use/Open Space
3/11/2021 : G:\Mendota_City of-3336\333618012-Wastewater Treatment Master Plan\GIS\Map\ProposedCollectionZones.mxd Proposed Collection Zones
Existing City Limits
Section 1: Introduction
Mendota Wastewater Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • March 2021 1-1
1 Introduction
The City of Mendota is a General Law City in western Fresno County, located at the intersection of State Routes 33 and 180, south of the San Joaquin River. Its population in the 2010 census was approximately 11,400 persons. The City provides a full range of public services including police protection, fire protection (via contract with Fresno County Fire Department), water, storm drainage, solid waste collection (via a franchise agreement with a private waste hauler), recreation, and the subject of this report, wastewater collection, treatment and disposal.

The City operates a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) located northeast of the City along the west bank of the Fresno Slough. The WWTP provides secondary treatment with no disinfection of effluent, which is common to many of the small cities in the San Joaquin Valley.

Wastewater is collected in a network of gravity sewers, which converge at the influent lift station at the WWTP. After treatment, effluent is disposed into a series of earthen lagoons. Effluent is allowed to evaporate and percolate. Because of very limited soil permeability and a shallow perched groundwater aquifer less than 10 percent of effluent actually percolates, while the balance evaporates. The relatively large size of the earthen lagoons allows for water to be stored over winter when evaporation rates are reduced. The storage space is recovered when evaporation increases during the summer months. There is currently no discharge of effluent to any location outside the WWTP site.

This Wastewater Master Plan (WWMP) was prepared to provide City with information needed to plan the improvements and financing needed to keep the City’s wastewater collection, treatment and disposal facilities updated for reliable service and to provide adequate system capacity to support the City’s growing population.

The WWMP includes a review of the three major components of the system: collection, treatment and effluent disposal.

1.1 Purpose and Goals
The purpose of the WWMP is to evaluate various aspects of the sewer collection, treatment, and disposal systems, including the following:
• Evaluate the existing sewer collection system and identify locations where capacity is insufficient to support current or anticipated future sewer flows; and
• Evaluate the configuration and performance of the wastewater treatment plant, to project available treatment capacity and plan for capacity increases. Also, to evaluate the feasibility of increasing treatment level to broaden the range of available effluent disposal alternatives; and • Evaluate the capacity of the current evaporative effluent disposal system. Develop short- and longterm capacity improvement alternatives; and • Identify environmental and regulatory hurdles to project implementation.

The City has adopted a General Plan with a proposed sphere of influence (SOI) boundary which is anticipated to reach buildout over the course of many years. Planning infrastructure over a long period of years is challenging given the large number of uncertainties that can come into play over time. Given the uncertainties associated with long-term infrastructure planning, where appropriate, this WWMP will provide insights into the impacts of the buildout of the General Plan proposed SOI, but the focus of the analysis and the associated recommendations will be geared towards development impacts expected to occur through a report horizon of 2040.

Section 2: Design Criteria
Mendota Wastewater Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • March 2021 2-1
2 Design Criteria
The analyses performed as part of this WWMP were largely based on the City’s Design Criteria and supplemented with additional assumptions based on standard industry practices. Below is a summary of the design criteria and assumptions made for this study.

2.1 Wastewater Generation Criteria
The City of Mendota has set standards for residential sewage generation based the age of each home.

Commercial and Industrial sewage generation is more subjective. Table 2-1 summarizes the design criteria for sewage generation used for this WWMP. An additional breakdown of residential generation rates is provided in the following section.

Table 2-1. City of Mendota Wastewater Generation Criteria City of Mendota Wastewater Generation Criteria
Residential built prior to 2013 85 gallons/person/day
Residential built 2013 or later 60 gallons/person/day
Commercial 2,320 gallons/acre
Light Industrial 2,320 gallons/acre
Heavy Industrial 4,850 gallons/acre
Public Schools / Facilities 25 gallons/student/day
Additionally, the City does not have established peaking factors for wastewater generation. In an effort to provide an adequately conservative analysis for this report, P&P assumed a peak-hour factor of 2.0 for industrial land use areas and 1.8 for all other land uses.

2.1.1 Residential Wastewater Generation for Future Development There are four residential land use categories identified in the Mendota General Plan Update: Low Density Residential; Medium Density Residential; Medium-High Density Residential and High Density Residential.

Although there are several existing regions of the City that are High Density Residential, there is no High Density Residential planned land use in the General Plan Update, and so that land use was not considered for the purpose of calculating proposed flows in this study. A breakdown of the three remaining categories used for this study is shown in the table below. Average capita per dwelling unit and average daily flow per capita values were taken from the City’s Sanitary Sewage Design Criteria, see Appendix.

Table 2-2. Average Daily Flows for Residential Land Uses Average Daily Flows for Residential Land Uses
Land Use General Plan
DU/acre
Masterplan
DU/acre
Avg Capita /
DU
ADF / Capita
(gpd / capita)
ADF / acre
(gpd/ac)
Low Density Residential 1.0 – 3.5 3.5 4.4 60 924
Medium Density
Residential 3.6 – 6.0 5.25 4.4 60 1,386
Medium-High Density
Residential 6.1 – 11.0 11.0 3.3 60 2,178
Section 2: Design Criteria
Mendota Wastewater Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • March 2021 2-2

2.1.2 Existing Wastewater Generation
In 2018 the average dry-weather flows through the WWTP were about 1.1 million gallons per day (MGD).

Wastewater flows are slowly increasing at a rate of about one percent per year as new residential developments are constructed within the City. The rate of housing construction has been consistent for the last three years and is expected to sustain at least through 2021. However, the growth rate in Mendota has been particularly sensitive to available mortgage rates, and any increase may depress housing demand.

The majority of the existing City wastewater collection connects to the existing Westside Interceptor in just a few locations; for this reason, as well as that there are no known locations of sanitary sewer back-ups and flooding, these connection points were modeled by adding nodes along the trunk line with equivalent flow values to what is anticipated in the system. The equivalent flow values from the existing portions of the City were determined based on area-weighted-averages of the existing flows and land uses, and then applied to their respective “tie in” nodes.

2.1.3 Future Wastewater Generation
Applying the generation factors above to the total areas of each land use type within the proposed Sphere of Influence shown in the General Plan update (less land that is designated as “Open Space Buffer”) gives the best available estimate of the quantity of wastewater the City will need to plan for at the time of that buildout.

Table 2-3. Proposed SOI Buildout Wastewater Generation Estimate Proposed SOI Buildout Wastewater Generation Estimate
Land Use Area (acres) Estimated Wastewater Generation
(gpd)
Community Commercial 179 415,280
General Commercial 68 157,760
High Density Residential 51 111,078
Heavy Industrial 481 2,332,850
Low Density Residential 883 815,892
Light Industrial 1,108 2,570,560
Medium Density Residential 1,002 1,388,772
Medium-High Density Residential 205 446,490
Multi-Use/Open Space* 125 2,500
Public/Quasi Public Facility 1,872 62,500
Recreational 67 70,000
Total 6,041 8,373,682
* Open Space Buffer is not intended to contribute to wastewater generation and is therefore not included However, this level of development will not be reached over any reasonable planning horizon. If the City maintains its the 1.5 percent growth rate that it has seen over the last decade, this level of development would represent over 100 years of growth, which cannot be planned for at this time. Twenty years is a more reasonable planning horizon, and so this report is based on planning facilities to accommodate the demands that will be present in 2040 after steady 1.5 percent linear growth throughout the coming 20 years, without Section 2: Design Criteria
Mendota Wastewater Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • March 2021 2-3
regard of types and ratios of land uses. From the current 1.12 mgd average daily flow at the WWTF, the future WWTF flow in 2040 would then be 1.50 mgd.

2.2 Pipe Design Criteria
Pipe slope requirements are defined by the diameter of the pipe and the depth of flow in the pipe, with the objective of reaching a minimum velocity of 2.0 feet/second in the pipe at peak daily flow, to ensure pipe cleansing. The velocity requirement is measured at 50% or 100% full. If the line being designed will never reach 50% flow even at the daily peak, then the slope must be adjusted to achieve a minimum of 2.0 feet/second velocity at the actual depth/diameter ratio that will be achieved.

Pipes flowing more than 75% full in the model were increased to the next standard nominal size.

Table 2-4. Minimum Sewer Pipe Slopes
Minimum Sewer Pipe Slopes (ft/ft)
Pipe Diameter n = 0.011 n = 0.013
6-inch 0.0034 0.0047
8-inch 0.0025 0.0034
10-inch 0.0018 0.0025
12-inch 0.0014 0.0019
15-inch 0.0010 0.0015
18-inch 0.0008 0.0011
21-inch 0.0007 0.00095
24-inch 0.00055 0.00075
Section 4: Effluent Disposal
Mendota Wastewater Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • March 2021 3-1
3 Collection Facilities

3.1 Overview
The City is anticipated to grow in all directions around the existing City limits. The growth is expected to extend south of the City to Panoche Road, east to the Fresno Slough, and about a mile west along Belmont Avenue. Growth to the north will fill in gaps but not extend north of the Firebaugh Canal District Intake Canal. This Master Plan includes designations for seven different types of land use. These include Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Medium-High Density Residential, Community Commercial, General Commercial, Heavy Industrial, Light Industrial, and Public/Quasi-Public and Recreational.

The City’s sanitary sewer collection system services the entire City with three (3) Collection Zones that funnel into two (2) primary trunk lines. The first, known as the Southside Sewer Interceptor, originates at the prison, southwest of town as a 21-inch pipe and runs approximately ½-mile east before increasing in size to a 30-inch pipe and turning north for 2/3 -mile; from this location the line turns northeast and crosses State Route 180 and runs within Belmont Avenue, continuing north to the wastewater treatment plant located northeast of the City. The majority of the sewage in the Southside Sewer Interceptor is from the prison; few other service connections exist on this line.

The second trunk line, known as the Westside Sewer Interceptor, originates as a 24-inch pipe near the intersection of Castro Street and what was intended to be a street along the McKinley Avenue alignment north of the Las Palmas subdivision. This line runs east to where it merges with the Las Palmas sewer at the northeast corner of the Las Palmas Storm Drainage basin and then heads northeasterly across the railroad tracks and State Route 33, continuing northeasterly in Bass Avenue to a location just north of H Street where sewage from the majority of the City enters the pipe. From there, the pipe size increases to 30-inch and continues ½-mile in Bass Avenue to the abandoned Bass Avenue Lift Station where the line turns and continues east under the San Luis Drain, then continues parallel to and on the east side of the San Luis Drain until it merges with the Southside Sewer Interceptor and discharges into the main lift station at the WWTP.

The following sections look at the conditions of the existing facilities overall, and then at the specifics of individual Collection Zones within the City. Recommendations for remedial and additional facilities, together with estimated capital costs, are included.

3.2 Existing Facilities
There are no known sewer capacity deficiencies in the collection system at the time of preparation of this report. However, it appears that all of the sewer lines in east Mendota that were installed in the mid-1970’s as part of a federally funded Fresno County project (prior to annexation into the City) were constructed out of unlined asbestos-cement pipe (Figure 3-1). This pipeline material has broken down over the years as sewer gases have corroded the crowns of the unlined concrete pipe, and now some of the pipe in this area has collapsed, causing flow blockage and failure of the road surface above the pipe.

The nature of this failure is progressive and irreversible. The City has two choices. It can continue to make spot repairs as sections fail and the failures become visible from the surface. Or it can program the systematic replacement of all the pipelines in the area over a several-year period, knowing that all of the pipe will eventually require replacement. The latter alternative is more predictable, though it is unlikely that it will completely avoid the occurrence of some necessary spot repairs along the way in addition to the budgeted programmatic replacements. Following is a summary of the estimated construction costs for replacement of the pipelines within the affected area.

CALIFORNIA

PANOCHE

SAN BENITO

WHITESBRIDGE

BELMONT

MCKINLEY
Aw
?ü
?
Existing Eastside
Piping to be Replaced
with Capital Project(s)
?
Abandoned Force Main to
old Headworks
8''
18''
8''
10''
8''
8''
24''
8''
8''
12''
18''
4''
8''
8''
8''
8''
6''
8''
8''
6''
6''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
6''
6''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
18''
6''
6''
8''
8''
8''
6''
8''
6''
6''
6''
6''
8''
6''
6''
6''
8''
6''
6''
8''
12''
6''
6''
6''
6''
8''
8''
8''
8''
6''
10''
18''
15''
12''
6''
8''
30''
21''
8''
30''
6''
8''
30''
0 500 1,000
Feet
º
Figure 3-1
Existing Wastewater
Collection Infrastructure
Wastewater Master Plan
City of Mendota
3/12/2021 : G:\Mendota_City of-3336\333618012-Wastewater Treatment Master Plan\GIS\Map\ExistingCollectionZones.mxd Existing City Limits
Section 4: Effluent Disposal
Mendota Wastewater Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • March 2021 3-1
Table 3-1. Summary of East Mendota Pipeline Replacement Costs Summary of East Mendota Pipeline Replacement Costs
Description Quantity1 Units Unit Cost Cost
General Contracting
Requirements 1 LS $1,132,350 $1,132,350
Remove and Replace Ex. 6” AC
Pipe with 6” PVC SDR 35 4,100 LF $45 $184,500
Remove and Replace Ex. 8” AC
Pipe with 8” PVC SDR 35 22,850 LF $60 $1,371,000
Remove and Replace Ex. 10” AC
Pipe with 10” PVC SDR 35 1,700 LF $75 $127,500
Remove and Replace Ex. 18” AC
Pipe with 18” PVC SDR 35 5,500 LF $110 $605,000
48” Manhole 80 EA $6,000 $480,000
Street Resurfacing 1,195,250 SF $4 $4,781,000
Contingency 15%
Total: $9,983,600

3.3 Proposed Collection Zone 1
Proposed Collection Zone 1 (Figure 3-2) is located to the west of the existing City Limits. Proposed Collection Zone 1 is bounded geographically by the Intake Canal on the northwest; on the east (from north to south respectively) by the Union Pacific Railroad, residential subdivisions; on the south by Belmont Avenue; and on the west by the City’s General Plan proposed Sphere of Influence. The total area for this collection zone is 835 acres. This collection zone will tie into the existing 24” Westside Sewer Interceptor north of the Las Palmas Subdivision.

3.3.1 Land Uses and Sewage Generation
Collection Zone 1 is comprised of Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Recreational, Commercial and Public/Quasi-Public Facility. Acreages, flow criteria, average daily flow rates and peak hour flow rates are summarized in the table below.
1 All pipeline quantities are estimates rounded to the nearest 25-foot increment. ?
Connect to Existing Pipe
?
24" Westside Sewer Interceptor.

Invert is approximately 16' BGS.
?
FCD Intake Canal
18 ''
12 ''
15 ''
15 ''
12 ''
12 ''
12 '' 12 ''
12 '' 12 ''
GARCIA

DERRICK

SORENSEN
AMADOR
GOMEZ

DE LA CRUZ

BLACK ROWE
OXNARD
TUFT
PEACH

SORENSON
LOZANO

BELMONT
PETRY

HOLMES GREGG
ASH
ELM
PEREZ

GAXIOLA
SILVA
CIRCLE
CASTRO
üÄ
MCCABE
SMOOT

MC CABE

FLEMING
RIOS
STRAW

ESPINOZA

VALENZUELA

MALDONADO

SANTA CRUZ

SAN PEDRO

GONZALEZ CEERVANTEZ
OHIO

MCKINLEY
UPRR
Collection
Zone 3
Collection
Zone 1
0 400 800
Feet
º
Figure 3-2
Collection Zone 1
Wastewater Master Plan
City of Mendota
General Plan Land Use
General Commercial
Community Commercial
Light Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Public/Quasi-Public Facility
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Medium-High Density Residential
High Density Residential
Recreational
Multi-Use/Open Space
3/11/2021 : G:\Mendota_City of-3336\333618012-Wastewater Treatment Master Plan\GIS\Map\CollectionZone1.mxd Existing City Limits
Proposed Collection Zones
Existing Wastewater Pipeline
Proposed Wastewater Pipeline
12"
15"
18"
21"
24"
Section 4: Effluent Disposal
Mendota Wastewater Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • March 2021 3-3
Table 3-2. Collection Zone 1
Collection Zone 1
Land Use ADF / acre
(gal/day/acre)
Area
(acres)
ADF
(MGD)
Peaking Factor PHF2
(cfs)
Low Density
Residential 924 535.3 0.495 1.8 1.38
Medium Density
Residential 1,386 110.6 0.153 1.8 0.43
Commercial 2320 39.8 0.092 1.8 0.26
Public/Quasi-Public &
Recreational 238 149.5 0.036 1.8 0.10
Total: 835.2 2.17

3.3.2 Collection Facilities
The master planned collection facilities (Figure 3-2) for Collection Zone 1 include extension of the Westside Sewer Interceptor, along the north side of the Las Palmas subdivision, to the west and then three trunk lines which will convey flow from the southern end of the Collection Zone to the trunk line and then east to the existing collection system.

3.3.3 Necessary Projects
The proposed collection facilities will be constructed as development proceeds and will include the pipes tabulated below as well as approximately 40 manholes.

3.3.4 Summary of Costs
Table 3-3. Summary of Wastewater Collection System Costs Collection Zone 1 Summary of Wastewater Collection System Costs Collection Zone 1 Description Quantity3 Units Unit Cost Cost
General Contracting
Requirements 1 LS $281,175 $281,175
12” SDR35 PVC 14,000 LF $90 $1,260,000
15” SDR35 PVC 2,700 LF $100 $270,000
18” SDR35 PVC 950 LF $110 $104,500
48” Manholes 40 EA $6,000 $240,000
Contingency 15%
Total: $2,479,100
2 Peak Hour Flow, cubic feet per second
3 All PVC quantities are estimates rounded to the nearest 25-foot increment.

Section 4: Effluent Disposal
Mendota Wastewater Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • March 2021 3-4

3.4 Collection Zone 2
Collection Zone 2 (Figure 3-3) is located to the south and east of the existing City Limits. Collection Zone 2 is bound on the south by the Union Pacific Railroad, the west by the industrial land south of the City WWTP and on the east by the Open Space Buffer area adjacent to the Fresno Slough. The total area for the Collection Zone is 877 acres. This collection zone will tie into the existing 30” Southside Interceptor sewer pipeline at the intersection of West Belmont Avenue and Guillan Park Drive that continues north to the WWTP.

3.4.1 Land Uses and Sewage Generation
Collection Zone 2 is comprised of Light and Heavy Industrial Land Uses, it is anticipated that due to the current land uses, proximity to the Fresno Slough, and remoteness from City services that this area is likely to be the last collection zone developed. Acreages, flow criteria, average daily flowrates and peak hour flow rates are summarized in the table below. Development in this area will need to be reviewed by the City Engineer on a case-by-case basis, as the sewage generation rates for the current land use would exceed the capacity of the existing Southside Interceptor trunk line that Collection Zone 2 will discharge to.

Table 3-4. Collection Zone 2
Collection Zone 2
Land Use ADF
(gal/acre/day)
Area
(acres)
ADF
(MGD)
Peaking
Factor
PHF
(cfs)
Light Industrial 2320 611.6 1.419 2.0 4.39
Heavy Industrial 4850 265.8 1.289 2.0 3.99
Totals 877.4 8.38

3.4.2 Collection Facilities
The master planned collection facilities for Collection Zone 2 include several branch lines (Figure 3-3) the quantities of which are listed in the table in Section 3.4.4 below that come together and discharge into the Southside Sewer Interceptor of the City’s existing collection system.

3.4.3 Necessary Projects
The proposed collection facilities will be constructed as development proceeds and will include the pipes tabulated below as well as approximately 40 manholes.

Existing 30"
UPRR
15 ''
12 ''
21 ''
18 ''
15 ''
12 '' 15 ''
24 ''
15 ''
12 ''
KATE
NINTH
LOLITA
INEZ
TENTH
MARIE

BELMONT

AIRPORT

JUANITA
CANAL
OLLER
w?

GUILLAN PARK
Collection
Zone 3
Collection
Zone 2
0 400 800
Feet
º
Figure 3-3
Collection Zone 2
Wastewater Master Plan
City of Mendota
General Plan Land Use
General Commercial
Light Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Public/Quasi-Public Facility
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Medium-High Density Residential
High Density Residential
Recreational
Multi-Use/Open Space
3/12/2021 : G:\Mendota_City of-3336\333618012-Wastewater Treatment Master Plan\GIS\Map\CollectionZone2.mxd Existing City Limits
Proposed Collection Zones
Existing 30" Wastewater Pipeline
Proposed Wastewater Pipeline
12"
15"
18"
21"
24"
Section 4: Effluent Disposal
Mendota Wastewater Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • March 2021 3-6

3.4.4 Summary of Costs
Table 3-5. Summary of Wastewater Collection System Costs Collection Zone 2 Summary of Wastewater Collection System Costs Collection Zone 2 Description Quantity4 Units Unit Cost Cost
General Contracting
Requirements 1 LS $256,275 $256,275
12” SDR35 PVC 725 LF $90 $65,250
15” SDR35 PVC 8,750 LF $100 $875,000
21” SDR35 PVC 850 LF $155 $131,750
24” SDR35 PVC 2,250 LF $170 $382,500
48” Manholes 40 EA $6,000 $240,000
Contingency 15%
Total: $2,259,500

3.5 Collection Zone 3
Collection Zone 3 is planned to service all of the City’s planned future growth south of Belmont Ave, between SR 33 and the Union Pacific Railroad and north of Panoche Road (Figure 3-4). The existing Southside Sewer Interceptor trunk line that currently conveys flows from the Federal Correction Institution to the Wastewater Treatment Plant will serve as the backbone of the collection infrastructure for Collection Zone 3. As part of our analysis, we have identified several branch connections to the existing trunk line that can service the planned growth of the Collection Zone 3 area on an as needed basis, as development dictates.

3.5.1 Land Uses and Sewage Generation
Collection Zone 3 is comprised of Low Density Residential; Medium Density Residential; Medium-High Density Residential; Open Space Recreational; Light Industrial and Commercial Land Uses. Acreages, flow criteria, average daily flowrates and peak hour flow rates are summarized in the table below. 4 All pipe quantities are estimates rounded to the nearest 25-foot increment. ?
Connect to Existing 30" Pipe
?
Connect to 21" Existing Pipe
Connect to Existing 30" Pipe ?
üÄ
w?
UPRR
? Southside Sewer
Interceptor
w?
12 ''
18 '' 12 ''
15 ''
21 ''
18 ''
15 ''
12 ''
12 ''
12 ''
24 ''
18 ''
18 '' 15 ''
12 '' 12 ''

BELMONT

DERRICK
OHIO

ASH JENNINGS

SAN BENITO

PANOCHE

DOS PALOS

GUILLAN PARK

WHITESBRIDGE

CALIFORNIA
Collection
Zone 3
Collection
Zone 2
0 400 800
Feet
º
3/12/2021 : G:\Mendota_City of-3336\333618012-Wastewater Treatment Master Plan\GIS\Map\CollectionZone3.mxd General Plan Land Use
General Commercial
Community Commercial
Light Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Public/Quasi-Public Facility
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Medium-High Density Residential
High Density Residential
Recreational
Figure 3-4
Collection Zone 3
Wastewater Master Plan
City of Mendota
Existing City Limits
Proposed Collection Zones
Existing 21" Wastewater Pipeline
Existing 30" Wastewater Pipeline
Proposed Wastewater Pipeline
12"
15"
18"
21"
24"
Section 4: Effluent Disposal
Mendota Wastewater Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • March 2021 3-8
Table 3-6. Collection Zone 3
Collection Zone 3
Land Use ADF
(gal/acre/day)
Area
(acres)
ADF
(MGD)
Peaking
Factor
PHF
(cfs)
Low Density Residential 924 259.5 0.240 1.8 0.67
Medium Density Residential 1386 551.8 0.765 1.8 2.13
Medium-High Density Residential 2178 123.2 0.268 1.8 0.75 Commercial 2320 229.2 0.532 1.8 1.48
Light Industrial 2320 413.3 0.959 2.0 2.97
Public/Quasi-Public & Recreational 238 149.5 0.036 1.8 0.10 Totals 1726.5 8.09

3.5.2 Collection Facilities
As mentioned above it is planned that several branch lines (Figure 3-4) be constructed in order to convey flow to the existing Southside Sewer Interceptor trunk line of the City’s wastewater collection system, which will in turn convey the flows to the wastewater treatment plant. Quantities of the various pipe sizes required for the master planned branch lines are included in the table in Section 0 below.

3.5.3 Necessary Projects
The proposed collection facilities will need to get implemented as needed by development and include the pipes tabulated below as well as approximately 50 manholes.

3.5.4 Summary of Costs
Table 3-7. Summary of Wastewater Collection System Costs Collection Zone 3 Summary of Wastewater Collection System Costs Collection Zone 3 Description Quantity5 Units Unit Cost Cost
General Contracting Requirements 1 LS $426,865 $426,865 12” SDR35 PVC 12,850 LF $90.00 $1,156,500
15” SDR35 PVC 8,750 LF $100.00 $875,000
21” SDR35 PVC 850 LF $155.00 $131,750
24” SDR35 PVC 2,250 LF $170.00 $382,500
48” Manholes 50 EA $6,000 $300,000
Contingency 15%
Total: $3,763,600
5 All pipe quantities are estimates rounded to the nearest 25-foot increment.

Section 4: Effluent Disposal
Mendota Wastewater Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • March 2021 4-9
4 Treatment Facilities and Effluent Disposal
The City’s wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) is located about one mile northeast of the City between the Fresno Slough and the San Luis Drain near the Slough’s connection to the San Joaquin River. This facility was originally constructed in 1972 and has undergone incremental modifications throughout the years, with the most recent “Expansion Phase II” occurring in 2010. Currently the WWTP serves a total population of roughly 13,000 persons from both the City and the nearby federal prison. This WWTP is permitted to discharge secondary treated wastewater into evaporation/percolation ponds with average flows of up to 1.24 MGD under the RWQCB Order R5-2016-0054.

The facility consists of a wet well/triplex submersible pump station headworks, a pair of parallel treatment/facultative lagoons leading to the compliance point, and an interconnected array of nine active evaporation/percolation ponds that serve as the sole disposal facilities. The WWTP has no external effluent disposal.

Since the completion of the most-recent reconstruction project in 2011, the approximate flow capacities of the subsystems of the WWTP are as follows:

Influent Lift Station: 2.0 mgd
Biological Capacity (aeration) 1.2 mgd
Hydraulic Capacity (treatment ponds) 2.0 mgd
Disposal Capacity (evaporation6) 1.12 mgd
At the time of preparation of this report, the Average Daily Wastewater Flow (ADWF) of the WWTP averaged between 1.11 and 1.12 mgd, making disposal capacity critical. Each of the subsystems is discussed in more detail in the sections below.

4.1 Treatment Process and Capacity
Prior to 2011, the WWTP used three unlined treatment ponds (numbered one through three) in series for wastewater treatment along with four evaporation ponds (four through seven) for effluent disposal.

The WWTP was upgraded and expanded from 2010 to 2012. During this expansion a new, modernized headworks building was constructed; two new aerated, primary treatment ponds were installed (T1 and T2) along with two new secondary facultative treatment ponds (F1 and F2); and t additional deep disposal ponds were also installed (Ponds 7 & 8). Additionally, the existing disposal ponds (current Ponds 4 & 5) were rehabilitated with the objective of increasing percolation rates. The City stopped using the three older treatment ponds (formerly 1, 2 and 3, currently 2, 3 and 1, respectively) in 2011 and reserved them for emergency disposal. Sludge from Ponds 2 and 3 was removed in 2015, allowing them to be converted to disposal ponds. Sludge from Pond 1 was removed in Fall 2018 and is pending authorization from the Waterboard to come on-line. In 2020, the berms around the north and east sides of Pond 6 were built up and this pond is also pending authorization from the Waterboard to come on-line.. The current footprint of the WWTP is shown in Figure 4-1 at the end of this section. 6 Per WDR Order R5-2016-0054, the average annual evapotranspiration for this site is 45.75 inches which equates to approximately 3,404 gpd/acre of pond area. The average annual pan evaporation for this site is 79.22 inches.

Section 4: Effluent Disposal
Mendota Wastewater Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • March 2021 4-10
The flow through the aeration basins (treatment ponds) and facultative treatment ponds is run in parallel as depicted in Figure 4-2. There are future concept plans to construct two additional treatment ponds (T3 and T4) and two new facultative treatment ponds (F3 and F4), but they are not needed at this time since existing capacity of the WWTP is sufficient to handle the average daily flows through the plant, and will be adequate up to an average daily flow of at least 2.0 MGD.

Although the expansion of the WWTP was predicated on the goal of both expanding treatment capacity and enhancing percolation to increase effluent disposal capacity, it did not accomplish percolation improvement.

About a week after the introduction of the two new deep lagoons (Ponds 7 & 8), percolation effectively stopped due to the saturation of the soil between the bottom of the pond and the top of the shallow aquifer, which is approximately 25 feet below ground surface elevation. This saturation blocks further percolation almost entirely. Due to the limited capacity for groundwater percolation, the main mechanism for the disposal of treated effluent is through evaporation. The greater the surface area of ponds available, the greater the disposal capacity of the plant.

This method has been mostly successful until recent years, when the City has been near the disposal capacity of the plant on an annual average basis. The amount of water retained in the ponds increases in the winter when evaporation rates are lower, and it decreases in the summer when evaporation rates increase. This annual cycle has maintained a tenuous balance, but it is subject to disruption by a series of high-rainfall years or a spurt of growth in the City, which would increase annual discharge.

In the future, as the flows to the wastewater treatment plant increase, additional methods of effluent disposal will be needed.

4.2 Potential Biological and Hydraulic Capacity at Current Treatment Level
The treatment process designed into the 2011 reconstruction project included a 2.5 mgd hydraulic capacity for the initial treatment train, with parallel lagoons T1/F1 and T2/F2 in service, and expanding to 4.5 mgd in the future when the second set of parallel lagoons, T3/F3 and T4/F4, are constructed and brought on line.

However, because the City’s current flow was only 0.80 mgd at the time of the project, it was not found cost effective to purchase and install all of the surface aerators that will ultimately be needed to biologically treat

2.5 mgd of flow in the first treatment train. Only a limited number of aerators were installed, and biological capacity is currently approximately 1.2 mgd. Expansion beyond that level, even to the original 2.5 mgd design flow, is a matter of installing more of the originally planned surface aerators. The electrical infrastructure exists already, so that installation is relatively simple, requiring only power, anchoring wires, and wiring into the SCADA system. Additional aerators should be installed when tests reveal that required dissolved oxygen rates are not being maintained at the compliance point, or when necessary BOD reduction is not being achieved. Both are symptoms of inadequate aeration.

Sludge buildup in the initial treatment train requires removal to re-establish the full original design treatment capacity of 2.5 mgd. Sludge removal is normal maintenance for any WWTP and must be carried out periodically. This plant has been in service in its current configuration for over 10 years. While sludge has not been expected to accumulate as quickly as it has, BOD levels in the treatment train have been somewhat higher than were planned, which has led to increased sludge and the need for earlier maintenance. Sludge was removed from T1/F1 in 2016.

Section 4: Effluent Disposal
Mendota Wastewater Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • March 2021 4-11

4.3 Potential Disposal Capacity of Current Footprint
Although the WWTP has a substantial amount of remaining secondary treatment capacity, the plant is limited by the 40 MG volume of the existing evaporation basins. Due to the large hydraulic retention time (approximately thirty days) these evaporation ponds frequently approach capacity in the summer and exceed capacity in the winter. At this time, effluent is not discharged to any location outside the WWTP site. Only about 10% of the treated water percolates and the remaining balance evaporates. The design intent for the relatively large size of the earthen lagoons is to allow water to be stored over winter when evaporation slows and to recover that volume when evaporation increases during the summer months. Currently the evaporation ponds are near capacity in the summer and exceed capacity in the winter, indicating additional space is needed.

While some additional lands remain available for evaporation pond construction, that solution has a limited future. In 2018, the City purchased two mechanical evaporators. These devices are simple pumps with an atomizer which spray effluent from the evaporation ponds into the air above the ponds in a fine mist. This vastly-increases the surface area of the mist droplets and multiplies the evaporation rate of the water, substantially increasing the overall effluent evaporation rate. The City has reported satisfaction with these units, despite their significant capital and operating costs. Barring development of a more permanent and effective solution for disposal, a wider implementation of these mechanical evaporators may prove to be the correct path forward for the City.

Since the overall WWTP capacity is currently limited by effluent disposal capacity, the City must identify and analyze alternatives for the discharge of treated effluent. At the plant’s current size and footprint all undeveloped City-owned land around the WWTP is allocated for future disposal capacity. Given the need for additional effluent disposal capacity, the City must consider ways to dispose of the treated effluent.

Options include: acquiring available land around the WWTP to expand the capacity of the evaporation ponds, sending secondary treated water to farmland for the irrigation of feed and fodder crops, treating a sidestream of the effluent to a higher standard so it can be sent to nearby farmers for the irrigation of higher value crops, discharging disinfected tertiary treated effluent into the Fresno Slough, and implementing mechanical means of enhancing evaporation rates.

The near future capacity expansion of the WWTP relies on expansion of the existing evaporation ponds and enhancement of evaporation rates. The area and effectiveness of these ponds are the limiting factors in the day-to-day operations of the plant and optimization of the existing evaporation ponds will have the most benefit on the long-term prognosis of the facility.

4.4 Water Treatment Quality and Future Needs
At this time, effluent generated from the WWTP consistently meets most but not all of the discharge limitations set forth in the City’s Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs), issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board in 2016. Under the current waste discharge order R5-2016-0054, average monthly Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) is limited to 40 mg/L and the monthly maximum is not to exceed 80 mg/L. These monthly average results have been acceptable. In the years 2016-2019 the plant discharged water with an average BOD5 of 30 mg/L. On the other hand, there have been issues with spikes in the BOD5 levels from time to time. During that same period, the monthly maximum BOD5 level was 150 mg/L, or nearly twice the permit limit.

The 2010 expansion project incorporated a benthic stabilization treatment process consisting of deep (14 foot) lagoons with aerated treatment and non-aerated facultative zones. This process is well supported in academic literature and is intended to provide a high level of treatment with very low energy consumption, Section 4: Effluent Disposal
Mendota Wastewater Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • March 2021 4-12
leading to economical operation, which is a very high design priority for the City. Operational data over the years has demonstrated this system has not functioned as reliably as planned, and it is not due to process failure. Rather, BOD is adequately removed during treatment but treated effluent only contains about one percent (1%) or 1 mg/L dissolved oxygen (DO) at the compliance point (the discharges of the facultative ponds) which is insufficient to maintain control of BOD during the extraordinarily long detention time the effluent is held in the evaporation ponds. In practice, the residual DO is quickly consumed and BOD begins to rise, frequently reaching levels of 100 mg/L or greater, which is in violation of the WDRs for the plant.

There are several additional consequences. The high BOD levels cause issues with the production of excess sludge in the evaporation ponds, which has led to excessive build-up of sludge which must now be removed several years earlier than anticipated. It has led to water quality issues during seasonal turnover when ambient air temperatures fall and colder water on the top of ponds flips with warmer water on the bottom bringing contaminants from the bottom of the ponds surface. In situations like this, the water essentially self-treats since it is retained in the evaporation ponds for long periods of time.

Increasing the aeration capacity at the WWTP is an effective way to increase DO in the initial effluent and control the BOD in the evaporation ponds. The City is currently assessing the need for installing additional aerators in the T1/F1 and T2/F2 aeration basins. At this time only 25 Hp of surface aeration is supplied during the treatment process and ultimately much more will be needed to adequately control the BOD in the evaporation basins for as long as the effluent must be retained currently. At this time the WWTP’s operational costs are minimal, and the addition of aerators would increase the City’s annual power costs.

The root of the problem is that effluent is not disposed quickly. It is, for the most part, being treated adequately and in compliance with the Waste Discharge Requirements at the Point of Compliance, but the existing system of evaporation ponds is small. The limited evaporative surface means water is retained in the evaporation ponds for weeks or even months, during which time the water quality degrades: BOD increases, algae grows, and of course salts build up in the ponds over time. The City and the Water Board agree that this long-standing situation is not optimal; however, so far, no better system has been available to replace it.

The current treatment process is very cost-effective, particularly in light of how the effluent will be disposed.

The City is in a place now where there is no need for higher treatment level because there is no feasible place to dispose of higher quality effluent. This is a common situation. Treatment level and effluent disposal are two parts of the same question and must be considered together. Just as additional treatment does not make sense at the moment, in light of the current disposal options, it is possible that future disposal options could make a higher treatment level more desirable or even necessary. One example of this will be presented in the disposal alternatives in Section 5.

It is important to keep in mind that the overarching purpose of this report is to help the City with the most cost-effective system of providing regulatory-compliant wastewater treatment and disposal to its citizens.

Pond 4
Pond 5
Pond 7
Pond 2Pond 3
Pond 8
Pond 10 Pond 9 Pond 11 Future Evaporation Pond 12
F1 F2
T1 T2
Bass Ave
Fresno Slough
Outside Canal
FCD Intake Canal
San Luis Drain
Pond 1
Pond 6
Overflow Evaporation
Pond
Headworks
Stormwater
Retention
Pond
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 300 600
Feet
º Figure 4-1
Mendota Wastewater Treatment
Facility
Wastewater Master Plan
City of Mendota
3/11/2021 : G:\Mendota_City of-3336\333618012-Wastewater Treatment Master Plan\GIS\Map\Mendota WWTP.mxd Wastewater Treatment Facility
ORDER R5-2016-0054 Figure 4-2
DRAWING REFERENCE:

November 2015 Report of
Waste Discharge
Provost & Pritchard
Consulting Group

FLOW SCHEMATIC

CITY OF MENDOTA

MENDOTA WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY

FRESNO COUNTY
Head Works
Treatment Pond
T1
Facultative Pond
F1
Treatment Pond
T2
Facultative Pond
F2
Percolation/Evaporation
Disposal Ponds
Section 5: Effluent Disposal Alternatives
Mendota Wastewater Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • March 2021 5-1
5 Effluent Disposal Alternatives
The most critical issue facing the City and its WWTP as the City grows is effluent disposal. This is a critical issue today and must be immediately faced. The immediate solutions must be followed by long-term plans to allow for the City to increase disposal capacity to 1.5 mgd to accommodate growth over the next 20 years.

That has never been done. The current plant has never had an effluent disposal plan; the current evaporation ponds were simply constructed one or a few at a time, and now the limit of that program has been reached.

The following sections are discussions of a number of possible alternatives, both short- and long-term.

5.1 Alternative 1 – On-Site Expansions
The two most expeditious alternatives for additional disposal capacity are maximization of land area at the WWTP for evaporation ponds and installation of additional mechanized evaporators. Either or both of these actions can be undertaken by the City without additional environmental review and are not so expensive as to require outside funding.

The City is in the process of retrofitting Ponds 1 and 6 and will bring them on-line once authorized to do so by the Water Board. This is anticipated to occur in Winter/Spring 2021. The total surface area of these ponds is 7.8 acres, and the evaporation disposal capacity would average 0.03 mgd, raising total on-site disposal capacity to 1.15## mgd without additional mechanical evaporators.

The land readily available for additional evaporation ponds is effectively limited to the footprints of the future T3/F3 and T4/F4 ponds, referred to as Future Evaporation Pond 12. The total area of this pond complex is just over 19 acres, and the evaporation disposal capacity would average 0.07 mgd, raising total on-site disposal capacity even further, to 1.22 mgd without additional mechanical evaporators.

This isn’t enough to fully achieve the 20-year goal, but it is enough to support addition of approximately 370 additional single-family residences, so it is worth consideration.

Additional ponds could also be created west of Pond 11/T1/F1 and south of the headworks (T1/T2/Pond 12). There is approximately 120 acres available within the WWTP boundary (per current Order) and on an additional 48 acres of City-owned land south of this, all of which is covered by the Environmental Impact Report for this purpose. Much of this area is currently used for informal shallow ponding an evaporation of overflow when the disposal ponds reach their capacity in the winter. Creation of additional ponds will require coordination with and approval by the Waterboard.

This alternative is based on the assumption that 80 acres of land would be needed to construct the 0.28 mgd of evaporation capacity required to reach a total of 1.50 mgd disposal capacity. Expenses related to this alternative would include the cost to prepare the land and the construction of the ponds, as shown in Table 5-2
Mechanical evaporators vary in size and performance but do provide a measurable and cost-effective increase in evaporation rate. The City has been using two such machines since 2018; more could be purchased given sufficient capital and operating funds. Because of the very flexible scope of these machines, we have not sized a particular project, but would encourage the City to continue to consider implementing additional evaporators if and when evaporation capacity is at critical low points. They represent the quickest and easiest way available to add measurable capacity to the system.

Section 5: Effluent Disposal Alternatives
Mendota Wastewater Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • March 2021 5-2
Table 5-1. Alternative 1 Summary of Costs
Summary of Cost for On-Site Evaporation Ponds
Description Quantity Units Estimated Unit Cost Estimated Cost Prepare ROWD, ADR 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
Process WDRs 1 LS $10,000 $10,000
General Contracting
Requirements 1 LS $132,000 $132,000
Compaction Testing 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
Clearing and
Grubbing 80 Acres $5,000 $400,000
Evaporation Pond
Earthwork 80,000 CY $2.50 $200,000
Gravel Access Roads 17,500 LF $12.00 $210,000
Pipe & Valves 1 LS $40,000 $40,000
Contingency 15%
Total: $1,203,800

5.2 Alternative 2 – Additional Evaporation on Surrounding Lands The most economical long-term alternative is to purchase additional land surrounding the wastewater treatment plant for the construction of additional evaporation ponds. The WWTP is limited by the current footprint, but there are several fallow parcels around the WWTP that may be suitable for the construction of additional evaporation ponds. Since these identified parcels are not actively in use, they may be available for purchase. These parcels are depicted on Figure 5-1. This alternative is based on the assumption that 80 acres of land would be needed to construct the 0.28 mgd of evaporation capacity required to reach a total of 1.50 mgd disposal capacity. Expenses related to this alternative would include the cost to purchase the land, and the construction of the new conveyance system and ponds shown in Table 5-2. The cost analysis for this alternative factors in the installation of a pump station and up to one mile of new force main pipeline to convey this water to the new ponds.

Not only would additional land allow for expansion of disposal at current evaporation rates, it offers another opportunity as well. As discussed above, the primary driver of non-compliance with the WDRs is not a failure of the treatment process but rather the need to retain effluent for extended periods of time while it awaits evaporation. If additional lands could be acquired such that the total evaporative area was increased substantially over what is currently available, the necessary average evaporation time would be reduced, and the degradation of effluent being held for evaporation would be reduced. The quicker the evaporation can be facilitated, the better the overall effluent results will be. !Ä
Delta-Mendota Canal
Outside Canal
FCD Intake Canal
Fresno Slough
San Luis Drain
San Joaquin River
w?
üÄ
Columbia Canal
26 ac
20 ac

BELMONT
BASS

GUILLAN
PARK
Helm Ditch
Helm Canal
6 ac
75 ac
15 ac
99 ac
93 ac
117 ac
59 ac
85 ac
26 ac
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 750 1,500
Feet
º Figure 5-1
Possible Open/Idle Land
Wastewater Master Plan
City of Mendota
3/11/2021 : G:\Mendota_City of-3336\333618012-Wastewater Treatment Master Plan\GIS\Map\open_land_around_WWTP.mxd Open/Idle Land (approx. 536 ac)
1 Mile Buffer
Wastewater Treatment Facility
Section 5: Effluent Disposal Alternatives
Mendota Wastewater Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • March 2021 5-4
Implementation of off-site evaporation ponds would involve several administrative steps including preparation of a CEQA document for the proposed pond site(s) and pipeline route(s), preparation and processing of a new Report of Waste Discharge and Groundwater Antidegradation Report, and processing new Waste Discharge Requirements with the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Table 5-2. Alternative 2 Summary of Costs
Summary of Cost for Off-Site Evaporation Ponds
Description Quantity[1] Units Estimated Unit Cost Estimated Cost Prepare CEQA
(Assume EIR) and
Regulatory Permits
1 LS $200,000 $200,000
Prepare ROWD, ADR 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
Process WDRs 1 LS $10,000 $10,000
General Contracting
Requirements 1 LS $879,150 $879,150
Land Acquisition 80 Acres $15,000 $1,200,000
Clearing and
Grubbing 80 Acres $5,000 $400,000
Evaporation Pond
Excavation 100,000 CY $7.50 $750,000
Chain Link Fencing
with Slats and Gate 116,160 LF $25.00 $2,904,000
Gravel Access Roads 17,000 LF $12.00 $210,000
6” PVC Force Main 5,280 LF $25.00 $132,000
Pump Station 1 LS $250,000 $250,000
48” Outlet Structure 1 EA $15,000 $15,000
Contingency 15%
Total: $8,027,200

5.3 Alternative 3 – Secondary Effluent to Contract Farmers Another option for the disposal of effluent is to send a sidestream, or a portion of the total, of the current secondary-treated effluent to farmers for irrigation of feed and fodder crops not for human consumption, or allowable food crops like Pistachios (such as the Myers Farms orchard south of Belmont, east of SR 180.

This option would be relatively low-cost as it would not add an additional level of treatment or plant Section 5: Effluent Disposal Alternatives
Mendota Wastewater Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • March 2021 5-5
operation for the City. Assuming a suitable local grower could be found, the grower would have to be willing to enter into a long-term (30- to 40-year) agreement to take effluent from the City. A small pump station and a pipeline would be needed to convey the effluent to the site where it would be used; this alternative also assumes the new pipeline would convey the effluent for up to one mile.

Although this alternative is relatively low-cost it may be less appealing to farmers since feed and fodder crops do not yield a high profit margin and cropping options are fewer. This alternative would likely only be feasible if there is a receiver for this product close to the WWTP.

Implementation of Alternative 3 would involve several administrative steps including negotiation and execution of a water reclamation agreement with the local farmer, preparation of a CEQA document for the proposed receiver site and pipeline route(s), preparation and processing of a new Report of Waste Discharge, Groundwater Antidegradation Report, and Report of Water Reclamation, along with processing new Waste Discharge Regulations with the Water Board. The costs associated with this option are summarized in Table 5-3.

Table 5-3. Alternative 3 Summary of Costs
Summary of Costs to Send Secondary-Treated Effluent to Contract Farmers Description Quantity[1] Units Unit Cost Cost
Prepare CEQA
(Assume EIR) and
Permitting
1 LS $200,000 $200,000
Prepare ROWD,
ADR, RWR 1 LS $50,000 $50,000
Process WDRs 1 LS $10,000 $10,000
General Contracting
Requirements 1 LS $59,550 $59,550
6” PVC Force Main 5280 LF $25.00 $132,000
Pump Station 1 LS $250,000 $250,000
48” Outlet Structure 1 EA $15,000 $15,000
Contingency 25%
Total: $895,700

5.4 Alternative 4 – Secondary Effluent to Farms on City Lands This is a variation on Alternative 3, except that rather than finding a local farmer agreeable to taking effluent for 30 to 40 years, as would be required under a reclamation agreement, this version would have the City purchase the land and be the water recycler. The City would hire a contract farmer to cultivate the land on a year-to-year or short-term basis, as desired. As in Alternative 3, the City would send a sidestream of the secondary-treated effluent to the land for irrigation of feed and fodder crops not for human consumption or allowable food crops such as Pistachios. A small pump station and a pipeline would convey the effluent to Section 5: Effluent Disposal Alternatives
Mendota Wastewater Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • March 2021 5-6
the site where it would be used; this alternative also assumes the new pipeline would convey the effluent for up to one mile.

This alternative has higher capital costs than Alternative 3, but places more under the control of the City.

Profit isn’t as necessary, though reasonable cash flow would still be required. The crop could be anything that could be sold for cash, including alfalfa, straw hay, turf, hemp and even duck weed. The City would have to periodically advertise for and contract with farmers to cultivate the fields.

Implementation of Alternative 4 would involve several administrative steps including preparation of a CEQA document for the proposed receiver site and pipeline route(s), preparation and processing of a new Report of Waste Discharge, Groundwater Antidegradation Report, and Report of Water Reclamation, along with processing new Waste Discharge Regulations with the Water Board. The costs associated with this option are summarized in Table 5-4.

Table 5-4. Alternative 4 Summary of Costs
Summary of Costs to Send Secondary-Treated Effluent to Farms on City Lands Description Quantity[1] Units Unit Cost Cost
Prepare CEQA
(Assume EIR) and
Permitting
1 LS $200,000 $200,000
Prepare ROWD,
ADR, RWR 1 LS $50,000 $50,000
Process WDRs 1 LS $10,000 $10,000
General Contracting
Requirements 1 LS $299,500 $299,550
Land Acquisition 80 Acres $15,000 $1,200,000
Land Prep, Clearing
and Grubbing 80 Acres $5,000 $400,000
6” PVC Force Main 5280 LF $25 $132,000
Small Pump Station 1 EA $250,000 $250,000
Outlet Structure 1 EA $15,000 $15,000
Contingency 15%
Total: $2,940,100

5.5 Alternative 5 – Tertiary Effluent to Contract Farmers There are many situations where an upgrade to the effluent quality leads to new options for effluent disposal, so it is always prudent to look at what those options might be. In the City’s case, there are currently no nearby potential effluent receivers where Title 227 effluent would be an advantage. There are no sufficiently large parks, or school yards, nor farms growing food crops in quantities anywhere near sufficient to use all of the 7 Title 22 of California Code of Regulations (CCR)
Section 5: Effluent Disposal Alternatives
Mendota Wastewater Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • March 2021 5-7
City’s current volume of effluent. Very recently a potential recipient has approached the City in need of approximately 1,200 acre-feet per year (approximately 1.07 mgd) of Title 22 effluent for a hydrogen-solar plant. This project is very new but could prove very beneficial to the City.

Consideration could be given to sending a portion of the effluent, or a sidestream, to a Title 22 receiver.

However, implementation of this option would require major changes to or reconstruction of the wastewater treatment process to create Title 22 level (tertiary treated) effluent. That would be a substantial and costly step for the City, and should only be undertaken if the City came to believe that none of the above alternatives, singly or in combination, would be feasible for ongoing operation of the WWTP.

The capital expense to upgrade the plant’s treatment system would require a very large capital expenditure and would greatly increase the City’s ongoing operations and maintenance expenses, requiring a significant increase in municipal sewer rates. Depending upon the size of the sidestream treated, the increase in rates could range as high as 100 percent or more. The treated sidestream water would be used to irrigate highervalue food crops which can permissibly be irrigated by Title 22 water, sometimes known as “recycled” or “reclaimed” water, which includes a broad range of fruits, vegetables, tree fruits, nuts and cannabis.

This option would make sense only if there were a private grower nearby who was willing to enter into a long-term reclamation contract with the City, similar to what is described in Alternative 3. A situation as in Alternative 4 would also make sense for this option with a longer term farming contract. Physically, it would require upgrades to the existing aeration basins to produce a consistent quality effluent, installation of secondary clarifiers, construction of a filtration system and disinfection facilities, and the installation of a pump station and pipeline to convey the recycled water for use, including storage and pumping for the tertiary treated effluent.

This options provides for a wider selection of uses and disposal methods for the treated effluent; however, as flexible as this alternative would make the recycled water, the high capital and maintenance costs make this alternative an unlikely choice if any of the previous alternatives remain feasible. The recycled water would have high value only to the grower(s) able to use it as recycled water on high-value crops. Use of recycled water for irrigation of City parks and school yards is costly and can only be feasible with substantial financial assistance from a grant program or partnership with project proponent in need of the treated water. Should the City make a deal with a grower to create such a system, and then have that grower go out of business a number of years down the way, due to a change in the commodity market or the crops otherwise loosing value, other growers may not find the water as valuable and would not be willing to pay a premium price for it, rendering the City’s capital investment in tertiary treatment technology worthless and resulting in a serious financial hit to the City.

Implementation of Alternative 5 would involve several administrative steps including finding and entering into a reclamation agreement with a farmer, preparation of a CEQA document for both the Wastewater Treatment Plant and the proposed receiver site and pipeline route(s), preparation and processing of a new Report of Waste Discharge, Groundwater Antidegradation Report, and Report of Water Reclamation, along with processing new Waste Discharge Regulations with the Water Board. A summary of the anticipated costs for advanced treatment and disposal of 300,000 gpd is shown in Table 5-5.

Section 5: Effluent Disposal Alternatives
Mendota Wastewater Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • March 2021 5-8
Table 5-5. Alternative 5 Summary of Costs
Summary of Costs to Tertiary Treat 300,000 gpd and send to Contract Farmers Description Quantity[1] Units Unit Cost Cost
Prepare CEQA
(Assume EIR) and
Permitting
1 LS $250,000 $250,000
Prepare ROWD,
ADR, RWR 1 LS $50,000 $50,000
Process WDRs 1 LS $10,000 $10,000
General Contracting
Requirements 1 LS $236,400 $236,400
Upgrade Aeration
Basin (300 Hp) 1 LS $300,000 $300,000
Strainers Prior to
Microfiltration 1 LS $70,000 $70,000
Cloth Media Filtration
and Disinfection 1 LS $159,000 $159,000
Civil Site Work 1 LS $500,000 $500,000
Electrical,
Instrumentation and
Controls
1 LS $150,000 $150,000
6” PVC Force Main 5280 LF $25 $132,000
Small Pump Station 1 EA $250,000 $250,000
48” Outlet Structure 1 EA $15,000 $15,000
Contingency 25%
Total: $2,653,000

5.6 Alternative 6 – Tertiary Effluent to the Fresno Slough Finally, the City could possibly have the option to treat its wastewater effluent to a level beyond Title 22 standards and discharge it to the Fresno Slough. The Fresno Slough is tributary to the San Joaquin River, connecting about 0.5 miles north of the WWTP at the Mendota Pool. This alternative will require all the aforementioned treatment upgrades in addition to acquiring a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the Water Board as well as permits from Central Valley Flood Protection Board, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish & Wildlife and/or California Department of Fish & Wildlife.

Preliminary meetings with the Water Board have confirmed that the regulatory path to such a permit would be very difficult, with both permit and monitoring requirements being very strict and being accompanied by serious monetary fines which are rigorously imposed. While at least one other city (Modesto) is permitted to discharge into the San Joaquin River, it is very clearly not the preference or policy of the Water Board to allow such discharges and additional discharges will be strongly discouraged.

Section 5: Effluent Disposal Alternatives
Mendota Wastewater Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • March 2021 5-9
From a plumbing standpoint, this would be an easy and simple connection. Roughly one-half mile of new pipeline would be needed to convey water from the WWTP to the Fresno Slough. All effluent discharged would have to reliably meet Title 22 quality requirements plus supplemental requirements for a number of constituents not considered under Title 22. Temperature of discharge water is strictly monitored and controlled, and penalty fines accrue for violations as small as 0.1 degree above or below the target discharge temperature. Other requirements are similarly strict, meaning the level of operation and maintenance required is very high and quite sophisticated.

This alternative is not recommended for serious consideration, due to the highly regulated nature of discharge. In fact, due to the variability of effluent quality of the discharge waters and the strict water quality reporting requirements this option is not feasible for the City to pursue at this time.

5.7 Selection of Preferred Disposal Alternative

5.7.1 Primary Options
The alternatives in this Section 5 are presented with the easiest to implement first on the list, but the easiest alternatives are not necessarily the best in the long term. The two on-site alternatives, optimizing the existing WWTP footprint to create more evaporation ponds and implementing more mechanical evaporators, are both completely under the City’s control, covered by existing CEQA document, and can be accomplished by public works crews and/or informal bid processes. Those advantages make both alternatives attractive as short-term tactics to maintain adequate disposal capacity while longer-term solutions are developed and implemented.

Due to the stringent regulatory requirements for discharging to the Fresno Slough, discharge to that body (Alternative 6) is not considered feasible and should not be pursued. Even if all of the permits were to be secured, the costs of ongoing testing and compliance would be very high and the alternative would prove to be uneconomical both to secure and to operate and maintain.

Given the poor percolation rates of the surrounding lands, the most easily-accomplished option for long-term effluent disposal is Alternative 2, to convey secondary treated water to additional evaporation ponds located within an approximate one-mile radius of the WWTP,. Currently there are 536 acres of fallow land within a one-mile radius and only 80 acres are needed for the disposal of 0.30 mgd of effluent. The construction of additional evaporation ponds is a good long-term solution for effluent disposal and will require minimal maintenance.

Even if Alternative 2 is initially selected, it would be possible to add an irrigation component later, as proposed in Alternative 3, or to contract with a landowner to take water, as in Alternative 4. There are advantages to the irrigation alternatives.

First, the Water Board would prefer to see the effluent reused rather than simply allowed to evaporate and would be more receptive to the necessary Report of Waste Discharge, Groundwater Antidegradation Report and Report of Water Reclamation if the quantity of water reaching the groundwater were to be minimized by agronomic uptake. Second, there could be some minor income to the City for sale of the water to a farmer if the receiver is actually an independent landowner and not a contract farmer hired by the City to cultivate City lands. If the latter is the case, there is possibility for income depending upon the agreement negotiated with the contract farmer. In years when no contract farmer is interested or available, the land could be flooded and used for evaporative surface without much financial impact to the City.

Section 5: Effluent Disposal Alternatives
Mendota Wastewater Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • March 2021 5-10
While providing the minimum acreages discussed above will allow the City’s WWTP to keep up with population growth and will continue to expand on the method of effluent disposal that is currently provided, Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 can all be expanded to include much greater off-site acreages. Doing so could improve effluent disposal and directly impact the quality of water being held in the on-site evaporation ponds. If there is adequate pond area to allow some of the on-site ponds to be completely dried out each year, then the pond bottoms could be occasionally scraped to remove salts and the bottoms plowed and ripped to mix any remaining salts deeper. This practice would improve overall salt levels in the on-site evaporation ponds.

Presently, the WWTP’s evaporation pond footprint is undersized and should contain an additional 80 acres of disposal pond area, either within the footprint planned for the WWTP or nearby fallow land, to accommodate the projected 20-year growth pattern.

Such a large evaporation area could be acquired, if necessary, and developed in phases but would ideally be within or contiguous to the WWTP for operating efficiency.

5.7.2 Secondary Options
Treating a sidestream of effluent to tertiary (Title 22) standards to sell to neighboring growers cultivating higher-value crops, as presented in Alternative 5, is a high-risk proposition for the City, especially when compared with Alternative 3. The capital cost and additional operating expense required to achieve Title 22 effluent is substantial, even for a sidestream of 20 percent of the WWTP’s flow. As the City grows, the proportion of the sidestream would necessarily grow as well, since the on-site evaporation capacity is already maximized. Having a single customer for high-cost recycled water puts the City in a precarious position should that customer ever cease operations, change ownership, or simply decide to change operations in a way that requires less irrigation water.

The choice between Alternatives 3 or 4 and 5 becomes one of risk tolerance. Either alternative will work reliably; however, Alternative 4 would require additional land. Alternative 5 would require substantially more initial capital investment but brings with it the chance of much greater returns to the City over time. Selection between these alternatives should be based on careful consideration of the financial risks, and on consideration of financial modelling and expertise in the agricultural markets that is beyond the scope of this Master Plan.

In addition to Alternatives 3 and 4, use of treated effluent may become appealing to farmers seeking water credits to comply with the new standards under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA).

Although this alternative is not the most feasible at this time due to cost, public perception, and the early stages of SGMA implementation, in the future as water costs rise and SGMA rules tighten, farmers may have a higher incentive to use treated effluent for irrigation and this alternative may become more attractive for surrounding growers.

Section 6: Public Benefit Versus
Development Requirements
Mendota Wastewater Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • March 2021 6-1
6 Public Benefit Versus Development
Requirements
The improvements discussed in the WWMP can be assigned to one of two categories:
• Improvements necessary for the 20 year planning horizon; and • Improvements required to serve future development within the General Plan’s proposed Sphere of Influence
It is the recommendation of this report for the City to prioritize improving existing infrastructure to mitigate current issues with aging infrastructure in the eastern portion of town first. This would provide City’s residents with an immediate benefit. Those projects will benefit existing City residents, though the cost burden for the projects will fall on the City. Project funds will have to come either from the Wastewater Capital fund or from wastewater-related grant funds as those become available. It would not be possible to use Development Impact Fees (DIF) for construction of such rehabilitation projects unless they also benefit developing areas, and then only in proportion to the benefit that the developing area receives. The sewers in eastern Mendota do not benefit any developing areas, and so are not likely to be eligible for any DIF participation.

As the City grows and expands, it is recommended that the collection, conveyance and treatment improvements discussed in Sections 3 through 5 of this report be implemented, either directly by developers or by the City through Development Impact Fee financing, to provide the benefit of sustainable wastewater management to new City residents. The table below identifies the approximate costs associated with the improvements for each Collection Zone, both existing and future.

Establishment of appropriate Development Impact Fees to support financing of these projects is beyond the scope of this report. The City will complete a separate Development Impact Fee study which will recommend fee amounts for wastewater infrastructure and other Development Impact Fees.

Section 6: Public Benefit Versus
Development Requirements
Mendota Wastewater Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • March 2021 6-2
Table 6-1. Summary of Cost to Implement Recommended Infrastructure Upgrades Summary of Cost to Implement Recommended Infrastructure Upgrades Description Estimated Costs Priority
Existing Infrastructure Improvements
East Mendota Pipeline Replacement Project $9,983,600 High Sub Total $9,983,600
Future Collection Zone Improvements
Collection Zone #1 $2,479,100 As Needed
Collection Zone #2 $2,259,500 As Needed
Collection Zone #3 $3,763,600 As Needed
Sub Total $8,502,200
Disposal System Upgrades (One Only)
Alt 1 - On-Site Evaporation Ponds $1,203,800 As Needed
Alt 2 - Off-Site Evaporation Ponds $8,027,200 As Needed Alt 3 - Send Secondary-Treated Effluent to
Contract Farmers
$895,700 As Needed
Alt 4 - Send Secondary-Treated Effluent to
Farms on City Lands
$2,940,100 As Needed
Alt 5 - Tertiary Treat 200,000 GPD and Send
to Contract Farmers
$2,653,000 As Needed
Alt 6 - Discharge to Fresno Slough N/A N/A
Sub Total $895,000 to $8,027,200
Total All Improvements $19,381,500 to $26,513,000
Section 7: Environmental and Permitting
Mendota Wastewater Master Plan
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • March 2021 7-1
7 Environmental and Permitting
Development of the City to the boundary identified by the proposed Sphere of Influence in the General Plan Update is covered by the EIR prepared for that document. All wastewater treatment and disposal operations occurring within the City’s current WWTP property off Bass Avenue are covered under the EIR prepared for that facility in 2009 and Waste Discharge Requirements Order R5-2016-0054.

As additional facilities are needed that require construction outside of the existing WWTP parcel, new CEQA analysis and reporting will be required. Since these facilities will be in support of development covered in the General Plan Update (GPU) EIR, the CEQA document can be tiered off of that EIR, possibly as Supplemental EIRs or Mitigated Negative Declarations providing additional information about details of improvements that were not known when the GPU EIR was prepared. If additional impacts are identified, a Supplemental EIR would be required and new mitigation measures could be imposed. If no new impacts are identified, a Mitigated Negative Declaration could be sufficient. These decisions will have to be made on a project by project basis.

The current Waste Discharge Requirements for the WWTP are based on a Report of Waste Discharge prepared in 2015 that was able to project development of the on-site WWTP up through an Average Daily Flow of approximately 1.20 mgd. Once that level is reached, additional effluent disposal solutions will be required, and those are not covered in the current ROWD or WDRs. Revised documents will have to be prepared and processed with the Water Board. That work should begin in time to get new WDRs in place before construction has to begin on any improvements outside of the current WWTP site, to avoid permit violation. In the meantime, the Water Board must be kept informed, in writing, of changes in pond configurations and operations on site. These are permitted in the current permit, but it is the City’s obligation to work with the Water Board to keep them informed.

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • March 2021 Appendix - 1 Appendix
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2018 Sewer Design Criteria-1 City of Mendota
Sanitary Sewer Design Criteria

1.1 Introduction
The design criteria in this section are the minimum acceptable criteria for use by designers of sanitary sewer collection facilities to be developed within the City. Designers are cautioned to apply their own expertise and judgment in development of final designs. Certain projects or clients may appropriately require more stringent criteria. However, the City will not reimburse for costs associated with systems designed to criteria higher than listed herein, unless those higher criteria have been mandated by City staff or other governing bodies.

1.2 Sewage Generation Criteria
Standard sewage generation rates shall be used to calculate demands for sewage flow in pipes and pump stations. Generation rates are taken from recent studies for new homes, and from a combination of older references and City experience for existing homes. Commercial and industrial generation rates are based on standard fixture units as expressed in the California Building code. In addition, industrial generation will be increased by waste process water as reported by a proposed industrial user and/or as metered by the City.

All flow rates shall be coordinated with the City of Mendota.

1.2.1 Per-Unit Populations
According to the 2010 census and the City of Mendota General Plan Update, Mendota averages 4.4 residents per single family unit, and 3.3 persons per multi-family using. These values are significantly larger than typical planning numbers, and therefore must be used in order to accommodate reasonably-expected demands.

1.2.2 Residential Areas
When planning sewer collection facilities which fully or partially serve home built before 2013, the design shall allow 85 gallons/person-day.

For homes designed and/or constructed in 2013 or later, facilities shall be designed to allow for 60 gallons/person-day.

Collection facilities serving a mix of residential ages shall be deigned to allow for a sewage generation quantity in proportion to the numbers of newer and older units being served.

1.2.3 Commercial Areas
Commercial sewage generation shall be assumed to be 95% of the indoor water use calculated for the proposed buildings. Calculations are subject to approval by the City Engineer.

1.2.4 Industrial Areas
Industrial wastewater generation will be substantially different for each type and size of facility, and must be calculated by the project engineer, subject to approval of the City Engineer, at the time of project planning.

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2018 Sewer Design Criteria-2

1.3 Pipe Flow Design
Pipe flow design shall be calculated using Manning’s equation, with design parameters appropriate to the materials proposed for use.

Unless specifically allowed by the City for a given project, gravity and pressure sanitary sewer pipelines shall be constructed of PVC solid-wall pipe meeting the requirements of Section Nineteen of the City of Mendota Standard Specifications, as amended.

1.3.1 Minimum Design Criteria

1.3.1.1 Manning’s “n” Value
Although PVC pipe is typically given a manufacturer’s rating of n=0.009, roughness caused over time by grit in the flow stream means that value cannot be maintained over the life of the system.

Design “n” value shall be 0.011, or another greater value as may be determined by the design engineer or the City, for project-specific reasons.

1.3.2 Pipe Slopes
Pipe slope requirements are defined by the diameter of the pipe and the depth of flow in the pipe, with the objective of reaching a minimum of 2.0 feet/second velocity in the pipe at peak daily flow, to ensure pipe cleansing. The velocity requirement is measured at 50% or 100% full. If the line being designed will never reach 50% flow even at the daily peak, then the slope must be adjusted to achieve a minimum of 2.0 feet/second velocity at the actual depth/diameter ratio that will be achieved.

Minimum Sewer Pipe Slopes
Pipe Diameter n = 0.011 n = 0.013
6-inch 0.0034 0.0047
8-inch 0.0025 0.0034
10-inch 0.0018 0.0025
12-inch 0.0014 0.0019
15-inch 0.0010 0.0015
18-inch 0.0008 0.0011
21-inch 0.0007 0.00095
24-inch 0.00055 0.00075
Minimum slopes at d/D = 0.50 or 1.0
Maximum slope shall be at v = 7.5 feet/second

1.3.3 Manholes
Manholes shall be installed at a maximum spacing of 500 feet. Upon receipt of special approval from the City Engineer, slightly longer spacing may be permitted when conditions warrant.

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2018 Sewer Design Criteria-3 Manholes measuring less than 7.00 feet from rim to lowest invert shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard S-2, 48” Manhole.

Manholes measuring 7.00 feet or more from rim to lowest invert shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard S-2, 48” Manhole, except they shall be equipped with eccentric conic sections, offset to the outside of the street.

Manholes for large pipe shall be constructed in accordance with City of Mendota Standard Drawings S-4, 54” Manhole, and S-5, 60” Manhole, at the discretion of the City Engineer.

In cases where there is a 2.0-foot or more difference between the influent elevations of two pipelines entering a manhole, the Drop Manhole detail shown on City Standard Drawing S-3 shall be implemented with the appropriate diameter manhole barrel and cone shape.

1.4 Pump and Lift Stations
Pump and lift stations shall both be wet well pits equipped with duplex or triplex submersible pumps. The terms “pump station” and “lift station” are not entirely synonymous, but the term “pump station” is used below to include both when the distinction is not important.

All plans and calculations for the pump, controls and pump station site details shall be prepared, sealed and signed by the project engineer.

The details of the pump, wet well and control panel installation shall conform to City Standard Drawings S11 to S-13. All plans and design calculations must be approved by the City Engineer prior to construction.

1.4.1 Lift Station versus Pump Station
For the purposes of these design requirements, a lift station is an installation that lifts water from a wet well and discharges it at ambient pressure into a gravity sewer pipeline. A pump station is an installation that lifts and pressurizes water from a wet well into a pressurized conveyance line for transport to another location.

A pump station may be used if there are no current or future sewer service connections along the route of the transmission pipeline.

A lift station must be used where there is a chance that additional locations will require sewer service provided by the new gravity sewer line. The gravity sewer shall be designed to the greatest degree practical to provide potential gravity service to all un-sewered parcels along its length.

1.4.2 Wet Well and Pump Design Criteria
Pumps shall be designed and guaranteed for continuous service handling of raw sewage or urban storm drainage runoff. They shall feature a clog-resistant impeller/volute design and shall be suitable for operation in water having a temperature range of 40° F to 80° F. Pumps shall be easily removable for inspection or service, without removal of bolts, nuts or other fasteners, and without the need for personnel to enter the wet well. Sealing of the submersible pumping unit to the discharge elbow shall be accomplished by a simple downward motion of the pump and shall provide a water tight connection.

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2018 Sewer Design Criteria-4 Pumps, motor, wiring, etc. shall be approved by a nationally approved testing agency (Underwriters Lab or Factory Mutual) for explosion-proof service in the State of California. The system shall be rated for Class 1, Division 1, Group C and D, service as determined by the National Electrical Code, latest edition.

1.4.3 Pump Station Design
Pump stations shall be designed to lift the design peak flow as determined using the above criteria for computing sewage flow. Pump for sanitary sewer stations shall be equipped with two identical pumps, each capable of discharging the peak flow. Pumps must be able to alternate. Pump stations with three or more pumps may be considered where dual pump stations are infeasible, subject to the approval of the City Engineer. All pump stations shall be capable of passing the peak flow with any one pump out of service.

Wet well capacity shall be sized using the following formula:

V = øQ Where V = volume in gallons
4 ø = cycle length (taken as ten minutes for pump station with two pumps) Q = pumping capacity of single pump
Pumps shall be Flygt or approved equal, unless flow volumes require propeller pump installation.

1.4.4 Pump Components

1.4.4.1 Volute and Impeller
The pump volute and impeller shall be gray cast iron per ASTM A48, Class 25 or better, with smooth surfaces free of blow holes and irregularities. Where watertight sealing is required, O-rings of nitrile rubber or equivalent material shall be used. All exposed nuts and bolts shall be made of 304 stainless steel. The interior of the unit shall be coated in accordance with City Standards.

Vortex non-clog design impellers, such that the pumpage does not pass through the impeller, are acceptable, as are single-vane, non-clog-type impellers. Dual-vane impellers will not be accepted. Impeller shall pass three-inch solids.

Impellers shall be dynamically and hydraulically balanced, and shall be securely fastened to the shaft with keys or appropriate locking devices.

1.4.4.2 Mechanical Seals
Pumps shall be equipped with a double mechanical seal system, mounted in tandem, with an oil chamber between the seals. The lower seal unit, between the pump and oil chamber, shall contain one stationary and one rotating tungsten-carbide ring. The upper seal unit, between the oil sump and motor casing, shall contain one stationary tungsten carbide ring and one rotating carbon ring. Remaining seal components shall be stainless steel and buna-n rubber.

1.4.5 Motor Components

1.4.5.1 Design
Pump motors shall be a squirrel-cage induction, shell-type construction designed to NEMA B Standards.

Motor housing shall be watertight and shall be air or dielectric oil-filled.

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2018 Sewer Design Criteria-5 Motor shall be designed to work on 240v or 480v, 3-phase current. Unless 3-phase motors are not available in the horsepower rating required for the pump station, single-phase motors will not be accepted.

The combined service factor of the motor shall be 1.10 or greater. The motor supplied must be adequate throughout the full range of the published pump curve without overloading and without considering the service factor.

Motors shall be designed for continuous duty and shall be capable of sustaining a minimum of 10 starts per hour. The stator windings and stator leads shall be insulated with moisture-resistant Class F materials, which shall be rated at 310°F.

1.4.5.2 Watertight Seals
Power and sensor cable entries into the motor junction box shall be effectively sealed. The entry seal shall consist of either a close-tolerance system consisting of a single cylindrical elastomer grommet, stainless steel washers, and a ferrule. Alternately, it shall be epoxy-potted with a buna-n grommet or compression-fitted out seal.

Power and sensor leads from the junction chamber into the motor housing must also be sealed watertight.

Epoxy-potted systems or terminal board and O-ring systems are acceptable.

All joints in the housing, junction box, seal chamber, and pump shall be carefully machined and equipped with O-ring seals.

1.4.5.3 Shaft
The motor shaft on which the impeller is mounted shall be stainless steel. The impeller shall be slip-fit to the shaft, key driven, and attached with stainless steel fasteners.

1.4.5.4 Bearings
The pump-motor shaft shall rotate within two ball bearing assemblies. Bearings shall be permanently lubricated and shall have an AFBMA computed B-10 life rating of not less than 18,000 hours.

1.4.5.5 Thermal Overload Protection
To protect the motor from overheating, each phase winding shall be equipped with automatic-reset, normally closed thermal switches embedded in the end coils of the stator winding. These shall be used in conjunction with and supplemental to the external motor overload protection, and wired to the panel.

1.4.5.6 Power and Sensor Cables
All power and sensor cables shall be of sufficient length to reach the control panel without requiring a splice.

Cables shall be hypalon-jacketed and be watertight to a depth of 65 feet. Wicking fillers shall not be used.

Cables shall be restrained and routed so as not to interfere with the raising and lowering of the pumps within the sump.

1.4.6 Disconnect System and Guide Rails

1.4.6.1 General
Pumps shall be installed on slide rails made and supplied by the pump manufacturer. The pump shall be selfseating in the discharge impeller, and shall be supplied with a removable person-operated crane of capacity great enough to lift an entire pump assembly to a height of at least 60 inches above ground surface. The crane shall swivel to allow loading a pump into a service truck.

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2018 Sewer Design Criteria-6 The design of the disconnect system shall permit the easy removal of the pumping unit for inspection or service. The pump, when lowered into place, shall be automatically connected to the discharge piping. There shall be no need for personnel to enter the confined space of the wet well to inspect or service the pump.

1.4.6.2 Guide Bracket
Pumps shall be securely attached to a sliding guide bracket designed for use with at least two guide rails.

Stainless steel pipe rails shall be furnished as part of the pump installation. Guide rail support brackets shall be installed approximately midway between the pump station ceiling and floor. Each sliding guide bracket shall have nonsparking materials at the point of contact with the guide rails to prevent spark ignition of explosive pump station gases during pump installation and removal.

1.4.6.3 Discharge Elbow
A cast iron discharge elbow, located on the floor of the wet well, shall receive the pump discharge when the pump is lowered into place. The receiving edge of the discharge elbow shall be fitted with non-sparking material to prevent spark ignition of explosive pump station gases during pump installation and removal.

1.4.6.4 Base Plate
The lower guide rail brackets for the pump shall be mounted by the pump manufacturer on a steel base plate, in alignment for proper operation of the disconnect system. The base assembly shall provide stable support of the pumping unit during pump operation.

1.4.6.5 Lifting Cables
Each pump shall be supplied with stainless steel lifting cables of sufficient length and mounted in such a way as to allow removal of pump without requiring personnel entry into the wet pit.

1.4.6.6 Access Hatches
Access hatch frame assemblies shall have separate hinged covers for removal of each pump. Duplex pump lift stations require dual access hatches; triplex stations require three hatches. The frame shall have upper guide rail brackets and shall support the level sensor bracket. Covers shall be provided with lifting handles, safety latches to hold covers in the open position, and recessed, locking, hasps. Frame and covers shall be aluminum.

1.4.7 Pump Station Power and Control Panel
Pump controls shall be manufactured and supplied by the pump manufacturer and shall be designed to control a duplex or triplex installation as appropriate. The control panel shall bear the Underwriters Laboratory (UL) label. Controls shall include a hand-off-auto switch. The control computer shall allow the option of both lead-lag sequencing, and of always leading one particular pump. Pump controls shall be integrated into the City’s SCADA system as required by the City at the time of project design.

All controls shall be mounted in a NEMA 3R rainproof, metal enclosure. The design shall include a tamperproof door enclosing all control operators, which shall be mounted on an inner hinged door over the control equipment compartment. All circuit breakers and motor starter overload resets shall have operations mounted on the inner door.

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • November 2018 Sewer Design Criteria-7

1.4.8 Required Controls
Short circuit protection for each pump circuit shall be provided by an adjustable, instantaneous magnetic trip circuit breaker designed for motor circuit protection.

Each pump circuit shall include a full voltage non-reversing motor starter with ambient compensated, manually reset overload relays with quick trip heaters.

The pump control circuit shall include a door interlock switch to de-energize the control circuit when the enclosure door is open, a control circuit transformer with fused 115-volt secondary, a door-mounted control circuit disconnect switch, and an emergency generator disconnect switch.

Pump operation shall be controlled by a solid state level sensor rod as manufactured by Multitrode, or approved equivalent.. This sensor shall be programmed to provide on, off, and high water alert functionality.

High water alarm shall be indicated by an alarm light with a red polycarbonate lens or globe, mounted above the control panel.

Each pump starter shall also be equipped with a non-resettable cyclometer-type running time meter and a running pilot light.

1.4.9 Operational Testing
Pumps shall be tested separately and in combination. Equipment shall be operated under full load conditions. Motors shall be tested for correct rotation. Start up and cycle all systems to demonstrate proper operation. Testing shall be performed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations.

1.4.10 Electrical Service
Electrical service for lift stations shall conform to all applicable NEC and PG&E standards. All required conduit from the service drop to the transformer, and from the transformer to the service entry on the pump control panel shall be provided. All work shall be completed to the satisfaction of City's Representative and PG&E's field representative.

1.4.11 Discharge Piping
Discharge piping from the pumps shall be fusion epoxy lined, ductile iron pipe. The pipe shall be coated per City standards. A valve box meeting the requirements of Standard Drawing S-12 shall be installed.

Exhibit C
\\ppeng.com\pzdata\clients\Mendota_City of-3336\333618011-Storm Drain Master Plan\_DOCS\Reports\2022-07 Mendota SDMP.docx
City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
Mendota, CA
July 2022
Prepared for:

City of Mendota
Mendota, CA
Prepared by:

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
455 W. Fir Avenue, Clovis, CA 93611
\\ppeng.com\pzdata\clients\Mendota_City of-3336\333618011-Storm Drain Master Plan\_DOCS\Reports\2022-07 Mendota SDMP.docx
City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
Collection and Storage
Mendota, CA
July 2022
Prepared for:

City of Mendota
Prepared by:

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
455 W. Fir Avenue, Clovis, CA 93611
City of Mendota • July 2022 Storm Drain Master Plan
Report Prepared for:

City of Mendota
643 Quince Street
Mendota, CA 93640
Contact:

Cristian Gonzalez, City Manager
559-355-6291
[email protected]
Report Prepared by:

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
David McGlasson, PE, PLS
Matthew Barnes, PE
Michael Osborn, PE
Chuck Armstrong, PE
Cheryl Hunter, GIS
Tonia Holmes, EIT
Contact:

Michael Osborn
559-449-2700
[email protected]
COPYRIGHT 2022 by PROVOST & PRITCHARD ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
The firm of Provost & Pritchard Engineering Group, Inc. expressly reserves its common law copyright and other applicable property rights in these plans. These plans are not to be reproduced, changed, or copied in any form or manner whatsoever, nor are they to be assigned to a third party without first obtaining the written permission and consent of Provost & Pritchard Engineering Group, Inc.

In the event of unauthorized reuse of these plans by a third party, the third party shall hold the firm of Provost & Pritchard Engineering Group, Inc. harmless, and shall bear the cost of Provost & Pritchard Engineering Group, Inc.'s legal fees associated with defending and enforcing these rights.
7/15/22 7/15/2022
City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary............................................................................................................................................................ 1 1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Purpose and Goals......................................................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Existing System Overview.........................................................................................................................1-1

1.3 Existing Watershed Concerns...................................................................................................................1-4

1.3.1 Watershed #1 ................................................................................................................................1-4

1.3.2 Watershed #2 ................................................................................................................................1-4

1.3.3 Watershed #7 ................................................................................................................................1-5

1.3.4 Other Issues...................................................................................................................................1-6

1.4 San Luis Drain .............................................................................................................................................1-7

1.5 Proposed Storm Drain Improvements....................................................................................................1-8 2 Design Criteria........................................................................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Hydrology.....................................................................................................................................................2-1

2.1.1 Runoff Coefficients......................................................................................................................2-2

2.1.2 Rainfall Intensity ...........................................................................................................................2-2

2.1.3 Basin Storage Requirements........................................................................................................2-2

2.1.4 Hydraulic Modeling ......................................................................................................................2-2

2.1.5 Storm Water Disposal ..................................................................................................................2-3 3 Study Areas.............................................................................................................................................................3-1

3.1 Overview.......................................................................................................................................................3-1

3.2 Watershed #1...............................................................................................................................................3-1

3.2.1 Hydrology.......................................................................................................................................3-1

3.2.2 Necessary Projects........................................................................................................................3-2

3.2.3 Summary of Costs.........................................................................................................................3-2

3.3 Watershed #2...............................................................................................................................................3-4

3.3.1 Hydrology.......................................................................................................................................3-4

3.3.2 Necessary Projects........................................................................................................................3-4

3.3.3 Summary of Costs.........................................................................................................................3-7

3.4 Watershed #3...............................................................................................................................................3-7

3.4.1 Hydrology.......................................................................................................................................3-7

3.4.2 Necessary Projects........................................................................................................................3-7

3.4.3 Summary of Costs.........................................................................................................................3-9 City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 ii

3.5 Watershed #4............................................................................................................................................ 3-10

3.5.1 Hydrology.................................................................................................................................... 3-10

3.5.2 Necessary Projects..................................................................................................................... 3-10

3.6 Watershed #5............................................................................................................................................ 3-12

3.6.1 Hydrology.................................................................................................................................... 3-12

3.6.2 Necessary Projects..................................................................................................................... 3-12

3.6.3 Summary of Costs...................................................................................................................... 3-12

3.7 Watershed #6............................................................................................................................................ 3-14

3.7.1 Hydrology.................................................................................................................................... 3-14

3.7.2 Necessary Projects..................................................................................................................... 3-14

3.8 Watershed #7............................................................................................................................................ 3-16

3.8.1 Hydrology.................................................................................................................................... 3-16

3.8.2 Necessary Projects..................................................................................................................... 3-16

3.8.3 Summary of Costs...................................................................................................................... 3-18

3.9 Watershed #8............................................................................................................................................ 3-18

3.9.1 Hydrology.................................................................................................................................... 3-18

3.9.2 Necessary Projects..................................................................................................................... 3-20

3.9.3 Summary of Costs...................................................................................................................... 3-20

3.10 Watershed #9............................................................................................................................................ 3-20

3.10.1 Hydrology............................................................................................................................... 3-20

3.10.2 Necessary Projects................................................................................................................ 3-20

3.11 Watershed #10 ......................................................................................................................................... 3-22

3.11.1 Hydrology............................................................................................................................... 3-22

3.11.2 Necessary Projects................................................................................................................ 3-22

3.12 Drainage Zone #1.................................................................................................................................... 3-24

3.12.1 Hydrology............................................................................................................................... 3-24

3.12.2 Collection Facilities............................................................................................................... 3-24

3.12.3 Retention Storage.................................................................................................................. 3-26

3.12.4 Disposal.................................................................................................................................. 3-26

3.12.5 Necessary Projects................................................................................................................ 3-26

3.12.6 Summary of Costs................................................................................................................. 3-26

3.12.7 Permitting............................................................................................................................... 3-27

3.13 Drainage Zone #2.................................................................................................................................... 3-27

3.13.1 Hydrology............................................................................................................................... 3-27 City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 iii

3.13.2 Collection Facilities............................................................................................................... 3-30

3.13.3 Retention Storage.................................................................................................................. 3-30

3.13.4 Disposal.................................................................................................................................. 3-30

3.13.5 Necessary Projects................................................................................................................ 3-30

3.13.6 Summary of Costs................................................................................................................. 3-31

3.13.7 Permitting............................................................................................................................... 3-31

3.14 Drainage Zone #3.................................................................................................................................... 3-31

3.14.1 Hydrology............................................................................................................................... 3-33

3.14.2 Collection Facilities............................................................................................................... 3-33

3.14.3 Retention Storage.................................................................................................................. 3-33

3.14.4 Disposal.................................................................................................................................. 3-33

3.14.5 Necessary Projects................................................................................................................ 3-34

3.14.6 Summary of Costs................................................................................................................. 3-34

3.14.7 Permitting............................................................................................................................... 3-34

3.15 Drainage Zone #4.................................................................................................................................... 3-35

3.15.1 Hydrology............................................................................................................................... 3-35

3.15.2 Collection Facilities............................................................................................................... 3-35

3.15.3 Retention Storage.................................................................................................................. 3-37

3.15.4 Disposal.................................................................................................................................. 3-37

3.15.5 Necessary Projects................................................................................................................ 3-37

3.15.6 Summary of Costs................................................................................................................. 3-38

3.15.7 Permitting............................................................................................................................... 3-38

3.16 Drainage Zone #5.................................................................................................................................... 3-39

3.16.1 Hydrology............................................................................................................................... 3-39

3.16.2 Collection Facilities............................................................................................................... 3-39

3.16.3 Retention Storage.................................................................................................................. 3-39

3.16.4 Disposal.................................................................................................................................. 3-40

3.16.5 Necessary Projects................................................................................................................ 3-42

3.16.6 Summary of Costs................................................................................................................. 3-42

3.16.7 Permitting............................................................................................................................... 3-42

3.17 Drainage Zone #6.................................................................................................................................... 3-43

3.17.1 Hydrology............................................................................................................................... 3-43

3.17.2 Collection Facilities............................................................................................................... 3-43

3.17.3 Retention Storage.................................................................................................................. 3-45 City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 iv

3.17.4 Disposal.................................................................................................................................. 3-45

3.17.5 Necessary Projects................................................................................................................ 3-45

3.17.6 Summary of Costs................................................................................................................. 3-46

3.17.7 Permitting............................................................................................................................... 3-46

3.18 Drainage Zone #7.................................................................................................................................... 3-46

3.18.1 Hydrology............................................................................................................................... 3-48

3.18.2 Collection Facilities............................................................................................................... 3-48

3.18.3 Retention Storage.................................................................................................................. 3-48

3.18.4 Disposal.................................................................................................................................. 3-48

3.18.5 Summary of Costs................................................................................................................. 3-49

3.18.6 Permitting............................................................................................................................... 3-49

3.19 Drainage Zone #8.................................................................................................................................... 3-50

3.19.1 Hydrology............................................................................................................................... 3-50

3.19.2 Collection Facilities............................................................................................................... 3-50

3.19.3 Retention Storage.................................................................................................................. 3-50

3.19.4 Disposal.................................................................................................................................. 3-52

3.19.5 Necessary Projects................................................................................................................ 3-52

3.19.6 Summary of Costs................................................................................................................. 3-52

3.19.7 Permitting............................................................................................................................... 3-53

3.20 Drainage Zone #9.................................................................................................................................... 3-53

3.20.1 Hydrology............................................................................................................................... 3-53

3.20.2 Collection Facilities............................................................................................................... 3-56

3.20.3 Retention Storage.................................................................................................................. 3-56

3.20.4 Disposal.................................................................................................................................. 3-56

3.20.5 Necessary Projects................................................................................................................ 3-56

3.20.6 Summary of Costs................................................................................................................. 3-57

3.20.7 Permitting............................................................................................................................... 3-57

3.21 Drainage Zone #10 ................................................................................................................................. 3-57

3.21.1 Hydrology............................................................................................................................... 3-59

3.21.2 Collection Facilities............................................................................................................... 3-59

3.21.3 Retention Storage.................................................................................................................. 3-59

3.21.4 Disposal.................................................................................................................................. 3-59

3.21.5 Necessary Projects ............................................................................................................... 3-60

3.21.6 Summary of Costs................................................................................................................. 3-60 City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 v

3.21.7 Permitting............................................................................................................................... 3-61

3.22 Drainage Zone #11 ................................................................................................................................. 3-61

3.22.1 Hydrology............................................................................................................................... 3-61

3.22.2 Collection Facilities............................................................................................................... 3-63

3.22.3 Retention Storage.................................................................................................................. 3-63

3.22.4 Disposal.................................................................................................................................. 3-63

3.22.5 Necessary Projects................................................................................................................ 3-63

3.22.6 Summary of Costs................................................................................................................. 3-64

3.22.7 Permitting............................................................................................................................... 3-64

3.23 Drainage Zone #12 ................................................................................................................................. 3-64

3.23.1 Hydrology............................................................................................................................... 3-66

3.23.2 Collection Facilities............................................................................................................... 3-66

3.23.3 Retention Storage.................................................................................................................. 3-66

3.23.4 Disposal.................................................................................................................................. 3-66

3.23.5 Necessary Projects................................................................................................................ 3-67

3.23.6 Summary of Costs................................................................................................................. 3-67

3.23.7 Permitting............................................................................................................................... 3-68

3.24 Drainage Zone #13 ................................................................................................................................. 3-68

3.24.1 Hydrology............................................................................................................................... 3-68

3.24.2 Collection Facilities............................................................................................................... 3-70

3.24.3 Retention Storage.................................................................................................................. 3-70

3.24.4 Disposal.................................................................................................................................. 3-70

3.24.5 Necessary Projects................................................................................................................ 3-70

3.24.6 Summary of Costs................................................................................................................. 3-71

3.24.7 Permitting............................................................................................................................... 3-71

3.25 Drainage Zone #14 ................................................................................................................................. 3-71

3.25.1 Hydrology............................................................................................................................... 3-73

3.25.2 Collection Facilities............................................................................................................... 3-73

3.25.3 Retention Storage.................................................................................................................. 3-73

3.25.4 Disposal.................................................................................................................................. 3-73

3.25.5 Necessary Projects................................................................................................................ 3-74

3.25.6 Summary of Costs................................................................................................................. 3-74

3.25.7 Permitting............................................................................................................................... 3-74 4 Public Benefit versus Development Charges....................................................................................................4-1 City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 vi

4.1 Existing Versus Future Users....................................................................................................................4-1 Appendix.............................................................................................................................................................................. 1 City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 vii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Projected Land Use Diagram........................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Existing Watersheds .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3. Proposed Drainage Zones/Watersheds and Basins..................................................................................... 4 Figure 4. Flooding 2nd at Naples....................................................................................................................................1-5 Figure 5. Flooding at 2nd and Naples............................................................................................................................1-6 Figure 6. Flooding at 2nd and Naples............................................................................................................................1-6 Figure 7. Existing Watershed No. 1..............................................................................................................................3-3 Figure 8. Existing Watershed No. 2..............................................................................................................................3-5 Figure 9. City of Mendota’s grant funded Stormwater Improvement Project.......................................................3-6 Figure 10. Existing Watershed No. 3............................................................................................................................3-8 Figure 11. Existing Watershed No. 4......................................................................................................................... 3-11 Figure 12. Existing Watershed No. 5......................................................................................................................... 3-13 Figure 13. Existing Watershed No. 6......................................................................................................................... 3-15 Figure 14. Existing Watershed No. 7......................................................................................................................... 3-17 Figure 15. Existing Watershed No. 8......................................................................................................................... 3-19 Figure 16. Existing Watershed No. 9......................................................................................................................... 3-21 Figure 17. Existing Watershed No. 10 ...................................................................................................................... 3-23 Figure 18. Proposed Drainage Zone 1 ...................................................................................................................... 3-25 Figure 19. Proposed Drainage Zone 2 ...................................................................................................................... 3-29 Figure 20. Proposed Drainage Zone 3 ...................................................................................................................... 3-32 Figure 21. Proposed Drainage Zone 4 ...................................................................................................................... 3-36 Figure 22. Proposed Drainage Zone 5 ...................................................................................................................... 3-41 Figure 23. Proposed Drainage Zone 6 ...................................................................................................................... 3-44 Figure 24. Proposed Drainage Zone 7 ...................................................................................................................... 3-47 Figure 25. Proposed Drainage Zone 8 ...................................................................................................................... 3-51 Figure 26. Proposed Drainage Zone 9 ...................................................................................................................... 3-55 Figure 27. Proposed Drainage Zone 10 .................................................................................................................... 3-58 Figure 28. Proposed Drainage Zone 11 .................................................................................................................... 3-62 Figure 29. Proposed Drainage Zone 12 .................................................................................................................... 3-65 Figure 30. Proposed Drainage Zone 13 .................................................................................................................... 3-69 Figure 31. Proposed Drainage Zone 14 .................................................................................................................... 3-72 City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 viii
List of Tables
Table 2-1. Standard Runoff Coefficients....................................................................................................................2-2 Table 2-2. Standard Rainfall Intensities........................................................................................................................2-2 Table 2-3. Standard Basin Storage Requirements......................................................................................................2-2 Table 3-1. Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Watershed #3 .............................................................3-9 Table 3-3. Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Watershed #5 .......................................................... 3-12 Table 3-3. Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Watershed #7 .......................................................... 3-18 Table 3-4. Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Watershed #8 .......................................................... 3-20 Table 3-5. Hydrology of Storm Drain Infrastructure Drainage Zone #1 ........................................................... 3-24 Table 3-6. Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Drainage Zone #1 .................................................. 3-26 Table 3-7. Hydrology of Storm Drain Infrastructure Drainage Zone #2........................................................... 3-28 Table 3-8. Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Drainage Zone #2 .................................................. 3-31 Table 3-9. Hydrology of Storm Drain Infrastructure Drainage Zone #3 ........................................................... 3-33 Table 3-10. Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Drainage Zone #3................................................ 3-34 Table 3-11. Hydrology of Storm Drain Infrastructure Drainage Zone #4......................................................... 3-35 Table 3-12. Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Drainage Zone #4................................................ 3-38 Table 3-13. Hydrology of Storm Drain Infrastructure Drainage Zone #5......................................................... 3-39 Table 3-14. Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Drainage Zone #5................................................ 3-42 Table 3-15. Hydrology of Storm Drain Infrastructure Drainage Zone #6......................................................... 3-43 Table 3-16. Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Drainage Zone #6................................................ 3-46 Table 3-17. Hydrology of Storm Drain Infrastructure Drainage Zone #7......................................................... 3-48 Table 3-18. Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Drainage Zone #7................................................ 3-49 Table 3-19. Hydrology of Storm Drain Infrastructure Drainage Zone #8......................................................... 3-50 Table 3-20. Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Drainage Zone #8................................................ 3-52 Table 3-20. Hydrology of Storm Drain Infrastructure Drainage Zone #9......................................................... 3-54 Table 3-21. Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Drainage Zone #9................................................ 3-57 Table 3-22. Hydrology of Storm Drain Infrastructure Drainage Zone #10....................................................... 3-59 Table 3-23. Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Drainage Zone #10.............................................. 3-60 Table 3-24. Hydrology of Storm Drain Infrastructure Drainage Zone #11....................................................... 3-61 Table 3-25. Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Drainage Zone #11.............................................. 3-64 Table 3-26. Hydrology of Storm Drain Infrastructure Drainage Zone #12....................................................... 3-66 Table 3-27. Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Drainage Zone #12.............................................. 3-67 Table 3-28. Hydrology of Storm Drain Infrastructure Drainage Zone #13....................................................... 3-68 City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 ix
Table 3-29. Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Drainage Zone #13.............................................. 3-71 Table 3-30. Hydrology of Storm Drain Infrastructure Drainage Zone #14....................................................... 3-73 Table 3-31. Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Drainage Zone #14.............................................. 3-74 Table 4-1. Summary of Cost to Implement Recommended Infrastructure Upgrades.........................................4-2 City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 x
Abbreviations
SDMP .........................................................................................................................................Storm Drain Master Plan HGL..................................................................................................................................................Hydraulic Grade Line SLC................................................................................................................................................................San Luis Canal City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 ES-1
Executive Summary
This report presents the Storm Drain Master Plan (SDMP) proposed for implementation in the City of Mendota, California, as prepared by Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group (P&P). The SDMP provides guidance both for necessary repairs for the existing storm drain system and for capital improvements to accommodate future development, as outlined in the City’s 2025 General Plan (Figure 1).

The analyses performed for this SDMP were done in compliance with the City of Mendota’s Hydrologic Design Criteria. P&P utilized Autodesk’s Storm and Sanitary Analysis software to create multiple hydraulic modeling scenarios in order to demonstrate compliance with City’s Standards and to identify areas of need.

This SDMP does not address regional flooding concerns. Historically the primary regional concern has been due to heavy storm water flows from the west down Belmont Avenue into the city. This is primarily due to Panoche Creek ending at Belmont Avenue approximately six miles west of Mendota and farmers along Belmont constructing berms along the roadway. In the 1970s, legal action was taken against the farmers along this 6-mile stretch to disallow them from creating berms higher than the roadway crown along their property.

The City was granted a permanent injunction against the levee construction, which had been only intermittently enforced until recent years. This renewed effort, increased coordination with Caltrans and Fresno County, as well as increased communication with the property owners has alleviated much of the flooding within the city limits resulting from Belmont Avenue flood flows.

The City’s current storm drain collection infrastructure consists of ten (10) existing watersheds. Four (4) of the existing watersheds discharge to retention basins for evaporation to the atmosphere. The other six (6) existing watersheds ultimately drain either into the Bass Avenue Ditch and on to a retention pond at the Mendota WWTP, or into the San Luis Drain where the water is stored until it evaporates or is pumped into the retention pond at the Mendota WWTP.

Figure 2 depicts the existing watersheds for the City of Mendota.

Future drainage infrastructure and necessary upgrades to Mendota’s current systems were determined in accordance with calculations based on the City of Mendota’s Hydraulic Design Criteria which can be viewed in detail in Appendix A. In this SDMP, an additional fourteen (14) Drainage Zones have been identified to address full development of the City’s 2025 General Plan. These Drainage Zones can be viewed in Figure 3 along with their recommended storm drainage infrastructure elements which are covered in the Chapter 3 of this report.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 ES-2
Figure 1. Projected Land Use Diagram
City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 ES-3
Figure 2. Existing Watersheds
City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 ES-4
Figure 3. Proposed Drainage Zones/Watersheds and Basins City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 1-1
1 Introduction
There are two main goals in the development of this Storm Drain Master Plan (SDMP). First and foremost, it is important for the City of Mendota (City) to have a better understanding of the existing system’s capabilities and what improvements are necessary to effectively mitigate existing flooding. The current storm drainage within the boundaries of the City is provided by several independent networks of inlets, pipes, pumps and basins. Though the system is designed to collect and convey stormwater resulting from small storms effectively, there have been issues during periods of heavier rainfall that have caused flooding throughout the City; with some locations flooding with only moderate rainfall.

The second main goal is to prepare for the development within the City’s proposed sphere of influence that is expected in the future. As undeveloped land is added to the Cities’ maintenance area, detailed planning is required to adequately prepare for the discharge of stormwater associated with each subsequent development.

This SDMP also gives the City an idea of the relative costs that will be associated with each additional watershed improvement.

In the sections following, the SDMP will address:
o Overall System Description
o Challenges Faced
o Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs

1.1 Purpose and Goals
The City’s current storm drain system within the older downtown triangle – bordered by Derrick Avenue, Belmont Avenue and the Union Pacific Railroad – is insufficient to support the current needs of the City, let alone any future development. Newer, primarily residential, developments have adequate storm drain infrastructure. It is imperative that the City plans, and constructs upgrades to the existing system, designed to the adopted standards, which will mitigate existing flooding and discharge concerns.

Currently the City has been pressed for development and has no mechanism for assessing development impact fees, and with the demand for additional housing and businesses has come the demand for supporting utility infrastructure. The recommendations of this SDMP address the future needs and requirements so that as new development is planned out, the appropriate infrastructure and development impact fees can be associated with each proposed development.

By implementing the recommendations provided in this report, the City can mitigate current flooding concerns within the existing system as well as sustainably plan for the future.

1.2 Existing System Overview
Urban runoff from just under 1,000-acres within the City of Mendota in general surface flows across city streets in an east-northeasterly direction. The City of Mendota, as with much of the San Joaquin Valley, is relatively flat. Gutters have imperceptibly shallow slopes. Precise topographic surveys of various locations in the city show lengths of gutter with zero slope, others with more commonly shallow slopes of around 0.2% (0.002 feet of fall per foot.) The ground elevations fall towards the Fresno Slough and San Joaquin River to the northeast of the City, but there is currently no discharge of storm water runoff to these bodies of water.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 1-2
There are four storm water basins in newer developments around the perimeter of the city and those areas are not prone to flooding. The older downtown “triangle” – bounded by Derrick Ave (State Route 33) on the west, the Union Pacific Railroad to the northeast, and Belmont Avenue on the south – has very limited storm drain infrastructure, see Figure 2.

The infrastructure within the downtown triangle is limited to surface flow conveyances such as curbs and gutters. Runoff passes through street intersections via concrete valley gutters or “bubble-ups,” which are short systems comprised of an inlet, a short length of buried pipe, and an outlet. In these systems, storm water enters the inlet from a gutter on one side of the street, fills the pipe and outlet structure until the water reaches a depth sufficient to flow out of the outlet structure and down the next gutter. Several feet of water is often left standing for months in these systems as the structures of these old systems have solid walls and the heavy clay native soil does not allow percolation.

Because of the high clay content, the City experiences only minimal percolation of standing water within basins, canals and other drainage structures. Removal of collected storm water runoff is by evaporation only.

Groundwater levels under the city are typically 20- to 25-feet below ground surface.

The railroad that runs northwest to southeast through the City is above grade and creates a major impediment to the flow of storm water runoff across the City. Naples Street which parallels the railroad on the southerly side sees extreme flooding centered around its intersections with 2nd Street and 9th Street. Flooding overtops curbs and flood waters have lapped up against the door thresholds of adjacent residential homes. During these events, the street is impassable and there is a threat to public safety due to pedestrian and vehicular mobility risks.

There is a pump station at the intersection of 2nd and Naples that moves water from that intersection under the railroad tracks to a curb outlet structure at the 2nd and Marie Street intersection. The pumps are equipped with variable speed controllers, and when run at full speed their output can exceed the capacity of the 2nd Street gutter flow, but even that is not sufficient to dewater the Naples and 2nd Street intersection during even a moderate storm event. In an effort to mitigate this situation, the City constructed a small detention basin that, by the use of a diversion valve on the force main, can accept some of the water pumped from 2nd & Naples when, during big rain events, they need to run the pumps at maximum speed. During less-intense rains, when a slower pump operating speed is adequate, they bypass this basin and direct all water down the 2nd Street gutter.

The intersection of Naples and 8th Street is a local low spot. There is no pump station there, which means storm water begins to collect in during every storm event regardless of the intensity. This problem is exacerbated because when 2nd and Naples floods, water breaks over at 4th Street, and flows southeast along both sides of Naples, eventually reaching and adding to the flooding between 8th Street and 10th Street. At that intersection, there is a system of curb inlets and buried pipe which runs through a private property to the south to discharge into an open channel which runs through a second private property and then discharges on a third private property outside the southeast city limits. This pipe system does not have the capacity to handle even moderate-intensity rain events. When water floods the 9th Street intersection, the only relief currently available is by temporary pump either at the inlet at 9th Street or at the inlet at 10th Street. From 9th Street, water must be pumped over the adjacent railroad tracks to a curb and gutter, which then flows to the storm water retention pond near the Mendota Airport. From 10th Street, water can be pumped onto the private property mentioned above, where it eventually flows to the open channel.

Flows from the two open channels at the southeast corner of town historically continued in an open channel about a mile southeast of town where it discharged into the Fresno Slough. Earthmoving operations on the agricultural land (orchard trees) blocked this discharge many years ago.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 1-3
In 2010, the City entered into an agreement with the San Luis & Delta Mendota Water Authority (SLDMWA) to drop water from this open channel into the San Luis Drain (SLD) via a gate valve where the channel crosses the SLD near Belmont Ave, east of State Route 180. This agreement was a good will gesture by the SLDMWA. The agreement has no specific term, and maybe cancelled at any time. The City is currently allowed to store water in a 2-mile stretch of the SLD between the Belmont ditch and Bass Avenue to the north until the stored water reaches a depth of 8-feet. This threshold has been met before. When that happens, city staff must bring a temporary pump to relieve the SLD by pumping water into a stormwater retention pond at the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant. Without the SLD, the City would not have any means to sufficiently manage their storm water, but this arrangement won’t work much longer as the City begins utilizing more of the ponds at the Wastewater Treatment Plant to deal with the disposal of additional treated effluent from the growing city.

The current system of storm water management does not include a discharge to the Fresno Slough, Mendota Pool, San Joaquin River or other regulated body of water. It relies on the SLD and vacant wastewater treatment ponds; neither of which are sustainable.

The City’s existing storm drain system consists of the ten (10) existing watersheds shown in Figure 2. The system is comprised of several different collection systems, some more effective than others. The list below highlights the current system:
• Multiple conveyance systems consisting of:
o Catch basins and drain inlets/outlets;
o Storm drain piping;
o Gutters and open channels; and
o Storm drain lift stations (3 total)
• Currently six (6) outlet points:
o Four (4) discharge to retention (evaporation) basins; o Three (3) discharge to the Bass Avenue ditch and ultimately to a retention basin at the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP); and
o Three (3) discharge to the San Luis Drain.
• Watersheds #1, #2 and #3’s conveyance systems release into separate ditches that merge together and ultimately discharge into the San Luis Drain (SLD), which serves as a linear retention basin. The City has an agreement with the SLDMWA to use the SLD for this purpose. When the SLD reaches a depth of 8 feet as measured on a staff gauge near Bass Avenue, the City must pump excess runoff into the retention basin at the WWTP.
• Watershed #5 gets pumped into Watershed #7 which drains through a system of storm drain pipes to a lift station that pumps the water into gutter in Watershed #8. • Watershed #8 conveyance system discharges into a drainage ditch along the southeasterly side of Bass Avenue that runs northeast to a retention basin at the WWTP. • Watershed #6 outlets into a retention basin, however there is an overflow safety feature that would allow a lift station to pump water into Watershed #7’s gutters. This feature has not been utilized since it was installed in 2014 according to City Staff. • Watersheds #4, #6, #9 and #10 all outlet into retention basins and do not have any flooding concerns and so therefore there no recommended improvements for these areas.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 1-4

1.3 Existing Watershed Concerns

1.3.1 Watershed #1
Watershed #1’s primary conveyance system runs east along Belmont Avenue. A major storm water management concern is the occasional flood of silty water that comes down Belmont Avenue when a storm in the Coast Range mountains causes Panoche Creek to flood. Flood waters spill over the creek banks 6.75 miles west of the City and flow eastward on Belmont Avenue. A court injunction dating to the 1970s has mandated that the farmers with land adjacent to Belmont must keep their earthen berms below the crown grade of Belmont Avenue, but this is often ignored. The result is causing silt-laden floodwaters to reach the City at the southwest corner of town. During especially high flows, the flood water over tops the intersection of Derrick Ave (State Route 33) and heads northeasterly along Derrick Avenue, across 7th Street, and then easterly through the heart of downtown. This water can easily cross Oller Street, compounding the flooding at 9th Street and Naples. There is a large (48”-72”) diameter storm drain in Belmont Avenue, running east from the west end near Derrick Avenue. This pipe largely provides detention of runoff as it discharges into an open channel at the southeast corner of town thru the Gonzalez tow-yard (private property). The invert at the end of the pipe is lower than the flowline of the receiving open channel; therefore, water ponds up in the pipe (similar to the bubble-up systems that cross Oller Street) before it reaches the flowline elevation of the open channel. This causes both standing water in the pipe and a large build-up of sediment and debris from the Panoche Creek flood waters within the pipe. This is a burden to maintain. Much of the Belmont Avenue storm drain pipe is lined with a clay silt that has settled in the pipes over time.

Recent coordination amongst the City, Caltrans and Fresno County has benefitted the City. For the last couple of years, the County has routed flows in Belmont north up Douglas Avenue (about 5.75 miles west of city limits.) This has resulted in minimal flows in Belmont reaching the City.

Belmont Avenue Pipeline
The invert of the pipeline along Belmont Avenue is approximately three (3) feet lower than the bottom of the channel that it discharges into. In addition, the flows from Panoche Creek that have previously run-down Belmont Avenue to this collection line are much more silt-laden than typical municipal storm drainage. This has caused this portion of the system to fill with silt and debris and reduced the utility of this large pipeline to relieve municipal flooding concerns. Enhancing this capacity by constructing a new pipeline from the east end of the Belmont line to the San Luis Drain discharge point is highly recommended.

1.3.2 Watershed #2
Watershed #2 covers most of the center of downtown and is composed of mostly older residential neighborhoods and most of the City’s commercial land uses on Derrick Avenue, 7th Street and Oller Street.

There is a grade break on Naples Street between 4th and 5th Streets that serves as the delineation between Watersheds #2 and #7. This watershed’s low point is at the intersection of 8th Street and Naples and the section of Naples from north of 8th Street to 10th Street experiences heavy flooding with as little as 0.25” of rainfall, suggesting the infrastructure draining Watershed #2 is insufficient.

As water flows south from the grade break between 4th & 5th Street there is some storm drain infrastructure in place. There are three (3) bubble-up drains (two inlets with an outlet connected by pipes that convey runoff across the intersection at 7th Street and Naples, outletting into the gutters on the railroad side of Naples Street. The storm drain conveyance conduit begins at the low-point of the watershed, at the intersection of 8th Street and Naples, and runs southeast to the end of Naples Street at 10th Street before jogging through privately owned land and eventually releasing into an earthen ditch. The pipes are extremely shallow where the system crosses the private property, with little to no cover. The pipes appear to be severely damaged, City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 1-5
crushed or otherwise filled with debris and there is very little flow capacity available. The City routinely brings in a temporary pump to pull water from the curb inlet at 10th and Naples and pump it across the currently vacant private property, where runoff eventually drains to the earthen ditch. Regardless of the cause, over 158 acres of the developed downtown has been designed to gutter flow to this collection point and the collection and conveyance system is significantly undersized. A larger underground pipeline system is needed.

Utilizing Proposition 1 funds from the Waterboard for Technical Assistance, the City has prepared 65% plans for a full reconstruction of the storm drainage system in this watershed and has applied for grant funding through both the Proposition 1 and Prop 68 Urban Flood Protection grant programs.

1.3.3 Watershed #7
Watershed #7 concentrates at a lift station at the intersection of 2nd Street and Naples Street, which pumps the watershed’s stormwater under the railroad and into 2nd Street’s westerly curb and gutter in Watershed #8 via a curb outlet with a bolted solid lid. The discharge from the lift station is limited by the capacity of the curb and gutter on 2nd Street. The City has built a small offline basin at the City’s water treatment plant with a valve on the lift station force main which allows discharge to be captured before it starts flooding 2nd Street.

The intersection of 2nd Street and Naples experiences some of the heaviest flooding in the City. Stormwater builds up in Naples Street and overtops the curbs in heavy rains, see Figure 4 through Figure 6 below. The peak flow arriving at 2nd and Naples exceeds the capacity of the lift station, however replacement or upgrade of the lift station would not adequately address the problem. The gutter the lift station discharges into has limited capacity and cannot accept more flow than it receives from the current lift station without significant flooding along 2nd Street northeast of the railroad. A more thorough solution will require detention storage southwest of Naples, to slow the flow of water arriving at Naples and 2nd Street to match the capacity of the lift station. Another, more expensive, option is to install an underground storm drain system to convey this runoff through Watershed #8 to the Bass Avenue ditch just outside of City limits. Currently Watershed #5 is connected to Watershed #7, but there are plans for the lift station to connect the existing pipes in Sorensen and connect to Watershed #6.

Figure 4. Flooding 2nd at Naples
City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 1-6
Figure 5. Flooding at 2nd and Naples
Figure 6. Flooding at 2nd and Naples

1.3.4 Other Issues
Watersheds #1, #2, #3, #7 and #8 all outlet into earthen drainage ditches. Some of these ditches are on private properties and all of them are poorly maintained and have large amounts of trash, weeds, and other deposits lining the ditches. The ditches are not as much of the cause for flooding as the lack of adequately sized storm drain infrastructure in these watersheds; however, during peak storm events they can affect the duration that flooding occurs.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 1-7
Drainage Ditch Maintenance
Many of the ditches that serve as outlets for the storm drain system need to be grubbed and cleared out on a regular basis for the storm drain system to effectively operate. Without a maintenance program, some of the current issues will continue to propagate and worsen.

Future Storm Water Management
One of the primary challenges faced when planning the proposed drainage for future development is the large amount of land that will be required to provide adequate water storage capacity. The City and its surrounding area have a shallow ground water table (as little as eight to 16 feet below ground in some places), and the mostly-clay soil profile provides very little to no percolation relief. Due to this, the City’s design standards require that all storm water retention basins must be designed for evaporation as the only means of system relief. Evapotranspiration rates in the vicinity are approximately 45.75 inches per year. The master planned retention basins were designed to hold the full Average Annual Rainfall (8.05 in.) and were designed to a maximum 4-foot water depth. Those design factors lead to retention basins that require large amounts of land, more than typical for the Central Valley.

A promising option for further study is developing regional detention basins that would be able to discharge directly to other ditches or canals that would ultimately drain to the Fresno Slough. There has been discussion of DZ#1 being a regional basin or park site as it is not conducive for development. The property owners have suggested selling the land south of Bass Ave to the City for storm drain management. If this option could be implemented, it would reduce the amount of future development land that would have to be dedicated to basins, as well as providing a level of protection against higher levels of annual rainfall. There are several established drainage and conveyance ditches that run through the southern part of the study area. If these could be used as drainage outlets after storms, then it would be possible that a gravity system or pump station would be able to utilize these and allow the storage points to fall under the classification of the smaller “detention” basins rather than retention basins.

1.4 San Luis Drain
The highly clayey geological makeup around the City of Mendota and the poor water quality of the shallow aquifer prevents the infiltration into the groundwater as an option of storm water disposal. Storm water relief for existing watersheds #1, #2, and #3 is met through a series of drainage ditches across private industrial properties, and outlet to the San Luis Drain (SLD). The SLD crosses under SR 180 and Belmont Ave and runs North-South on the eastside of the airport and then along the west side of the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant. Constructed in the 1970s as part of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) Central Valley Project to provide disposal of agricultural tailwater to south valley farmers, the SLD was never completed as originally envisioned.

The plan had been to extend it to the San Francisco Bay for discharge there, but environmental concerns and lawsuits led the Bureau of Reclamation to construct a discharge point at the Kesterson Wildlife Preserve west of Los Banos, which operated from the late 1970s through the early 1980s. Concerns over selenium buildup in Kesterson soils resulting from SLD waters, which were suspected of leading to malformations in migratory birds nesting at the wildlife refuge, resulted in closure of Kesterson at that time. The SLD was never extended to the Bay, and the portion of the SLD which had been constructed has no permanent purpose. The SLD is still owned by the USBR and is maintained by the San Luis Delta Mendota Water Authority (SLDMWA).

The SLD is a concrete lined ditch with a bottom width of eighteen (18) feet, side slopes of 1:1, and a designed water depth of 11.5 feet. With these dimensions and the approximately two-mile length of the SLD that runs adjacent to the city, there is substantial storage volume to help manage the stormwater from existing watersheds #1, #2 & #3; approximately 353 acres. Silt has accumulated in much of the SLD allowing several sections to have significant vegetation growth.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 1-8
The City has had a temporary “good will” agreement with the SLDMWA to make use of this portion of the SLD as a stormwater detention facility. The agreement was intended to be temporary and has no term; therefore, a permanent solution needs to be implemented. The two primary options being considered at this time include obtaining permanent rights to discharge to the SLD or construction of two retention basins, one each to accommodate the flows from the northern and southern portions of the existing storm drain infrastructure respectively.

1.5 Proposed Storm Drain Improvements
The existing storm drain infrastructure was discussed in the last section. Moving forward the City will need to both make improvements to the existing infrastructure as mentioned above and plan for future development and the impact it will have on the City’s stormwater management. The following is an outline of proposed improvements the City should implement to address their storm water management needs. • Develop a maintenance program to routinely clean out drainage ditches and inlets throughout the City.
• Develop a permanent stormwater management plan for areas that currently discharge into the San Luis Drain.
• Repair the damaged storm drain infrastructure in Naples Street for Watersheds #2 and #3. • Add detention storage in Watershed #7 upstream of the 2nd Street and Naples Street lift station • For undeveloped areas, divide up City’s proposed sphere of influence into the fourteen (14) proposed watersheds (Drainage Zones) shown on Figure 3 and construct the recommended infrastructure for each one as outlined in this report. o The infrastructure shown is schematic in nature and will require modification during mapping and design of future development. Basin geometry and location is subject to change to fit within the proposed development. Similarly, the alignments of the storm drain trunk lines are also subject to change based on the layout of future streets. o Future development may not encompass a full drainage zone. When a proposed development only covers a portion of Drainage Zone, or potentially spans into multiple Drainage Zones, the overall storm drain design of the development will need to consider future buildout of the remainder of the adjacent Drainage Zone(s). Temporary basins may be required for the specific development until such time that the full master planned trunk line and regional basin are constructed.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 2-1
2 Design Criteria
The City has adopted storm drainage design criteria for use in new developments that dictate the parameters for each project. The same criteria were used on a broader scale in the preparation of this SDMP. The criteria are summarized in this section. An unabridged version of the City’s Hydrologic Design Criteria can be found in Appendix A.

2.1 Hydrology
The City of Mendota has adopted a modified version of the Rational Method for storm drainage design that considers the intensity on the basis of a predetermined factor of land use rather than a function of time vs. selected storm return frequency. The primary equation used to calculate runoff flow from a drainage area is:

Q = CiA
Where:

Q = Runoff Flow, cubic feet per second
C = Runoff Coefficient per Table 2-1.
i = Rainfall Intensity, per Table 2-2.

A = Tributary Area, acres
Where the Standard Rational Method protects against storms of a given return frequency (typically 2-year, 5- year or 10-year) the City’s version protects again storms of a specified rainfall intensity. The City has adopted this modified method for two primary reasons:

First, the Rational Method rainfall intensities, even for a 2-year storm return frequency, are large compared with the City’s actual rainfall experience.
• The modified method leads to smaller conveyance lines and pumps, reducing the overall cost of storm drain infrastructure.
• The tradeoff is that in the infrequent event that a storm is as intense as the Rational Method plans for, some runoff would be held in the streets until Mendota’s smaller collection system can relieve it. • Based on experience with actual storm intensities and the comparative quantities of runoff generated, the occurrence of water standing in the street waiting to flow into the underground will be less than once per year.
• The quantity of water detained will not typically overtop the curbs, and any water held in the street will clear itself within two hours or so of the peak rainfall.

The second reason is the required capital investment.
• With very few exceptions, the existing drainage systems within the City are old, undersized as compared with the City’s standards, and result in a substantial amount of water being held in City streets at low spots and sags in grade.
• All of these deficiencies should be addressed, but storm drain funds are limited. • Reducing the cost of facilities by prudently sizing them rather than sizing for a rare worst case will allow the City to stretch its resources to address more problems in fewer years.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 2-2

2.1.1 Runoff Coefficients
Standard runoff coefficients for each land use type are given in Table 2-1.. Coefficients are used within each drainage sub-area on an area-weighted basis. The values in the table are standards and are considered starting places for design of specific developments. If a site plan for a particular development shows a higher percentage of impervious area, a higher coefficient may be used. No such corrections were applied for existing drainage areas in this Plan.

Table 2-1. Standard Runoff Coefficients
Land Use Type Runoff Coefficient
Industrial 0.80
Commercial 0.70
Multi-Family Residential 0.55
Single Family Residential 0.30
Open Space (Parks & School Yards) 0.20

2.1.2 Rainfall Intensity
Rather than using standard intensity-duration curves, the rainfall intensities shown in Table 2-2. were used throughout the proposed sphere of influence. For drainage sub-areas with mixed land uses, a composite intensity was calculated on an area-weighted basis.

Table 2-2. Standard Rainfall Intensities
Land Use Type Rainfall Intensity (inches/hour)
Commercial and Industrial 0.50
All Residential 0.30

2.1.3 Basin Storage Requirements
Basins are designed as either detention (with relief provided within 96 hours of a storm event) or retention (holding runoff from all storm events). With little to no percolation available due to high clay soils, basins are reliant on evaporation for emptying. For this Plan the basins were designed using the equation V=CiA and the design rainfall quantities shown in Table 2-3.

Table 2-3. Standard Basin Storage Requirements
Basin Type Design Criteria Design Rainfall (inches) Design Rainfall (feet) Detention Two (2) 10 year, 24-hour events 3.18 0.27
Retention Average Annual Rainfall 8.05 0.67
Additional basin design requirements are included in Appendix A.

2.1.4 Hydraulic Modeling
A hydraulic model of the City’s storm drain infrastructure was created using Autodesk’s Storm and Sanitary Analysis (SSA) program to analyze the effects that a design storm would have on both the existing system City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 2-3
conditions as well as a separate scenario that modeled proposed improvements to the existing system and necessary infrastructure for future development.

The SSA model is a fully dynamic volumetric based model that analyzes the system at multiple time steps over the course of the design storm period. The model then calculates the hydraulic grade line (HGL) for each time step and plots the HGL on a profile view of the system. The parameters set forth in the City’s design standards were applied to the model, and each proposed improvement was calibrated until the output from the model complied with the City’s design standards.

2.1.5 Storm Water Disposal
Due to the City of Mendota’s geological makeup of mainly clayey, impervious soils, water infiltration cannot be assumed to be a reliable means of water disposal. Instead, the City’s design standards specifically address this issue and require all accumulated storm water to dissipate via evaporation when stored in retention ponds. The annual evaporation rate per the City’s design standards is 45.75 inches. Therefore, the City only allows for a four-foot (48-inch) design depth on all retention basins.

The effort to recharge ground water with retained stormwater is also not recommended as the shallow aquifer under the City is of very poor quality and there would be little or no benefit from using storm water to recharge this aquifer. The soil’s ability to hold water may, in future development areas, provide for an alternate source of water for landscape irrigation.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-1
3 Study Areas

3.1 Overview
This SDMP has divided the City of Mendota and its 2025 General Plan proposed sphere of influence into 24 separate study areas (10 existing Watersheds, 14 proposed Drainage Zones). Each of the study areas are shown on Figure 2 and Figure 3 as well as Figure 7 thru 27. In this chapter, improvements necessary for both existing watersheds and proposed Drainage Zones are discussed.

The terms “watersheds” and “Drainage Zones” are typically used interchangeably. However, for clarity in this SDMP, the existing areas are referred to as “watersheds” and future expansion areas are referred to as “Drainage Zones.”
The City’s 2025 General Plan designated proposed land uses for all the undeveloped land in the City’s proposed sphere of influence (Figure 1). Each of the study areas including land uses, existing facilities, deficiencies, project needs, and anticipated capital costs are discussed in the following sections.

In general, the City’s natural grade flows from southwest to northeast towards the Fresno Slough and the San Joaquin River; this was considered when planning locations of future basins and layout of the conveyance system.

3.2 Watershed #1

3.2.1 Hydrology
Existing Watershed #1 (Figure 7) includes the southern portion of the City’s original downtown area and the Mendota Unified School Districts’ junior high and high schools. The watershed is generally bounded geographically by Highway 33 on the west, 8th and 9th Streets on the northwest, State Route 180 to the northeast, and the southern edge of the schools and public spaces on Belmont Avenue (approximately ¼- mile south of Belmont Avenue). There are roughly 172 acres in the watershed. It is comprised of mainly Medium to High Density Residential and Public Facilities, as well as a small amount of commercial and industrial land.

There is one (1) storm drain trunk line in Watershed #1 (Figure 7) which primarily runs from the west end of Belmont Avenue to the east end and ranges in size from 18-inches at the upstream end to 72-inches at the discharge location; the majority being 48-inches in size. The 72-inch pipe discharges just to the east of SR180 into an open channel in the private industrial property (currently Gonzalez tow-yard and within the boundary of Watershed #3). The open channel converges with other flows from Watershed #2 and #3 as discussed below and discharges into the San Luis Drain.

As mentioned in Section 1.4 above, the San Luis Drain has been functioning as a temporary retention basin for about a decade. It is of high importance that the City acquire a permanent storm water management solution for this water, whether it be via permanent agreement or ownership of the San Luis Drain or construction of a new retention basin.

The trunk line has experienced flooding in the past; however as previously mentioned in this report, the primary source for that flood water was the overflow from Panoche Creek that flowed into town due to City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-2
farmers berming up their land along the Belmont Avenue frontage. Analyzing the hydraulic model for this watershed without the Panoche Creek overflow demonstrates the existing pipeline is adequate for flows in the given collection area.

Although the pipeline infrastructure itself is sized adequately, maintenance is a significant concern, as the trunk line is currently partially plugged with silt (from previous years of Panoche Creek flooding) and debris.

These conditions limit the amount of flow the system can accommodate and may hamper the City’s ability to drain the watershed without causing flooding.

3.2.2 Necessary Projects
Per the discussion above, the following actions are recommended:
• Implementation of a regular maintenance program to clean out the pipes where backup occurs. • Construction of a capital project to modify the outlet ditch for this line that conveys the flow from the discharge point to the San Luis Drain. This ditch is within the boundaries of Watershed #3 and as such the corresponding project will be incorporated in the Watershed #3 recommendations below.
• Resolution of a permanent retention basin location, either via permitting of or owning the San Luis Drain or construction of a retention basin near the discharge point of Watershed #3 (discussed below).

3.2.3 Summary of Costs
Since the work proposed above would actually fall within the limits of Watershed #3 those costs are included below as part of the analysis for Watershed #3 and not as part of this section.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-3
Figure 7. Existing Watershed No. 1
City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-4

3.3 Watershed #2

3.3.1 Hydrology
Watershed #2 (Figure 8) includes the majority of the City’s original downtown area and is approximately 158 acres in size. The majority of the watershed is bounded geographically by Highway 33 on the west, Fourth Street on the northwest, the Union Pacific Railroad on the northeast and portions of 8th, 9th and 10th Streets on the southeast. Watershed #2 shares its southeastern border with Watersheds #1 and #3. Land use in this watershed is comprised of a mix of Medium to High Density Residential, Public Facilities, Industrial, and Commercial land use designations.

The watershed generally slopes from southwest to northeast and storm water travels mostly by surface gutter flow. At Oller Street there are a series of 18-inch “bubble-ups” that convey the runoff from the west side gutters to the gutters on the east side of the street. All the storm water eventually makes its way to Naples Street, where inlets at 8th Street and 10th Street capture the water into the conveyance system. The conveyance system originates at 8th Street as an 18-inch RCP and flows to the southeast, along Naples Street, and then continues through the private property in Watershed #3 where it discharges into an open earthen ditch that conveys the flow through the private industrial property of Watershed #3 to the San Luis Drain.

Currently this watershed experiences flooding with as little as ¼” of rainfall., This is primarily due to the undersized conveyance system in Naples and the last section, within Watershed #3, being broken.

3.3.2 Necessary Projects
As mentioned in Section 3.2 above, Naples Street experiences heavy flooding during even moderate storm events. Currently there are only two inlet points at 8th and 10th for the entire 158 acres. Those inlets feed into the conveyance line described in Section 3.3.1.

By hydrologic analysis, it was determined that even under ideal conditions with undamaged pipes, the current conveyance system is not capable of conveying all the storm water expected during the design storm. This report recommends that new storm drain infrastructure be installed in Naples Street, including larger conveyance pipes and additional inlet structures.

The City has recently received an award from the Prop 68 Urban Flood Protection Grant Program to fund a project that will mitigate the flooding in this area. In general, the City of Mendota Storm water Improvement Project (Project) will reduce flooding while providing multiple benefits for this Severely Disadvantaged Community. The Project includes Low Impact Development (LID) and conventional storm drainage infrastructure, which will function to mitigate the effects of urbanization and address severe flooding along Naples Street that is a significant risk to public safety and property. The Project construction of approximately 1,030 linear feet of storm drain pipe and inlets along two blocks of Naples Street, between 8th and 10th Streets, that will collect urban runoff from a 164-acre contributing drainage area. Approximately 1- acre of street reconstruction will establish the appropriate grade to route runoff to the new inlets. Flows along Naples St. within the project area will be routed through 21 LID storm water "tree sponges" that will capture storm water for treatment and infiltration. The majority of runoff captured along Naples Street will be routed to a new 2.13-acre extended dry detention basin (basin), which will be constructed on what is currently a private parcel that will be conveyed to the City for the Project. Excess runoff volumes from the basin will be discharged via a lift station to the existing drainage course. The Project also includes utility relocations, new power supply, landscaping planting, and pedestrian facilities ancillary to the drainage improvements. The Project supports local and regional objectives related to flood management, ecosystems, water supply, and DAC participation in regional water resource management.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-5
Figure 8. Existing Watershed No. 2
City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-6
Figure 9. City of Mendota’s grant funded Stormwater Improvement Project City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-7

3.3.3 Summary of Costs
As discussed above, the City has been awarded $4.2 million dollars to fund the project described above. No additional costs for capital projects will be needed in this watershed.

3.4 Watershed #3

3.4.1 Hydrology
Watershed #3 (Figure 10) services approximately 45 acres of the City’s industrial area. The watershed is bounded geographically by Highway 180 on the southwest, 10th Street on the northwest, the Union Pacific Railroad on the northeast and the San Luis Drain the southeast. Watershed #3 shares its southwestern border with Watershed #1 and its northwestern border with Watershed #2. Land use in this watershed is primarily Industrial with some Commercial and Public Facilities. Part of the grant funded Mendota Stormwater Improvement Project described in the previous section incorporates 7 acres of this watershed, effectively leaving Watershed #3 with 38 acres after the completion of that project.

Two earthen ditches in Watershed #3 collect the flows from the trunk lines for Watersheds #1 and #2. The conveyance pipe from Watershed #1 discharges into an open channel ditch just east of the Belmont and SR 180 intersection. The conveyance pipe within Naples Street from Watershed #2 continues southeast almost 1/4-mile into Watershed #3 across currently vacant private property and collects additional flow of a portion of Oller Street via storm drain inlets on 11th Street before discharging into an open channel ditch that continues southeast through private property. Both of the aforementioned open channel ditches converge into a single ditch approximately 500-feet east of the intersection of Belmont Avenue and SR 180. The ditch then continues east and southeast until it discharges into the San Luis Drain. As mentioned previously, the agreement allowing discharge to the San Luis Drain is not permanent and needs to be addressed either by negotiation of a permanent agreement, the City taking ownership of the facility, or construction of a permanent City-owned retention basin to replace the City’s use of the San Luis Drain, or a permitted and functional permanent drainage course to the Fresno Slough.

3.4.2 Necessary Projects
The existing extension of the Naples Street pipeline is damaged and in need of repair as it is causing flooding upstream in Watershed #2. Observation of this pipe discovered that it is very shallow, and had been crushed, likely due to historically heavy truck traffic in the area. It is unclear of the extent of crushed pipe, but all of the pipe within Watershed #3 shallow. The previously mentioned Mendota Stormwater Improvement Project will replace all of the 24” diameter piping as part of that overall project It is also recommended that the two (2) open channel ditches be converted to pipelines to provide necessary flow capacity for Watersheds #1 and #2, as well as increased safety and ease of maintenance.

Additionally, Project #WS3-3 Construct Permanent Retention Basin is included as an optional project to provide a permanent storage location for the runoff from Watersheds 1 – 3 in the event that a permanent agreement for use of the San Luis Drain cannot be fulfilled.

The estimated quantities and costs for these three (3) projects are shown in the table below.

Watershed
No. 3
72" 48" 48"
24"
12"
18"
18"
18"
shed
2 OLLER

SEVENTH
LOLITA
QUINCE

ELEVENTH
NAPLES
TENTH
EIGHTH
NINTH

BELMONT

JENNINGS

RIO FRIO
PUCHEU

DOS PALOS
MARIE

GUILLAN PARK
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 200 400
Feet
º Existing Watersh
Figure 10
ed No. 3
City of Mendota
Existing Pipeline
Existing City Limits
Existing SOI Boundary
Existing
Watershed No. 1
Watershed No. 2
Watershed No. 3
Watershed No. 10
10/5/2021 : G:\Mendota_City of-3336\333618011-Storm Drain Master Plan\GIS\Map\watershed_No. 3.mxd City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan Figure 10. Existing Watershed No. 3 City of Mendota • July 2022 3-8
Approximately 7 acres of
Watershed No. 3 has been
incorporated into the City of
Mendota Stormwater
Improvement Project and will
effectively be part of
Watershed No. 2 once that
project is completed.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-9

3.4.3 Summary of Costs
Below is a table of estimated quantities of storm drain infrastructure that would be needed to bring the Watershed up to standard.

Table 3-1. Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Watershed #3 Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Watershed #3 Description Quantity1 Units Unit Cost Cost
Project #WS3-1 – Repair Naples Street Pipeline Extension Project #WS3-2 – Replace Existing Open Channel Ditches with RCP Conveyance System General Contracting
Requirements 1 LS $195,000.00 $195,000
36” RCP 925 LF $240.00 $220,000
72” RCP 875 LF $648.00 $567,000
48” Manholes 3 EA $6,000.00 $18,000
84” Junction Boxes 2 EA $35,000.00 $70,000
72” Outlet Structure 1 EA $20,000.00 $20,000
Contingency 15%
Total: $1,254,000
Project #WS3-3 – Construct Permanent Retention Basin
General Contracting
Requirements 1 LS $575,000.00 $575,000
Clearing and Grubbing 32 Acres $1,000.00 $32,000
Land Acquisition 32 Acres $15,000.00 $480,000
Earthwork Excavation 380,000 CY $7.50 $2,850,000
Chain Link Fencing with
Slats and Gate 4,700 LF $28.00 $132,000
72” RCP 500 LF $648.00 $324,000
72” Outlet Structure 1 EA $20,000.00 $20,000
Contingency 15%
Total: $5,075,000
1 All RCP quantities are estimates rounded to the nearest 25-foot increment.

This project is incorporated into the grant funded
City of Mendota Stormwater Improvement Project discussed above.

No additional capital costs are required to improve the storm drain system in Naples Street.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-10

3.5 Watershed #4

3.5.1 Hydrology
Watershed #4 (Figure 11) services approximately 15 acres of newer subdivision in the southwest portion of town. The watershed is bounded by limits of the subdivision and all storm drainage is collected via catch basins and conveyed in storm drain pipes that discharge to an on-site retention basin. In the unlikely event of the on-site basin overtopping, overland flow would most likely discharge into Watershed #2; however, the City has not had any issues with this basin.

3.5.2 Necessary Projects
Due to the Watershed’s sufficient on-site storm water collection and retention system, no projects are recommended for this watershed at the time.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-11
Figure 11. Existing Watershed No. 4
City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-12

3.6 Watershed #5

3.6.1 Hydrology
Watershed #5 (Figure 12) services approximately 32 acres of the west side of town, including Fresno County offices, medium-high residential and a small area of Public Facilities.

The watershed is bounded geographically by portions of Highway 33 on the east, residences fronting Tuft Avenue and a portion of Sorenson Avenue on the south and southeast respectively, Smoot Avenue on the north and the City Limits on the west. Watershed #5 shares a portion of its southern border with Watershed #4, the remaining portion of the southern border as well as the eastern border are shared with Watershed #2 and the northern border is shared with Watershed #6 and Watershed #7 at the northeast corner. Land use in this watershed is primarily medium-high density residential.

Storm water in this watershed is collected near the intersection of Sorensen Avenue and Straw Street and pumped via a lift station and force main into the western gutter of Derrick Avenue in Watershed #7.

Infrastructure was installed in Sorensen Avenue just north of Smoot so that the force main may be rerouted to the north and discharge into the eastern gutter of Sorensen Avenue, in Watershed #6.

3.6.2 Necessary Projects
The 4” force main is planned to be removed and the flow rerouted north along Sorenson, connecting to existing facilities cleanout located south of Smoot.

3.6.3 Summary of Costs
Below is a table of estimated quantities of storm drain infrastructure that would be required to construct the proposed capital improvements.

Table 3-2. Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Watershed #5 Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Watershed #5 Description Quantity2 Units Unit Cost Cost
General Contracting Requirements 1 LS $57,500.00 $59,000 4” Force Main 500 LF $700 $350,000
48” Manholes 4 EA $6,000.00 $24,000
Connection to existing facilities 2 EA $5,000 $10,000
Contingency 15%
Total: $510,000
2 All RCP quantities are estimates rounded to the nearest 25-foot increment.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-13
Figure 12. Existing Watershed No. 5
City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-14

3.7 Watershed #6

3.7.1 Hydrology
Watershed #6 (Figure 13) services approximately 160 acres of northwest Mendota, including Rojas-Pierce Park, McCabe Elementary School, the Mendota Unified School District Offices, and the Las Palmas subdivision. The watershed is bounded geographically by portions of Highway 33 and Sorensen Avenue on the east, the subdivision boundary and City Limits on the north, Amador Avenue (and City Limits) on the west and Smoot Avenue on the south. Watershed #6 shares its southern border with Watershed #5, and its eastern border with Watershed #7. Land use in this watershed is primarily medium density residential, recreational and public facilities.

Stormwater from the watershed is collected in a series of catch basins and conveyed to a retention basin located at the northeast corner of the watershed via a network of gravity storm drain piping.

In the event that the retention basin begins exceeding capacity and backups in the piping, there is valve near the discharge into the basin that will prevent further discharge into the basin. Water will then back up in the Sorensen storm drain where it a lift station near Sorensen and Black pumps water through a force main east, under the school property to the western gutter of Derrick Avenue in Watershed #7. To date, the basin has not had capacity issues.

3.7.2 Necessary Projects
The watershed currently does not experience any known flooding issues and therefore no projects are recommended at this time, other than to ensure that the retention basin is adequately expanded with development.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-15
Figure 13. Existing Watershed No. 6
City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-16

3.8 Watershed #7

3.8.1 Hydrology
Watershed #7 (Figure 14) encompasses approximately 60 acres of the northern tip of downtown triangle.

The watershed is bounded geographically by Highway 33 on the west, the Union Pacific Railroad on the northeast, and 4th Street on the southeast. Watershed #7 shares its western boundary with Watershed #6, northeastern boundary with Watersheds #8 and 10, as well as its southeastern boundary with Watershed #2.

Land use in this watershed comprises a mix of Medium to Medium-High Density Residential, Industrial, Community Commercial and a small area of Public Facilities land use designations.

The majority of the storm water in this watershed makes its way to catch basins and a collection line located in 2nd Street via gutter flow and bubble ups. The collection line flows northeast within 2nd Street to a lift station located at the intersection of 2nd and Naples Streets. The lift station discharges to a force main that continues northeast across the railroad tracks and discharges into the westerly gutter in 2nd Street near its intersection with Marie Street in Watershed #8.

As mentioned in Section 1.3.3, the concentration point of this watershed at 2nd Street and Naples Street is prone to severe flooding.

3.8.2 Necessary Projects
Much of the downtown flooding within this watershed occurs because the current lift station configuration is unable to drain storm water quickly enough to keep up with the incoming flow. Due to this imbalance, we are recommending that the City construct a detention basin adjacent to or upstream of the lift station in order to temporarily store the storm runoff so the lift station can drain it without flooding the roadway.

Since stormwater from Watershed #7 discharges into Watershed #8 and then the Bass Avenue Ditch and ultimately the pond at the Wastewater Treatment Plant, a different and permanent storm water retention solution will need to be implemented. As such, a capital project for expansion of the retention basins at the WWTP to address this need has been included below as part of the analysis for Watershed #8.

The City should try to work with Caltrans to incorporate this detention basin into Caltrans’ SR33 & SR 180 Roundabout project that is programmed for construction in 2025.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-17
Figure 14. Existing Watershed No. 7
City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-18

3.8.3 Summary of Costs
Below is a table of estimated quantities of storm drain infrastructure that would be required to construct the proposed capital improvements.

Table 3-3. Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Watershed #7 Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Watershed #7 Description Quantity3 Units Unit Cost Cost
General Contracting Requirements 1 LS $57,500.00 $57,500 Plug and Abandon Existing Drain Inlet/Outlet 4 EA $1,500.00 $6,000 Detention Basin Excavation 4259 CY $10.00 $42,590
6-Foot Cyclone Fencing 520 LF $15.00 $7,800
24" Double Swing Gate 2 EA $1,500.00 $3,000
Storm Drain Outfall Structure 1 EA $80,000.00 $80,000
72" Storm Drain Standpipe 1 EA $7,500.00 $7,500
36" Slide Gate 1 EA $500.00 $500
General Contracting Requirements 1 LS $235,000.00 $235,000 Contingency 15%
Total: $505,000

3.9 Watershed #8

3.9.1 Hydrology
Watershed #8 (Figure 15) includes approximately 86 acres of northeast Mendota. The watershed is bounded geographically by portions of Marie Street and the Union Pacific Railroad on the southwest, Bass Avenue on the north, the rear of the lots along 4th Street on the east and Divisadero Street on the south. Watershed #8 shares its western boundary with Watershed #7, its northern boundary with Watershed #9 and its southeastern boundary with Watershed #10. Land use in this watershed comprises a mix of Medium to High Density Residential, Industrial, Community Commercial and Public Facility land use designations.

Most of the stormwater in this watershed flows overland via curbs and gutters to catch basins located near the intersection of I St and 2nd Street. Additionally, the discharge from the lift station located in Watershed #7 is discharged near the intersection of Marie Street and 2nd Street and flows northeast along the westerly gutter of 2nd Street to the aforementioned catch basins at the intersection of I Street. The La Colonia subdivision also has a storm drain system that joins with this system near 2nd Street and I Street. From this intersection runoff gravity flows in a buried pipe to an open channel ditch that runs northeast along the southerly side of Bass Avenue (the “Bass Avenue Ditch”) to a retention pond in the northwest corner of the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant. The area north of I Street flows into two curb inlets at the northern tip of this watershed. This inlet is connected to the main pipe along Bass Avenue just before it discharges into the Bass Avenue Ditch.
3 All RCP quantities are estimates rounded to the nearest 25-foot increment.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-19
Figure 15. Existing Watershed No. 8
City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-20

3.9.2 Necessary Projects
A storm drain line should be added in 2nd Street from Marie to I street to prevent current flooding. This improvement paired with the improvements recommended in Watershed #7 will illuminate the flooding in the area of 2nd and Naples.

3.9.3 Summary of Costs
Below is a table of estimated quantities of storm drain infrastructure that would be required to construct the proposed capital improvements.

Table 3-4. Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Watershed #8 Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Watershed #8 Description Quantity4 Units Unit Cost Cost
General Contracting
Requirements 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
18” RCP 1400 LF $130.00 $182,000
48” Manholes 3 EA $6,000.00 $18,000
Contingency 15%
Total: $265,000

3.10 Watershed #9

3.10.1 Hydrology
Watershed #9 (Figure 16) services approximately 121 acres of northern Mendota. The watershed is bounded geographically by State Route 33 on the west, Bass Avenue on the south, by the rear line of the lots on the east side of Blanco Street (City Limits) on the east, and by the rear line of the lots on the north side of De La Cruz Street and the Firebaugh Canal District Intake Canal (City Limits) on the north. Watershed #9 shares its southern boundary with Watershed #8. Land use in this watershed comprises a mix of Medium to High Density Residential, Commercial and Public Facility land use designations.

Stormwater in this watershed is collected via a series of catch basins and storm drain conveyance pipes and is routed to a local retention basin near the intersection of Perez Street and Lozano Street, north of the Mendota Elementary School. In very large storm events exceeding the capacity of the retention basin, overflow from the retention basin, or “breakover flow,” would discharge into an earthen drainage channel built around the perimeter of the entire watershed, which functions as additional storage. The City has not had any stormwater management issues since this area has been developed.

3.10.2 Necessary Projects
The watershed currently does not experience any known flooding issues and therefore no projects are recommended at this time.
4 All RCP quantities are estimates rounded to the nearest 25-foot increment.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-21
Figure 16. Existing Watershed No. 9
City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-22

3.11 Watershed #10

3.11.1 Hydrology
Watershed #10 (Figure 17) services approximately 136 acres of the eastern portion of the City. The watershed is bounded geographically by portions of Divisadero Street on the north, back of the lots facing Kate Street on the west, I Street on the northeast, Airport Boulevard on the east, 10th Street on the southeast, and the Southern Pacific Railroad on the west. Watershed #9 shares its southern boundary with Watershed #8. Land use in this watershed is comprised of a mix of Medium to Medium-High Density Residential, Industrial and Public Facilities land use designations.

The entire watershed drains to a series of curb inlets along Airport Boulevard that discharge runoff via a 30” pipe to a basin on the east side of the Mendota Airport runways. While not as severe or impactful as the flooding that occurs in Watersheds #2 or #7, the area near Inez and Airport Boulevard is prone to flooding.

3.11.2 Necessary Projects
The watershed currently does not experience any known flooding issues and therefore no projects are recommended at this time.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-23
Figure 17. Existing Watershed No. 10
City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-24

3.12 Drainage Zone #1
Drainage Zone #1 (Figure 18) is located in the north – northwest portion of the City Limits and is designated solely for Public/Quasi-Public Facility land use. Drainage Zone #1 is bound geographically by the Firebaugh Canal District Intake Canal on the northwest, the Union Pacific Railroad on the northeast and the Las Palmas subdivision on the south. The total area of the Drainage Zone is approximately 150 acres.

Due to the limited access to this land, development of this area into a school or other such Public/QuasiPublic Facility with high traffic circulation needs is not likely, nor is it likely to be become residential or commercial. There have been some discussions about the potential to transform this area into a large recreational space with basins and other features to manage storm water from Drainage Zones #1, #2, and #3. This would allow land in Drainage Zones #2 and #3 to be more fully used for their designated land uses (residential, commercial, future school site). While this option does have merit and should be considered when future development in these Drainage Zones is proposed, this SDMP does not explore this option.

Consideration should also be given to the potential to deliver some of the collected runoff into the adjacent Firebaugh Canal District Intake Canal.

3.12.1 Hydrology
Per City Standards the weighted runoff coefficient (C’) for this Drainage Zone was determined using the table below. The resulting analysis yielded a weighted runoff coefficient of 0.20, and the total required retention volume for Drainage Zone #1 is 20.1 acre-feet. Likewise, the peak flow rate was determined to be 8.6 cfs, using the values for the Rational method equation required per City Standards.

Table 3-5. Hydrology of Storm Drain Infrastructure Drainage Zone #1 Hydrology of Storm Drain Infrastructure Drainage Zone #1 Land Use Type Land Use
Coefficient, C
Area, A
(acres)
C x A (acres) Volume=C’iA
(acre-feet)
Single Family Residential 0.30 —
Commercial 0.70 —
Industrial 0.80 —
Multi-Family Residential 0.55 —
Open Space/Parks 0.20 150 30
Weighted Runoff Coefficient (C’) 0.2
Totals 150 30 20.1

3.12.2 Collection Facilities
The master planned collection facilities for this Drainage Zone includes 18-inch and 24-inch diameter trunk lines that were sized based on the flow accumulated from assumed upstream sub-areas within the watershed.

The main trunks in this Drainage Zone are proposed to flow east to west, parallel to the McKinley Avenue alignment (Figure 18) to a proposed retention basin.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-25
Figure 18. Proposed Drainage Zone 1
City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-26

3.12.3 Retention Storage
Using the Retention Basin Storage Requirements outlined in Section 2.2.3, the Drainage Zone’s designated land use and acreage were used to determine the volume of runoff to be retained in the basin as shown in Table 3-5. Regional Basin #1 has a designed footprint of 525 feet by 525 feet, which represents 4.2 percent of the Drainage Zone’s total gross area and includes area for side slopes and access roads.

3.12.4 Disposal
Disposal of storm water in this Drainage Zone will be to a retention basin, where it will be dissipated primarily via evaporation. The Intake Canal (northwest of Drainage Zone) was also considered as an option for draining collected water so that the pond could be designed as a detention basin, however it is an unlikely that permission to discharge water into that facility could be obtained to pump water into after storm events and therefore not included in this plan. However, it may be possible to discharge into the Intake Canal during the Spring when flooding is not a concern.

Drainage Zone #1’s planned breakover, or overland escape route from the retention basin, (Figure 18) would d be to the east towards the Union Pacific Railroad tracks. From the railroad tracks any overland flow would most likely make its way southeast to Existing Watershed #6’s retention basin, which is in close proximity.

3.12.5 Necessary Projects
As discussed in the Collection Facilities section, Drainage Zone #1 will have one main trunk conveying storm water from various collection points within the watershed to the proposed retention basin. The proposed conveyance system comprises of 1,625 linear feet (LF) of 18-inch RCP and 1,100 LF of 24-inch RCP. It is estimated that eight (8) manholes will be required for this trunk line, as well as one (1) outlet structure for discharge into the retention basin. Additionally, an estimated 6.3 acres of land will need to be dedicated to the City for the retention basin.

3.12.6 Summary of Costs
Table 3-6. Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Drainage Zone #1 Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Drainage Zone #1 Description Quantity5 Units Unit Cost Cost
General Contracting
Requirements 1 LS $18,000.00 $118,000
18” RCP 1,625 LF $130.00 $211,000
24” RCP 1,100 LF $170.00 $187,000
48” Manholes 8 EA $6,000.00 $48,000
48” Outlet Structures 1 EA $15,000.00 $15,000
Land Dedication 6.5 Acres $15,000.00 $97,500
Clearing and Grubbing 6.5 Acres $2,000.00 $13,000
5 All RCP quantities are estimates rounded to the nearest 25-foot increment.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-27
Retention Basin
Excavation 70,000 CY $7.50 $525,000
Chain Link Fencing with
Slats and Gate
2,100 LF $28.00 $59,000
Contingency 15%
Total: $1,535,000

3.12.7 Permitting
It appears that no major roads, canals, or other apparent rights-of-ways that would require easements and/or permits are to be crossed for Drainage Zone #1. However, this topic should be revisited at the time of design and construction.

3.13 Drainage Zone #2
Drainage Zone #2 (Figure 19) is located in the western portion of the City Limits and is designated primarily for Low Density Residential, with about five percent (5%) designated for Community Commercial. Drainage Zone #2 is bound geographically by the future Firebaugh Canal District Intake Canal and McKinley Avenue alignment on the north, Existing Watershed #6 and Drainage Zone #3 on the east, West Belmont Avenue on the south and the proposed Sphere of Influence on the west. The total area of the Drainage Zone is approximately 552.6 acres.

3.13.1 Hydrology
Per City Standards the weighted runoff coefficient (C’) for the Drainage Zone was determined using the table below. The resulting analysis yielded a weighted runoff coefficient of 0.31, and the total required retention volume for Drainage Zone #1 is 114.9 acre-feet.

The Drainage Zone was divided into two (2) watersheds which both drain to the proposed retention basin via storm drain trunk lines. The peak flow rate for the primary trunk line was determined to be 41.75 cfs and

8.18 cfs for the secondary trunk line, using the values for the Rational method equation required per City Standards.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-28
Table 3-7. Hydrology of Storm Drain Infrastructure Drainage Zone #2 Hydrology of Storm Drain Infrastructure Drainage Zone #2 Land Use Type Land Use
Coefficient, C
Area, A
(acres)
C x A (acres) Volume=C’iA
(acre-feet)
Single Family Residential 0.30 532 159.6
Commercial 0.70 20.6 14.4
Industrial 0.80 —
Multi-Family Residential 0.55 —
Open Space/Parks 0.20 —
Weighted Runoff Coefficient (C’) 0.31
Totals 552.6 174.0 114.9
City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-29
Figure 19. Proposed Drainage Zone 2
City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-30

3.13.2 Collection Facilities
The Drainage Zone will have two storm water collection trunks that have been sized based on accumulated upstream flow of assumed sub-area drainage regions. The main trunk in this Drainage Zone will run from south to north along the North Ohio Avenue alignment and originates as a 30” pipe and increases to a 48” pipe before discharging into the retention basin.

The second smaller trunk to the east will run south to north before turning west and discharging into the retention basin. The secondary trunk line originates as an 18” and increases to a 30” before discharging into the retention basin.

3.13.3 Retention Storage
Using the Retention Basin Storage Requirements outlined in Section 2.2.3, the Drainage Zone’s designated land use and acreage was used to determine basin sizing, as shown in Table 3-7. Regional Basin #2 is located in Drainage Zone #2 and has a designed footprint of 1,200 feet x 1,200 feet, which represents approximately 6% of the Drainage Zone’s total area and includes area for side slopes and access roads around the basin.

3.13.4 Disposal
Disposal of storm water from the retention basin in this Drainage Zone will primarily be via evaporation.

The Intake Canal which borders a small portion of the northwest part of the Drainage Zone was also considered as a relief option so that the basin could be designed as a detention basin rather than a retention basin, however it is an unlikely to be approved to receive pumped runoff water after storm events and therefore not included as an option in this plan. However, it may be possible to discharge into the Intake Canal during the Spring when there are not concerns of flooding in order to pump the basins dry.

Drainage Zone #2s planned “breakover” overland escape route from the retention basin (Figure 19) would be into Drainage Zone #1, to the east along the McKinley Avenue alignment, towards the Union Pacific Railroad tracks. From the railroad tracks any overland flow would most likely make its way southeast to Existing Watershed #6’s retention basin, which is in close proximity.

3.13.5 Necessary Projects
As discussed in the Collection Facilities section, Drainage Zone #2 will have two main trunks conveying storm water from various collection points throughout the watershed to the proposed retention basin (Figure 19). The primary conveyance trunk is approximately 3,250 linear feet out-letting into the southern end of the proposed retention basin and the secondary trunk is approximately 2,750 linear feet and outlets into the basin’s east side.

It is estimated that 16-manholes will be required for these trunk lines, as well as two (2) outlet structures for discharge into the retention basin. Additionally, an estimated 33.1 acres of land will need to be dedicated to the City for the retention basin.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-31

3.13.6 Summary of Costs
Table 3-8. Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Drainage Zone #2 Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Drainage Zone #2 Description Quantity6 Units Unit Cost Cost
General Contracting
Requirements 1 LS $140,000.00 $742,000
18” RCP 1,250 LF $130.00 $163,000
24” RCP 1,525 LF $150.00 $229,000
30” RCP 700 LF $170.00 $119,000
36” RCP 1,425 LF $190.00 $271,000
42” RCP 825 LF $255.00 $210,000
48” RCP 325 LF $350.00 $114,000
48” Manholes 12 EA $6,000.00 $72,000
60” Manholes 4 EA $9,000.00 $36,000
60” Outlet Structures 2 EA $17,000.00 $34,000
Land Dedication 33.1 Acres $15,000.00 $496,500
Clearing and Grubbing 33.1 Acres $2,000.00 $66,200
Retention Basin
Excavation 400,000 CY $7.50 $3,000,000
Chain Link Fencing with
Slats and Gate
4,800 LF $28.00 $134,000
Contingency 15%
Total: $6,540,000

3.13.7 Permitting
No major roads, canals, or other apparent rights-of-ways that would require easements and/or permits are to be crossed for Drainage Zone #2. However, this topic should be revisited at the time of design and construction.

3.14 Drainage Zone #3
Drainage Zone #3 (Figure 20) is located in the western portion of the City Limits and is designated largely for Medium Density Residential, but also contains significant portions of Commercial, Recreational and Public Facility. Drainage Zone #3 is bound geographically by the Las Palmas subdivision on the north, another residential subdivision on the east, West Belmont Avenue on the south and Drainage Zone #2 on the west. The total area of the Drainage Zone is approximately 162.5 acres. 6 All RCP quantities are estimates rounded to the nearest 25-foot increment.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-32
Figure 20. Proposed Drainage Zone 3
City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-33

3.14.1 Hydrology
Drainage Zone #3 contains multiple land use designations. While the majority is designated Medium Density Residential, there are also significant portions of Commercial, Recreational, and Public Facility land use designations. Given a total footprint of 162.5 acres and a weighted runoff coefficient of 0.33, the total required retained runoff capacity for Drainage Zone #3 is 36.0 acre-feet. Likewise, the peak flow rate was determined to be 16.5 cfs, using the values for the Rational method equation required per City Standards.

Table 3-9. Hydrology of Storm Drain Infrastructure Drainage Zone #3 Hydrology of Storm Drain Infrastructure Drainage Zone #3 Land Use Type Land Use
Coefficient, C
Area, A
(acres)
C x A (acres) Volume=C’iA
(acre-feet)
Single Family Residential 0.30 117.5 35.3
Commercial 0.70 20.4 14.3
Industrial 0.80 —
Multi-Family Residential 0.55 —
Open Space/Parks 0.20 24.6 4.9
Weighted Runoff Coefficient (C’) 0.33
Totals 162.5 54.5 36.0

3.14.2 Collection Facilities
The master planned collection facilities for this Drainage Zone includes a trunk line that ranges from 24” to 36” that was sized based on the flow accumulated from assumed upstream sub-areas within the watershed.

The trunk line in this Drainage Zone is proposed to flow north to south along the future Amador Avenue alignment (Figure 20) to the proposed retention basin.

3.14.3 Retention Storage
Using the Retention Basin Storage Requirements outlined in Section 2.2.3, the Drainage Zone’s designated land use and acreage were used to determine basin sizing, as shown on Table 3-9. Regional Basin #3 has a designed footprint of 700-feet x 700-feet, which represents 6.9% percent of the Drainage Zone’s total gross area and includes area for side slopes and access roads.

3.14.4 Disposal
Disposal of storm water from the retention basin in this Drainage Zone will primarily be via evaporation.

There are no canals in close proximity to the retention basin in this Drainage Zone to consider for alternative outlets, and so no possibility of converting the retention basin to a detention basin.

Drainage Zone #3s planned overland escape route from the retention basin (Figure 20) would be to the east along the Belmont Avenue and into the existing storm water collection and ultimately into the San Luis Drain or its replacement. Alternatively, the escape route could be designed to the north along Amador Avenue into Drainage Zone 2.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-34

3.14.5 Necessary Projects
As discussed in the Collection Facilities section, Drainage Zone #3 will have one main trunk conveying storm water from various collection points within the watershed to the proposed retention basin. The proposed conveyance system comprises 650 lf of 24-inch RCP; 975 lf of 30-inch RCP and 1,050 lf of 36-inch RCP. It is estimated that three (3) 48” diameter manholes and six (6) 60” diameter manholes will be required for this trunk line, as well as one (1) outlet structure for discharge into the retention basin. Additionally, an estimated

11.5 acres of land will be required for the retention basin.

3.14.6 Summary of Costs
Table 3-10. Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Drainage Zone #3 Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Drainage Zone #3 Description Quantity7 Units Unit Cost Cost
General Contracting
Requirements 1 LS $270,000.00 $270,000
24” RCP 650 LF $150.00 $98,000
30” RCP 975 LF $170.00 $166,000
36” RCP 1,050 LF $190.00 $200,000
48” Manholes 3 EA $6,000.00 $18,000
60” Manholes 6 EA $9,000.00 $54,000
48” Outlet Structures 1 EA $15,000.00 $15,000
Land Dedication 11.5 Acres $15,000.00 $172,500
Clearing and Grubbing 11.5 Acres $2,000.00 $23,000
Retention Basin
Excavation 130,000 CY $7.50 $975,000
Chain Link Fencing with
Slats and Gate 2,800 LF $28.00 $78,000
Contingency 15%
Total: $2,380,000

3.14.7 Permitting
No major roads, canals, or other apparent rights-of-ways that would require easements and/or permits are to be crossed for Drainage Zone #3. However, this topic should be revisited at the time of design and construction.
7 All RCP quantities are estimates rounded to the nearest 25-foot increment.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-35

3.15 Drainage Zone #4
Drainage Zone #4 (Figure 21) is located in the western portion of the proposed Sphere of Influence and is designated primarily for Light Industrial land use, as well as some Low and Medium Density Residential and a small portion of Community Commercial. Drainage Zone #4 is bound geographically by West Belmont Avenue on the north, State Route 33 on the east, and North Ohio Avenue on the west. The southern boundary of the watershed runs parallel to and ½-mile south of West Belmont Avenue. The total area of the Drainage Zone is approximately 325 acres.

3.15.1 Hydrology
Per City Standards the weighted runoff coefficient for the Drainage Zone was determined using the table below. The resulting analysis yielded a weighted runoff coefficient of 0.56, and the total required retention volume for Drainage Zone #4 is 122.2 acre-feet. Likewise, the peak flow rate was determined to be 67.1 cfs, using the values for the Rational method equation required per City Standards.

Table 3-11. Hydrology of Storm Drain Infrastructure Drainage Zone #4 Hydrology of Storm Drain Infrastructure Drainage Zone #4 Land Use Type Land Use
Coefficient, C
Area, A
(acres)
C x A (acres) Volume=C’iA
(acre-feet)
Single Family Residential 0.30 151.5 45.4
Commercial 0.70 28.9 20.2
Industrial 0.80 145.0 116.0
Multi-Family Residential 0.55 —
Open Space/Parks 0.20 —
Weighted Runoff Coefficient (C’) 0.56
Totals 325.4 181.6 122.2

3.15.2 Collection Facilities
The master planned collection facilities for this Drainage Zone includes a trunk line that ranges from 24” to 54” that was sized based on the flow accumulated from assumed upstream sub-areas within the watershed.

The trunk line in this Drainage Zone is proposed to primarily flow west to east along an alignment approximately ¼-mile south of West Belmont Avenue (Figure 21) to the proposed retention basin. There are three proposed branches that are proposed to flow south to north and discharge into the primary trunk.

These would all originate within the industrial land use portion of the Drainage Zone. Additionally, there is a fourth branch that would originate in the commercial zone on the east side of the Drainage Zone and flow west before joining the primary trunk and discharging into the retention basin.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-36
Figure 21. Proposed Drainage Zone 4
City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-37

3.15.3 Retention Storage
Using the Retention Basin Storage Requirements outlined in Section 2.2.3, the Drainage Zone’s designated land use and acreage were used to determine basin sizing, as shown in Table 3-11. Regional Basin #4 is located near the southeast corner of the Drainage Zone and has a designed footprint of 1320-feet by 1200- feet, which represents 11.2% of the Drainage Zone’s total gross area and includes area for side slopes and access roads.

3.15.4 Disposal
Disposal of storm water from the retention basin in this Drainage Zone will primarily be via evaporation.

There are no canals in close proximity to the retention basin in this Drainage Zone to consider for alternative outlets, and so there is no possibility of converting the retention basin to a detention basin.

Drainage Zone #4’s overland escape from the retention basin would be to the Northeast and would flow towards Belmont Avenue and into existing Watershed #1’s footprint.

3.15.5 Necessary Projects
As discussed in the Collection Facilities section, Drainage Zone #4 will have one (1) primary trunk and four (4) branches conveying storm water from various collection points within the watershed to the proposed retention basin. The proposed conveyance system is comprised of 1,450 lf of 24-inch RCP; 3,525 lf of 30- inch RCP; 1,300 lf of 36-inch RCP; 1,000 lf of 42-inch RCP; 850 lf of 48-inch RCP and 200 lf of 54-inch RCP. It is estimated that four (4) 48” diameter manholes and 14 - 60” diameter manholes and one (1) 72” manhole will be required for the proposed collection system, as well as one (1) outlet structure for discharge into the retention basin. Additionally, an estimated 36.4 acres of land will need to be dedicated to the City for the retention basin.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-38

3.15.6 Summary of Costs
Table 3-12. Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Drainage Zone #4 Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Drainage Zone #4 Description Quantity8 Units Unit Cost Cost
General Contracting
Requirements 1 LS $894,000.00 $894,000
24” RCP 1,450 LF $150.00 $218,000
30” RCP 3,525 LF $170.00 $600,000
36” RCP 1,300 LF $190.00 $247,000
42” RCP 1,000 LF $255.00 $255,000
48” RCP 850 LF $350.00 $298,000
54” RCP 200 LF $440.00 $88,000
48” Manholes 4 EA $6,000.00 $24,000
60” Manholes 14 EA $9,000.00 $126,000
72” Manholes 1 EA $21,000.00 $21,000
72” Outlet Structures 1 EA $20,000.00 $20,000
Land Dedication 36.4 Acres $15,000.00 $546,000
Clearing and Grubbing 36.4 Acres $2,000.00 $72,800
Detention Basin
Excavation 440,000 CY $7.50 $3,300,000
Chain Link Fencing with
Slats and Gate 5,040 LF $28.00 $141,000
Contingency 15%
Total: $7,879,000

3.15.7 Permitting
No major roads, canals, or other apparent rights-of-ways that would require easements and/or permits are to be crossed for Drainage Zone #4. However, this topic should be revisited at the time of design and construction.
8 All RCP quantities are estimates rounded to the nearest 25-foot increment.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-39

3.16 Drainage Zone #5
Drainage Zone #5 (Figure 22) is located in the southern portion of the City and is designated primarily for Industrial land use. Drainage Zone #5 is bound geographically by West Panoche Avenue on the south, State Route 33 on the west, and the future West Whitesbridge Avenue alignment (about one mile south of Belmont) on the north. The eastern boundary of the watershed runs parallel to and ½-mile east of State Route 33. Drainage Zone #5 shares its north boundary with Drainage Zone #6 and its east boundary with Drainage Zone #7. The total area of the Drainage Zone is approximately 280 acres.

3.16.1 Hydrology
Per City Standards the weighted runoff coefficient for the Drainage Zone was determined using the table below. The resulting analysis yielded a weighted runoff coefficient of 0.80, and the total required retention volume for Drainage Zone #5 is 150.5 acre-feet. Likewise, the peak flow rate was determined to be approximately 95 cfs, using the values for the Rational method equation required per City Standards.

Table 3-13. Hydrology of Storm Drain Infrastructure Drainage Zone #5 Hydrology of Storm Drain Infrastructure Drainage Zone #5 Land Use Type Land Use
Coefficient, C
Area, A
(acres)
C x A (acres) Volume=C’iA
(acre-feet)
Single Family Residential 0.30 —
Commercial 0.70 3.5 2.4
Industrial 0.80 277.0 221.6
Multi-Family Residential 0.55 —
Open Space/Parks 0.20 —
Weighted Runoff Coefficient (C’) 0.80
Totals 280.5 224.0 150.5

3.16.2 Collection Facilities
The master planned collection facilities for this Drainage Zone includes two (2) south and north flowing trunk lines, 36” and 42”, respectively that combine near the center of the Drainage Zone and flow east to the proposed retention basin in a 60” pipe ( Figure 22). The pipes were sized based on the flow accumulated from assumed upstream sub-areas within the watershed.

3.16.3 Retention Storage
Using the Retention Basin Storage Requirements outlined in Section 2.2.3, the Drainage Zone’s designated land use and acreage were used to determine basin sizing, as shown in Table 3-13. Regional Basin #5 is located on the east side of the Drainage Zone and will require an approximate footprint of 525-feet by 3,500- feet, which represents approximately 15.5% of the Drainage Zone’s total gross area and includes area for side slopes and access roads.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-40

3.16.4 Disposal
Disposal of storm water from the retention basin in this Drainage Zone will primarily be via evaporation.

There are existing irrigation canals on the north and east sides of the Drainage Zone which could be an alternative means for disposal; however, we are assuming that development of this watershed will eliminate the need for crop irrigation. Therefore, there is very little possibility of converting the retention basin to a detention basin. Drainage Zone #4’s overland escape from the retention basin would be to the east and flow towards Drainage Zones #6, #7, or #8 and most likely make its way to Watershed #3 and the San Luis Drain, or its alternative.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-41
Figure 22. Proposed Drainage Zone 5
City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-42

3.16.5 Necessary Projects
As discussed in the Collection Facilities section, Drainage Zone #5 will have two (2) trunks conveying flow to a common point near the geographic center of the Drainage Zone before combining in a 60” RCP and flowing east to the retention basin. The proposed conveyance system comprises of 1,925 lf of 36” RCP; 2,025 lf of 42” RCP and 1,025 lf of 60” RCP. It is estimated that seven (7) 60” diameter manholes and two (2) 72” manholes will be required for the proposed collection system, as well as one (1) outlet structure for discharge into the retention basin. Additionally, an estimated 43.4 acres of land will need to be dedicated to the City for the retention basin.

3.16.6 Summary of Costs
Table 3-14. Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Drainage Zone #5 Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Drainage Zone #5 Description Quantity9 Units Unit Cost Cost
General Contracting
Requirements 1 LS $950,000.00 $950,000
36” RCP 1,925 LF $190.00 $366,000
42” RCP 2,025 LF $255.00 $516,000
60” RCP 1,025 LF $540.00 $554,000
60” Manholes 7 EA $9,000.00 $63,000
72” Manholes 2 EA $21,000.00 $42,000
72” Outlet Structures 1 EA $20,000.00 $20,000
Land Dedication 43.4 Acres $15,000.00 $651,000
Clearing and Grubbing 43.4 Acres $2,000.00 $86,800
Retention Basin
Excavation 510,0000 CY $7.50 $3,825,000
Chain Link Fencing with
Slats and Gate 8,250 LF $28.00 $231,000
Contingency 15%
Total: $8,400,000

3.16.7 Permitting
No major roads, canals, or other apparent rights-of-ways that would require easements and/or permits are to be crossed for Drainage Zone #5. However, this topic should be revisited at the time of design and construction.
9 All RCP quantities are estimates rounded to the nearest 25-foot increment.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-43

3.17 Drainage Zone #6
Drainage Zone #6 (Figure 23) is located to the south of the Mendota High School and Junior High School Campus and is designated primarily for Medium-High Density Residential; General Commercial; Recreation; and Public/Quasi-Public Facility. Drainage Zone #6 is bound geographically by the Campuses on the north; State Route 33 on the west and the West Whitesbridge Avenue alignment on the south. The eastern boundary of the watershed runs parallel to and one-half mile east of State Route 33. The total area of the Drainage Zone is approximately 266 acres.

3.17.1 Hydrology
Per City Standards the weighted runoff coefficient for the Drainage Zone was determined using the table below. The resulting analysis yielded a weighted runoff coefficient of 0.54, and the total required retention volume for Drainage Zone #6 is 96.2 acre-feet. Likewise, the peak flow rate was determined to be approximately 44.9 cfs, using the values for the Rational method equation required per City Standards.

Table 3-15. Hydrology of Storm Drain Infrastructure Drainage Zone #6 Hydrology of Storm Drain Infrastructure Drainage Zone #6 Land Use Type Land Use
Coefficient, C
Area, A
(acres)
C x A (acres) Volume=C’iA
(acre-feet)
Single Family Residential 0.30 —
Commercial 0.70 91.7 64.2
Industrial 0.80 —
Multi-Family Residential 0.55 124.8 68.6
Open Space/Parks 0.20 49.1 9.8
Weighted Runoff Coefficient (C’) 0.54
Totals 265.6 142.6 96.2

3.17.2 Collection Facilities
The master planned collection facilities for the Drainage Zone include one (1) trunk line that discharges to a retention basin. The trunk line originates near the southern boundary approximately 1/6-mile east of State Route 33 and flows north towards the campuses where it turns east and continues to the proposed retention basin (Figure 23). The trunk line ranges in size from 30” to 48” and was sized based on the flow accumulated from assumed upstream sub-areas within the watershed.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-44
Figure 23. Proposed Drainage Zone 6
City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-45

3.17.3 Retention Storage
Using the Retention Basin Storage Requirements outlined in Section 2.2.3, the Drainage Zone’s designated land use and acreage were used to determine basin sizing, as shown in Table 3-15. Regional Basin #6 is located near the northeast corner of the Drainage Zone and will require an approximate footprint of 700-feet by 700-feet, which represents approximately 4.2% of the Drainage Zone’s total gross area and includes area for side slopes and access roads.

The retention basin is within land designated as public/quasi-public facility land use. With that land use designation there would be potential in the future for the City to plan a local or regional park or open space as a joint use with the basin.

3.17.4 Disposal
Disposal of storm water from the retention basin in this Drainage Zone will primarily be via evaporation.

There are no canals in close proximity to the retention basin in this Drainage Zone to consider for alternative outlets, and so there would be no possibility of converting the retention basin to a detention basin.

Drainage Zone #6’s overland escape, or breakover point, from the retention basin should not be towards the school campuses to the north, but rather directed east between Watershed #1 and Drainage Zone #8, until reaching the existing Watershed #3 and the San Luis Drain, or its alternative.

3.17.5 Necessary Projects
As discussed in the Collection Facilities section, Drainage Zone #6 will have one (1) trunk line conveying flow from the southwest to the retention basin located in the northeast. The proposed conveyance system comprises 1,050 lf of 30” RCP; 2,275 lf of 36” RCP and 1,550 lf of 48” RCP. It is estimated that three (3) 48” diameter manholes and seven (7) 60” manholes will be required for the proposed collection system, as well as one (1) outlet structure for discharge into the retention basin. Additionally, an estimated 27.2 acres of land will need to be dedicated to the City for the retention basin.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-46

3.17.6 Summary of Costs
Table 3-16. Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Drainage Zone #6 Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Drainage Zone #6 Description Quantity10 Units Unit Cost Cost
General Contracting
Requirements 1 LS $642,000.00 $642,000
30” RCP 1,050 LF $170.00 $179,000
36” RCP 2,275 LF $190.00 $433,000
48” RCP 1,550 LF $350.00 $543,000
48” Manholes 3 EA $6,000.00 $18,000
60” Manholes 7 EA $9,000.00 $63,000
60” Outlet Structures 1 EA $17,000.00 $17,000
Land Dedication 27.2 Acres $15,000.00 $408,000
Clearing and Grubbing 11.2 Acres $2,000.00 $54,400
Retention Basin Excavation 325,000 CY $7.50 $2,438,000
Chain Link Fencing with Slats
and Gate 4,600 LF $28.00 $129,000
Contingency 15%
Total: $4,925,000

3.17.7 Permitting
No major roads, canals, or other apparent rights-of-ways that would require easements and/or permits are to be crossed for Drainage Zone #6. However, this topic should be revisited at the time of design and construction.

3.18 Drainage Zone #7
Drainage Zone #7 (Figure 24) is located in the southern portion of the proposed sphere of influence and is designated Medium Density Residential. Drainage Zone #7 is bound geographically by West Whitesbridge Avenue alignment on the north; and West Panoche Avenue on the south. The western boundary of the watershed runs parallel to and ½-mile east of State Route 33, while the eastern boundary is 1-mile to the east of State Route 33 and is also parallel. The total area of the Drainage Zone is approximately 190.2 acres. 10 All RCP quantities are estimates rounded to the nearest 25-foot increment.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-47
Figure 24. Proposed Drainage Zone 7
City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-48

3.18.1 Hydrology
Per City Standards the weighted runoff coefficient for the Drainage Zone was determined using the table below. The resulting analysis yielded a weighted runoff coefficient of 0.30, and the total required retention volume for Drainage Zone #7 is 38.3 acre-feet. Likewise, the peak flow rate was determined to be approximately 39.4 cfs, using the values for the Rational method equation required per City Standards.

Table 3-17. Hydrology of Storm Drain Infrastructure Drainage Zone #7 Hydrology of Storm Drain Infrastructure Drainage Zone #7 Land Use Type Land Use
Coefficient, C
Area, A
(acres)
C x A (acres) Volume=C’iA
(acre-feet)
Single Family Residential 0.30 190.2 57.1
Commercial 0.70
Industrial 0.80
Multi-Family Residential 0.55
Open Space/Parks 0.20
Weighted Runoff Coefficient (C’) 30
Totals 190.2 57.1 38.3

3.18.2 Collection Facilities
The master planned collection facilities for the Drainage Zone are primarily made up of one (1) trunk line that discharges to a retention basin. The trunk line originates near the southwestern corner of the Drainage Zone and flows north before turning east and discharging to the proposed retention basin located in the northeast corner of the Drainage Zone (Figure 24). The trunk line ranges in size from 36” to 48” and was sized based on the flow accumulated from assumed upstream sub-areas within the watershed.

3.18.3 Retention Storage
Using the Retention Basin Storage Requirements outlined in Section 2.2.3, the Drainage Zone’s designated land use and acreage were used to determine basin sizing, as shown in Table 3-17. Regional Basin #7 is located near the northeast corner of the Drainage Zone and will require an approximate footprint of 700-feet by 700-feet, which represents approximately 6.0% of the Drainage Zone’s total gross area and includes area for side slopes and access roads.

3.18.4 Disposal
Disposal of storm water from the retention basin in this Drainage Zone will primarily be via evaporation.

There are existing irrigation canals on the north, west and east sides of the Drainage Zone which could be an alternative means for disposal; however, we are assuming that development of this watershed will eliminate City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-49
the need for crop irrigation. Therefore, there is very little possibility of converting the retention basin to a detention basin.

Drainage Zone #7’s overland escape, or breakover point from the retention basin, would be to the northeast, likely through via adjacent Drainage Zones #8 or #9, until ultimately reaching a section of the San Luis Drain on the west side of State Route 180. The City does not have permission to discharge into this section of the San Luis Drain, but that should be explored. Necessary Projects As discussed in the Collection Facilities section, Drainage Zone #7 will have one (1) trunk line conveying flow from the southwest to the retention basin located in the northeast. The proposed conveyance system comprises 1,525 lf of 36” RCP; 1,150 lf of 42” RCP and 1,150 lf of 48” RCP. It is estimated that three (3) 48” diameter manholes and five (5) 60” manholes will be required for the proposed collection system, as well as one (1) outlet structure for discharge into the retention basin. Additionally, an estimated 11.3 acres of land will be needed for the retention basin.

3.18.5 Summary of Costs
Table 3-18. Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Drainage Zone #7 Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Drainage Zone #7 Description Quantity11 Units Unit Cost Cost
General Contracting
Requirements 1 LS $347,000.00 $347,000
36” RCP 1,525 LF $190.00 $290,000
42” RCP 1,150 LF $255.00 $293,000
48” RCP 1,150 LF $350.00 $403,000
48” Manholes 3 EA $6,000.00 $18,000
60” Manholes 5 EA $9,000.00 $45,000
60” Outlet Structures 1 EA $17,000.00 $17,000
Land Dedication 11.3 Acres $15,000.00 $169,500
Clearing and Grubbing 11.3 Acres $2,000.00 $22,600
Retention Basin
Excavation 130,000 CY $7.50 $975,000
Chain Link Fencing with
Slats and Gate 2,800 LF $28.00 $78,000
Contingency 15%
Total: $3,057,000

3.18.6 Permitting
No major roads, canals, or other apparent rights-of-ways that would require easements and/or permits are to be crossed for Drainage Zone #7. However, this topic should be revisited at the time of design and construction. The potential to utilize or acquire the section of the San Luis Drain between Belmont and Panoche should be explored for stormwater management and flood control purposes. 11 All RCP quantities are estimates rounded to the nearest 25-foot increment.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-50

3.19 Drainage Zone #8
Drainage Zone #8 (Figure 25) is located in the southern portion of the proposed sphere of influence and is designated Medium Density Residential. The northwestern portions of Drainage Zone #8 are bounded geographically by the Mendota High School Campus and Belmont Avenue. State Route 180 functions as the northeastern boundary. The southern boundary is the West Whitebridge Road alignment. The western boundary of the watershed runs parallel to and ½-mile east of State Route 33, while the eastern boundary is one mile to the east of State Route 33 and is also parallel. The total area of the Drainage Zone is approximately 281 acres.

3.19.1 Hydrology
Per City Standards the weighted runoff coefficient for the Drainage Zone was determined using the table below. The resulting analysis yielded a weighted runoff coefficient of 0.30, and the total required retention volume for Drainage Zone #8 is 56.7 acre-feet. Likewise, the peak flow rate was determined to be approximately 24.4 cfs, using the values for the Rational method equation required per City Standards.

Table 3-19. Hydrology of Storm Drain Infrastructure Drainage Zone #8 Hydrology of Storm Drain Infrastructure Drainage Zone #8 Land Use Type Land Use
Coefficient, C
Area, A
(acres)
C x A (acres) Volume=C’iA
(acre-feet)
Single Family Residential 0.3 281.5 84.5
Commercial 0.7 —
Industrial 0.8 —
Multi-Family Residential 0.55 —
Open Space/Parks 0.2 —
Weighted Runoff Coefficient (C’) 0.30
Totals 281.5 84.5 56.7

3.19.2 Collection Facilities
The master planned collection facilities for the Drainage Zone are primarily comprised of one (1) primary trunk line and several branches that ultimately discharges to a retention basin. The trunk line originates near the southern boundary of the Drainage Zone and flows north, while collecting flow from the branch lines, before turning east and discharging to the proposed retention basin located in the northeast portion of the Drainage Zone (Figure 25). The trunk line and branches range in size from 18” to 42” and was sized based on the flow accumulated from assumed upstream sub-areas within the watershed.

3.19.3 Retention Storage
Using the Retention Basin Storage Requirements outlined in Section 2.2.3, the Drainage Zone’s designated land use and acreage were used to determine basin sizing, as shown in Table 3-19. Regional Basin #8 is located near the northeast corner of the Drainage Zone and will require an approximate footprint of 850-feet by 850-feet, which represents approximately 6.0% of the Drainage Zone’s total gross area and includes area for side slopes and access roads.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-51
Figure 25. Proposed Drainage Zone 8
City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-52

3.19.4 Disposal
Disposal of storm water from the retention basin in this Drainage Zone will primarily be via evaporation.

There are existing irrigation canals on the south and east sides of the Drainage Zone which could be an alternative means for disposal; however, we are assuming that development of this watershed will eliminate the need for crop irrigation. Therefore, there is very little possibility of converting the retention basin to a detention basin.

Drainage Zone #8’s overland escape from the retention basin, or breakover point, would be to the east, through Drainage Zone #9 to State Route 180 where the flow would either run under State Route 180 in a new culvert or continue southeasterly and potentially discharging into a section of the San Luis Drain on the west side of State Route 180.

3.19.5 Necessary Projects
As discussed in the Collection Facilities section, Drainage Zone #8 will have one (1) trunk line and five (5) branches conveying flow from the southern end of the Drainage Zone to the retention basin located in the northeast. The proposed conveyance system comprises 6,100 lf of 18” RCP; 1,025 lf of 24” RCP; 875 lf of 30” RCP; 725 lf of 36” RCP and 400 lf of 42” RCP. It is estimated that 13 - 48” diameter manholes and three (3) 60” manholes will be required for the proposed collection system, as well as one (1) outlet structure for discharge into the retention basin. Additionally, an estimated 16.6 acres of land will be needed for the retention basin. A new culvert across State Route 180 is not included in the costs below due to the obstacles in permitting and the need to discharge into the same section of the San Luis Drain south of Belmont.

3.19.6 Summary of Costs
Table 3-20. Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Drainage Zone #8 Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Drainage Zone #8 Description Quantity12 Units Unit Cost Cost
General Contracting
Requirements 1 LS $495,000.00 $495,000
18” RCP 6,100 LF $130.00 $793,000
24” RCP 1,025 LF $150.00 $154,000
30” RCP 875 LF $170.00 $149,000
36” RCP 725 LF $190.00 $138,000
42” RCP 400 LF $255.00 $102,000
48” Manholes 13 EA $6,000.00 $78,000
60” Manholes 3 EA $9,000.00 $27,000
60” Outlet Structures 1 EA $17,000.00 $17,000
Land Dedication 16.6 Acres $15,000.00 $249,000
Clearing and Grubbing 16.6 Acres $2,000.00 $33,200
12 All RCP quantities are estimates rounded to the nearest 25-foot increment.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-53
Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Drainage Zone #8 Description Quantity12 Units Unit Cost Cost
Retention Basin Excavation 195,000 CY $7.50 $1,463,000
Chain Link Fencing with
Slats and Gate 3,400 LF $28.00 $95,000
Contingency 15%
Total: $4,362,000

3.19.7 Permitting
No major roads, canals, or other apparent rights-of-ways that would require easements and/or permits are to be crossed for Drainage Zone #8. However, this topic should be revisited at the time of design and construction. The potential to utilize or acquire the section of the San Luis Drain between Belmont and Panoche should be explored for stormwater management and flood control purposes.

3.20 Drainage Zone #9
Drainage Zone #9 (Figure 26) is located in the south-southeastern portion of the proposed sphere of influence and is designated primarily Low Density Residential but includes a small portion of Recreational land use at the northern end. The Drainage Zone is bounded by State Route 180 on the northeast and West Panoche Road on the southeast. The western portion is made up of an alignment that runs parallel to and is 1-mile east of State Route 33. The total area of the Drainage Zone is approximately 193.7 acres.

3.20.1 Hydrology
Per City Standards the weighted runoff coefficient for the Drainage Zone was determined using the table below. The resulting analysis yielded a weighted runoff coefficient of 0.29, and the total required retention volume for Drainage Zone #9 is 37.7 acre-feet. Likewise, the peak flow rate was determined to be approximately 16.0 cfs, using the values for the Rational method equation required per City Standards.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-54
Table 3-21. Hydrology of Storm Drain Infrastructure Drainage Zone #9 Hydrology of Storm Drain Infrastructure Drainage Zone #9 Land Use Type Land Use
Coefficient, C
Area, A
(acres)
C x A (acres) Volume=C’iA
(acre-feet)
Single Family Residential 0.3 177.4 53.2
Commercial 0.7 —
Industrial 0.8 —
Multi-Family Residential 0.55 —
Open Space/Parks 0.2 16.3 3.3
Weighted Runoff Coefficient (C’) 0.29
Totals 193.7 56.5 37.7
City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-55
Figure 26. Proposed Drainage Zone 9
City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-56

3.20.2 Collection Facilities
The master planned collection facilities for the Drainage Zone include one (1) primary trunk line that originates in the southwestern portion of the Drainage Zone and discharges to a proposed retention basin at the northern end of the Drainage Zone (Figure 26). The trunk line size ranges from 24” to 36” and was sized based on the flow accumulated from assumed upstream sub-areas within the watershed.

3.20.3 Retention Storage
Using the Retention Basin Storage Requirements in Section 2.2.3, the Drainage Zone’s designated land use and acreage footprint were to determine basin sizing, as shown in Table 3-21. Regional Basin #9 has a designed footprint of that matches the boundary of the Recreational land designation. This report recommends the City consider making this area a dual-use retention basin and park. With the retention basin design criteria being taken into consideration, the park basin’s footprint would provide for nearly 150% of the required runoff volume storage. It would be possible to reduce the basins side slopes to 4:1 or flatter due to the more-than-adequate available land area. The Recreational parcel represents 8.4 % of the Drainage Zone’s total area.

3.20.4 Disposal
Disposal of storm water from the retention basin in this Drainage Zone will primarily be via evaporation.

There are existing irrigation canals on the south and east sides of the Drainage Zone which could be an alternative means for disposal; however, we are assuming that development of this watershed will eliminate the need for crop irrigation. Therefore, there is very little possibility of converting the retention basin to a detention basin.

Drainage Zone #9’s overland escape route from the retention basin, or breakover point, would be to either run under State Route 180 in a new culvert or continue southeasterly and potentially discharging into a section of the San Luis Drain on the west side of State Route 180, near the southeast corner of this Drainage Zone.

3.20.5 Necessary Projects
As discussed in the Collection Facilities section, Drainage Zone #9 will have one (1) trunk line conveying flow from the southern end of the Drainage Zone to the retention basin located in the north. The proposed conveyance system is comprised of 1,575 lf of 24” RCP; 2,300 lf of 30” RCP and 825 lf of 36” RCP. It is estimated that eight (8) - 48” diameter manholes and two (2) 60” manholes will be required for the proposed collection system, as well as one (1) outlet structure for discharge into the retention basin. Additionally, an estimated 16.3 acres of land will need to be dedicated to the City for the retention basin, which as previously mentioned could be also serve as a recreation area. A new culvert across State Route 180 is not included in the costs below due to the obstacles in permitting and the need to discharge into the same section of the San Luis Drain south of Belmont.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-57

3.20.6 Summary of Costs
Table 3-22. Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Drainage Zone #9 Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Drainage Zone #9 Description Quantity13 Units Unit Cost Cost
General Contracting
Requirements 1 LS $402,000.00 $402,000
24” RCP 1,575 LF $150.00 $236,000
30” RCP 2,300 LF $170.00 $391,000
36” RCP 825 LF $190.00 $157,000
48” Manholes 8 EA $6,000.00 $48,000
60” Manholes 2 EA $9,000.00 $18,000
48” Outlet Structures 1 EA $15,000.00 $15,000
Land Dedication 16.4 Acres $15,000.00 $246,000
Clearing and Grubbing 16.4 Acres $2,000.00 $32,800
Detention Basin Excavation 190,000 CY $7.50 $1,425,000
Chain Link Fencing with Slats
and Gate 3,900 LF $28.00 $109,000
Contingency 15%
Total: $3,542,000

3.20.7 Permitting
No major roads, canals, or other apparent rights-of-ways that would require easements and/or permits are to be crossed for Drainage Zone #9. However, this topic should be revisited at the time of design and construction. The potential to utilize or acquire the section of the San Luis Drain between Belmont and Panoche should be explored for stormwater management and flood control purposes.

3.21 Drainage Zone #10
Drainage Zone #10 (Figure 27) is located in southeastern portion of the proposed sphere of limits and is designated entirely Light Industrial. The Drainage Zone is bounded by the San Luis Drain and State Route 180 on the west, State Route 180 on the south, and the Union Pacific Railroad on the north. The eastern boundary is about 0.9 mile east of the Kings Slough Overflow Bridge. The total area of the Drainage Zone is approximately 273.3 acres.

Wet years, flood releases from the Kings River or heavy rainfall events may result in runoff from Kings River/Fresno Slough lands south of State Route 180 to cross the eastern portion of this Drainage Zone.

This Drainage Zone is within a FEMA Flood Zone A which may restrict development and needs to be considered with future design and mapping within this Drainage Zone. 13 All RCP quantities are estimates rounded to the nearest 25-foot increment.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-58
Figure 27. Proposed Drainage Zone 10
City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-59

3.21.1 Hydrology
Per City Standards the weighted runoff coefficient for the Drainage Zone was determined using the table below. The resulting analysis yielded a weighted runoff coefficient of 0.80, and the total required retention volume for Drainage Zone #9 is 146.7 acre-feet. Likewise, the peak flow rate was determined to be approximately 59.5 cfs, using the values for the Rational method equation required per City Standards.

Table 3-23. Hydrology of Storm Drain Infrastructure Drainage Zone #10 Hydrology of Storm Drain Infrastructure Drainage Zone #10 Land Use Type Land Use
Coefficient, C
Area, A
(acres)
C x A (acres) Volume=C’iA
(acre-feet)
Single Family Residential 0.3 —
Commercial 0.7 —
Industrial 0.8 273.3 218.6
Multi-Family Residential 0.55 —
Open Space/Parks 0.2 —
Weighted Runoff Coefficient (C’) 0.80
Totals 273.3 218.6 146.7

3.21.2 Collection Facilities
The master planned collection facilities for the Drainage Zone are primarily comprised of three (3) trunk lines that discharge to a proposed retention basin near the middle of the northeastern boundary of the Drainage Zone (Figure 27). The trunk line size ranges from 30” to 54” and were sized based on the flow accumulated from assumed upstream sub-areas within the watershed.

3.21.3 Retention Storage
Drainage Zone #10 is proposed to have a detention basin with a pretreatment forebay and restricted release to the two existing drainage ways. The basin will be located near the middle northeast boundary of the Drainage Zone and will require an approximate footprint of 900-feet by 2,000-feet, which represents approximately 14.6% of the Drainage Zone’s total gross area and includes area for side slopes and access roads.

3.21.4 Disposal
Disposal of storm water from the detention basin in this Drainage Zone will primarily be via metered released to the existing surface drainage of the Fresno Slough.

Drainage Zone #10’s overland escape route from the retention basin, or breakover point, would be to the east, into the Fresno Slough.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-60

3.21.5 Necessary Projects
As discussed in the Collection Facilities section, Drainage Zone #10 will have three (3) trunk lines conveying flow from the northwest, southwest and southeast corners of the Drainage Zone to the detention basin located near the middle of the northeastern boundary. The proposed conveyance system is comprised of 1,300 lf of 30” RCP; 1,225 lf of 36” RCP; 4,175 lf of 42” RCP and 200 lf of 54” RCP. It is estimated that four (4) - 48” diameter manholes, 10 – 60” manholes and two (2) 72” manholes will be required for the proposed collection system, as well as two (2) outlet structures for discharge into the retention basin. An outlet structure to discharge to the Fresno Slough. Additionally, an estimated 39.9 acres of land will need to be dedicated to the City for the retention basin.

3.21.6 Summary of Costs
Table 3-24. Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Drainage Zone #10 Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Drainage Zone #10 Description Quantity14 Units Unit Cost Cost
General Contracting
Requirements 1 LS $965,000.00 $965,000
30” RCP 1,300 LF $170.00 $221,000
36” RCP 1,225 LF $190.00 $233,000
42” RCP 4,175 LF $255.00 $1,065,000
54” RCP 200 LF $440.00 $88,000
48” Manholes 4 EA $6,000.00 $24,000
60” Manholes 10 EA $9,000.00 $90,000
72” Manholes 2 EA $21,000.00 $42,000
60” Outlet Structures 1 EA $17,000.00 $17,000
72” Outlet Structures 1 EA $20,000.00 $20,000
Discharge Structure 1 EA $20,000.00 $20,000
Land Dedication 41.4 Acres $15,000.00 $621,000
Clearing and Grubbing 41.4 Acres $2,000.00 $82,800
Retention Basin
Excavation 500,000 CY $7.50 $3,750,000
Chain Link Fencing with
Slats and Gate 5,800 LF $28.00 $162,000
Contingency 15%
Total: $8,511,000
14 All RCP quantities are estimates rounded to the nearest 25-foot increment.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-61

3.21.7 Permitting
No major roads, canals, or other apparent rights-of-ways that would require easements and/or permits are to be crossed for Drainage Zone #10. However, this topic should be revisited at the time of design and construction. If Drainage Zone #10 is designed to as a detention basin and drains to the Fresno Slough a WDR permit will likely be required. Alternatively, if Drainage Zone #10 is designed as a retention basin no additional permit will be required.

3.22 Drainage Zone #11
Drainage Zone #11 (Figure 28) is located in the southeastern portion of the proposed sphere of influence and is designated Light Industrial. The Drainage Zone is bounded by Guillen Park Drive on the north, the Fresno Slough on the east and the Southern Pacific Railroad on the southwest. The total area of the Drainage Zone is approximately 310 acres.

This Drainage Zone is within a FEMA Flood Zone A which may restrict development and needs to be considered with future design and mapping within this Drainage Zone.

3.22.1 Hydrology
Per City Standards the weighted runoff coefficient for the Drainage Zone was determined using the table below. The resulting analysis yielded a weighted runoff coefficient of 0.80, and the total required retention volume for Drainage Zone #11 is 166.2 acre-feet. Likewise, the peak flow rate was determined to be approximately 51.4 cfs, using the values for the Rational method equation required per City Standards.

Table 3-25. Hydrology of Storm Drain Infrastructure Drainage Zone #11 Hydrology of Storm Drain Infrastructure Drainage Zone #11 Land Use Type Land Use
Coefficient, C
Area, A
(acres)
C x A (acres) Volume=C’iA
(acre-feet)
Single Family Residential 0.3 —
Commercial 0.7 —
Industrial 0.8 310 248
Multi-Family Residential 0.55 —
Open Space/Parks 0.2 —
Weighted Runoff Coefficient (C’) 0.80
Totals 310 248 166.2
City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-62
Figure 28. Proposed Drainage Zone 11
City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-63

3.22.2 Collection Facilities
The master planned collection facilities for the Drainage Zone are primarily comprise three (3) trunk lines that discharge to a proposed retention basin near the northeastern boundary of the Drainage Zone (Figure 28). The trunk line size ranges from 30” to 48” and were sized based on the flow accumulated from assumed upstream sub-areas within the watershed.

3.22.3 Retention Storage
Using the Retention Basin Storage Requirements outlined in Section 2.2.3, the Drainage Zone’s designated land use and acreage were used to determine basin sizing. Regional Basin #11 is located at the northeast boundary of the Drainage Zone and will require an approximate footprint of 1,300-feet by 1,500-feet, which represents approximately 14.5% of the Drainage Zone’s total gross area and includes area for side slopes and access roads.

3.22.4 Disposal
Disposal of storm water from the retention basin in this Drainage Zone will primarily be via evaporation.

There is a possibility that if storm water could be treated via recognized storm water BMPs, it could be discharged to the Fresno Slough as an alternative to retention and evaporation, which could allow reducing the basin to a detention basin. This option would require further study and analysis to validate its feasibility and would then require securing an NPDES permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Drainage Zone #11’s overland escape from the retention pond, or breakover point, would be to the east and into the Fresno Slough on an emergency basis only. The overland escape route is shown on Figure 28 as a solid green line.

3.22.5 Necessary Projects
As discussed in the Collection Facilities section, Drainage Zone #11 will have three (3) trunk lines conveying flow from the northwest, southwest and southeast corners of the Drainage Zone to the retention basin located at the northeastern boundary of the Drainage Zone. The proposed conveyance system is comprised of 875 lf of 30” RCP; 3,775 lf of 42” RCP and 1,975 lf of 48” RCP. It is estimated that two (2) - 48” diameter manholes, 10 – 60” manholes and two (2) 72” manholes will be required for the proposed collection system, as well as two (2) outlet structures for discharge into the retention basin. Additionally, an estimated

44.8 acres of land will be needed for the retention basin.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-64

3.22.6 Summary of Costs
Table 3-26. Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Drainage Zone #11 Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Drainage Zone #11 Description Quantity15 Units Unit Cost Cost
General Contracting
Requirements 1 LS $1,048,000.00 $1,048,000
30” RCP 875 LF $170.00 $149,000
42” RCP 3,775 LF $255.00 $963,000
48” RCP 1,975 LF $350.00 $691,000
48” Manholes 2 EA $6,000.00 $12,000
60” Manholes 10 EA $9,000.00 $90,000
72” Manholes 2 EA $21,000.00 $42,000
60” Outlet Structures 2 EA $17,000.00 $34,000
Land Dedication 44.8 Acres $15,000.00 $672,000
Clearing and Grubbing 44.8 Acres $2,000.00 $89,600
Retention Basin
Excavation 545,000 CY $7.50 $4,088,000
Chain Link Fencing with
Slats and Gate 5,600 LF $28.00 $157,000
Contingency 15%
Total: $9,241,000

3.22.7 Permitting
No major roads, canals, or other apparent rights-of-ways that would require easements and/or permits are to be crossed for Drainage Zone #11. However, this topic should be revisited at the time of design and construction, or if the City desires to discharge storm water to the Fresno Slough.

3.23 Drainage Zone #12
Drainage Zone #12 (Figure 29) is located in the eastern portion of the proposed sphere of influence and is designated Heavy Industrial. The Drainage Zone is bounded by the Guillen Park Drive alignment on the south; the Fresno Slough on the east, the City’s WWTP on the north and on the west by the San Luis Drain.

The total area of the Drainage Zone is approximately 271acres.

This Drainage Zone is within a FEMA Flood Zone A which may restrict development and needs to be considered with future design and mapping within this Drainage Zone. 15 All RCP quantities are estimates rounded to the nearest 25-foot increment.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-65
Figure 29. Proposed Drainage Zone 12
City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-66

3.23.1 Hydrology
Per City Standards the weighted runoff coefficient for the Drainage Zone was determined using the table below. The resulting analysis yielded a weighted runoff coefficient of 0.80, and the total required retention volume for Drainage Zone #10 is 145.3 acre-feet. Likewise, the peak flow rate was determined to be approximately 89.5 cfs, using the values for the Rational method equation required per City Standards.

Table 3-27. Hydrology of Storm Drain Infrastructure Drainage Zone #12 Hydrology of Storm Drain Infrastructure Drainage Zone #12 Land Use Type Land Use
Coefficient, C
Area, A
(acres)
C x A (acres) Volume=C’iA
(acre-feet)
Single Family Residential 0.3 —
Commercial 0.7 —
Industrial 0.8 271 216.8
Multi-Family Residential 0.55 —
Open Space/Parks 0.2 —
Weighted Runoff Coefficient (C’) 0.80
Totals 271 216.8 145.4

3.23.2 Collection Facilities
The master planned collection facilities for the Drainage Zone are primarily comprised of one (1) trunk line and two (2) branches that discharge to a proposed retention basin near the northeastern boundary of the Drainage Zone (Figure 29). The master planned collection piping ranges from 30” to 60” and was sized based on the flow accumulated from assumed upstream sub-areas within the watershed.

3.23.3 Retention Storage
Using the Retention Basin Storage Requirements outlined in Section 2.2.3, the Drainage Zone’s designated land use and acreage were used to determine basin sizing. Regional Basin #12 is located at the northeast boundary of the Drainage Zone and will require an approximate footprint of 2,400-feet by 800-feet, which represents approximately 16.3% of the Drainage Zone’s total gross area and includes area for side slopes and access roads.

3.23.4 Disposal
Disposal of storm water from the retention basin in this Drainage Zone will primarily be via evaporation.

There is a possibility that if storm water could be treated via recognized stormwater BMPs, it could be discharged to the Fresno Slough as an alternative to retention and evaporation, which could allow reducing the basin to a detention basin. This option would require further study and analysis to validate its feasibility and would then require securing an NPDES permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-67
Drainage Zone #12’s overland escape route from the retention basin, or breakover point, would be to the east and into the Fresno Slough on an emergency basis only. The overland escape route is shown on Figure 29 as a solid green line.

3.23.5 Necessary Projects
As discussed in the Collection Facilities section, Drainage Zone #12 will have one (1) trunk line with two (2) branches conveying flow from the southwest portions of the Drainage Zone to the retention basin located at the northeastern boundary of the Drainage Zone. The proposed conveyance system is comprised of 1,325 lf of 30” RCP; 1,325 lf of 36” RCP; 4,800 lf of 48” RCP; and 1,050 lf of 60” RCP. It is estimated that three (3) - 48” diameter manholes, 10 – 60” manholes and two (2) 72” manholes will be required for the proposed collection system, as well as one (1) outlet structure for discharge into the retention basin. Additionally, an estimated 44.1 acres of land will need to be dedicated to the City for the retention basin.

3.23.6 Summary of Costs
Table 3-28. Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Drainage Zone #12 Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Drainage Zone #12 Description Quantity16 Units Unit Cost Cost
General Contracting
Requirements 1 LS $1,170,000.00 $1,170,000
30” RCP 1,325 LF $170.00 $226,000
36” RCP 1,325 LF $190.00 $252,000
48” RCP 4,800 LF $350.00 $1,680,000
60” RCP 1,050 LF $540.00 $567,000
48” Manholes 3 EA $6,000.00 $18,000
60” Manholes 10 EA $9,000.00 $90,000
72” Manholes 2 EA $21,000.00 $42,000
72” Outlet Structures 1 EA $20,000.00 $20,000
Land Dedication 44.1 Acres $15,000.00 $661,500
Clearing and Grubbing 44.1 Acres $2,000.00 $88,200
Retention Basin
Excavation 530,000 CY $7.50 $3,975,000
Chain Link Fencing with
Slats and Gate 6,400 LF $28.00 $179,000
Contingency 15%
Total: $10,314,000
16 All RCP quantities are estimates rounded to the nearest 25-foot increment.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-68

3.23.7 Permitting
No major roads, canals, or other apparent rights-of-ways that would require easements and/or permits are to be crossed for Drainage Zone #11. However, this topic should be revisited at the time of design and construction, or if the City desires to discharge storm water to the Fresno Slough.

3.24 Drainage Zone #13
Drainage Zone #13 (Figure 30) is located in the northeastern portion of the proposed sphere of influence and has portions of its land use designated as Multi-Use/Open Space as well as Medium Density Residential.

The Drainage Zone is bounded by Bass Avenue on the northwest; the City’s WWTP on the northeast and east; the airport on the south and back yards of the residents along Blanco Street on the southwest. The total area of the Drainage Zone is approximately 182 acres.

This Drainage Zone is within a FEMA Flood Zone A which may restrict development and needs to be considered with future design and mapping within this Drainage Zone.

3.24.1 Hydrology
Per City Standards the weighted runoff coefficient for the Drainage Zone was determined using the table below. The resulting analysis yielded a weighted runoff coefficient of 0.24, and the total required retention volume for Drainage Zone #13 is 29.3 acre-feet. Likewise, the peak flow rate was determined to be approximately 7.2 cfs, using the values for the Rational method equation required per City Standards.

Table 3-29. Hydrology of Storm Drain Infrastructure Drainage Zone #13 Hydrology of Storm Drain Infrastructure Drainage Zone #13 Land Use Type Land Use
Coefficient, C
Area, A
(acres)
C x A (acres) Volume=C’iA
(acre-feet)
Single Family Residential 0.3 26.3 7.9
Commercial 0.7
Industrial 0.8
Multi-Family Residential 0.55 11.4 6.3
Open Space/Parks 0.2 144.2 28.8
Weighted Runoff Coefficient (C’) 0.24
Totals 181.9 43.0 29.3
City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-69
Figure 30. Proposed Drainage Zone 13
City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-70

3.24.2 Collection Facilities
The master planned collection facilities for the Drainage Zone are primarily comprised of two (2) trunk lines that discharge to a proposed retention basin near the northeastern boundary of the Drainage Zone (Figure 30). The master planned collection piping ranges from 18” to 24” and was sized based on the flow accumulated from assumed upstream sub-areas within the watershed.

3.24.3 Retention Storage
Using the Retention Basin Storage Requirements outlined in Section 2.2.3, the Drainage Zone’s designated land use and acreage were used to determine basin sizing, as shown in Table 3-29. Regional Basin #13 is located near the northeast boundary of the Drainage Zone and will require an approximate footprint of 625- feet by 625-feet, which represents approximately 10.8% of the Drainage Zone’s total gross area and includes area for side slopes and access roads.

3.24.4 Disposal
Disposal of storm water from the retention basin in this Drainage Zone will primarily be via evaporation, however there is a possibility the retention basin could instead be designed and constructed as a detention basin that would discharge via pumping to Bass Avenue and ultimately the San Luis Canal. This would greatly reduce the required footprint of the basin.

Drainage Zone #13’s overland escape route for the retention basin (Figure 30) would be to the Northwest and water would flow adjacent to the Bass Avenue Ditch and then ultimately to the basin in the northwest corner of the WWTP.

3.24.5 Necessary Projects
As discussed in the Collection Facilities section, Drainage Zone #13 will have two (2) trunk lines conveying flow from the southwest and southeast portions of the Drainage Zone to the retention basin located at the northeastern boundary of the Drainage Zone. The proposed conveyance system comprises 1,550 lf of 18” RCP; and 2,500 lf of 24” RCP. It is estimated that nine (9) - 48” diameter manholes will be required for the proposed collection system, as well as two (2) outlet structures for discharge into the retention basin.

Additionally, an estimated 9.0 acres of land will be needed for the retention basin. Somewhat less would be needed if a detention basin proved to be feasible.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-71

3.24.6 Summary of Costs
Table 3-30. Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Drainage Zone #13 Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Drainage Zone #13 Description Quantity17 Units Unit Cost Cost
General Contracting
Requirements 1 LS $250,000.00 $250,000
18” RCP 1,550 LF $130.00 $202,000
24” RCP 2,500 LF $150.00 $375,000
48” Manholes 9 EA $6,000.00 $54,000
48” Outlet Structures 2 EA $15,000.00 $30,000
Land Dedication 9.0 Acres $15,000.00 $135,000
Clearing and Grubbing 9.0 Acres $2,000.00 $18,000
Retention Basin
Excavation 105,000 CY $7.50 $788,000
Chain Link Fencing with
Slats and Gate 2,500 LF $28.00 $70,000
Contingency 15%
Total: $2,210,000

3.24.7 Permitting
No major roads, canals, or other apparent rights-of-ways that would require easements and/or permits are to be crossed for Drainage Zone #13. However, this topic should be revisited at the time of design and construction.

3.25 Drainage Zone #14
Drainage Zone #14 (Figure 31) is located in the northern most portion of the proposed sphere of influence and is designated as Low Density Residential. The Drainage Zone is bounded by Bass Avenue on the southeast; Watershed #9 on the southwest and the Firebaugh Canal District Intake Canal on the northwest.

The total area of the Drainage Zone is approximately 91.2 acres.

This Drainage Zone is within a FEMA Flood Zone A which may restrict development and needs to be considered with future design and mapping within this Drainage Zone. 17 All RCP quantities are estimates rounded to the nearest 25-foot increment.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-72
Figure 31. Proposed Drainage Zone 14
City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-73

3.25.1 Hydrology
Per City Standards the weighted runoff coefficient for the Drainage Zone was determined using the table below. The resulting analysis yielded a weighted runoff coefficient of 0.30, and the total required retention volume for Drainage Zone #13 is 16.8 acre-feet. Likewise, the peak flow rate was determined to be approximately 7.0 cfs, using the values for the Rational method equation required per City Standards.

Table 3-31. Hydrology of Storm Drain Infrastructure Drainage Zone #14 Hydrology of Storm Drain Infrastructure Drainage Zone #14 Land Use Type Land Use
Coefficient, C
Area, A
(acres)
C x A (acres) Volume=C’iA
(acre-feet)
Single Family Residential 0.3 83.4 25.0
Commercial 0.7 —
Industrial 0.8 —
Multi-Family Residential 0.55 —
Open Space/Parks 0.2 —
Weighted Runoff Coefficient (C’) 0.30
Totals 83.4 25.0 16.8

3.25.2 Collection Facilities
The master planned collection facilities for this Drainage Zone includes 24” trunk line that was sized based on the flow accumulated from the assumed sub-areas within the watershed. The main trunk in this Drainage Zone is proposed to flow east to west, parallel to the FCD Intake Canal (Figure 31) to the proposed retention basin.

3.25.3 Retention Storage
Using the Basin Storage Requirements for Retention Basins outlined in Section 2.2.3, Regional Basin #14 has a designed footprint of 500’ x 500’ which represents 3.5% of the Drainage Zone’s total area. This area includes room for side slopes and access roads around the basin.

3.25.4 Disposal
Disposal of storm water from the retention basin in this Drainage Zone will primarily be via evaporation, however there is a possibility the basin could be designed and constructed as a detention basin that would discharge via pumping to the FCD Intake Canal or across Bass Avenue to the San Luis Drain instead. This would greatly reduce the required footprint of the basin. Discharging to the Main Lift Canal northwest of Drainage Zone was also considered, however it is believed to be unlikely that San Luis Canal and Irrigation District would grant permission to pump stormwater into the canal after storm events. However, it may be possible to discharge to the Main Lift Canal during the Spring when flooding is not a concern.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 3-74
Drainage Zone #14’s overland escape route from the retention basin (Figure 31) would be to the Northeast and water would flow adjacent to the Intake Canal to the intersection with Bass Avenue.

3.25.5 Necessary Projects
As discussed in the Collection Facilities section, Drainage Zone #14 will have one main trunk conveying storm water from various collection points throughout the water shed to its respective retention (or alternatively detention) basin. The proposed conveyance system is comprised of 1,675 linear feet (LF) of 24” RCP along the main trunk. It is estimated that five (5) – 48” diameter manholes will be required for the proposed collection system as well as one (1) outlet structure for discharge into the retention basin.

Additionally, an estimated 14.7 acres of land will be needed for the retention basin. Somewhat less area would be needed for a detention basin should that prove feasible.

3.25.6 Summary of Costs
Table 3-32. Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Drainage Zone #14 Summary of Storm Drain Infrastructure Costs Drainage Zone #14 Description Quantity18 Units Unit Cost Cost
General Contracting
Requirements 1 LS $163,000.00 $163,000
24” RCP 1,675 LF $150.00 $251,000
48” Manholes 5 EA $6,000.00 $30,000
48” Outlet Structures 1 EA $15,000.00 $15,000
Land Dedication 14.7 Acres $15,000.00 $220,500
Clearing and Grubbing 14.7 Acres $2,000.00 $29,400
Retention Basin
Excavation 65,000 CY $7.50 $488,000
Chain Link Fencing with
Slats and Gate 2,000 LF $28.00 $56,000
Contingency 15%
Total: $1,440,000

3.25.7 Permitting
No major roads, canals, or other apparent rights-of-ways that would require easements and/or permits are to be crossed for Drainage Zone #14. However, this topic should be revisited at the time of design and construction.
18 All RCP quantities are estimates rounded to the nearest 25-foot increment.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 4-1
4 Public Benefit versus Development
Charges

4.1 Existing Versus Future Users
The improvements discussed in the SDMP can be assigned to one of two categories:
• Improvements necessary within the existing developmental footprint • Improvements required to serve future development
It is the recommendation of this report for the City to prioritize improving existing infrastructure to mitigate current flooding concerns in the downtown area first. This would provide City’s residents with an immediate benefit. Those projects will benefit existing City residents, businesses, and visitors, though the cost burden for the projects will fall on the City. Project funds will have to come either from the City’s Enterprise Fund or potentially from storm drain related grant funds as those become available. No Development Impact Fees may be used for construction of projects unless they also benefit developing areas, and then only in proportion to the benefit that the developing area receives.

As the City grows and expands it is recommended that the collection, conveyance and storage improvements discussed in Section 3 of this report be implemented, either directly by Developers or by the City through Development Impact Fee financing, to provide the benefit of sustainable stormwater management to new City residents. The table below identifies the approximate costs associated with the improvements for each drainage area, both existing and proposed.

Establishment of appropriate Development Impact Fees to support financing of these projects is beyond the scope of this report. The City will complete a separate Development Impact Fee study which will recommend fee amounts for storm drain and other development impact fees.

City of Mendota
Storm Drain Master Plan
City of Mendota • July 2022 4-2
Table 4-1. Summary of Cost to Implement Recommended Infrastructure Upgrades Summary of Cost to Implement Recommended Infrastructure Upgrades Description Estimated Costs Priority
Existing Watershed Improvements
Watershed #2 $-- High
Watershed #3-1 $-- High
Watershed #3-2 $1,254,000 High
Watershed #3-3 $5,075,000 High
Watershed #5 $510,000 High
Watershed #7 $505,000 High
Watershed #8 $265,000 High
Sub Total $7,609,000
Proposed Drainage Zone Developments
Drainage Zone #1 $1,535,000 As Needed
Drainage Zone #2 $6,540,000 As Needed
Drainage Zone #3 $2,380,000 As Needed
Drainage Zone #4 $7,879,000 As Needed
Drainage Zone #5 $8,400,000 As Needed
Drainage Zone #6 $4,925,000 As Needed
Drainage Zone #7 $3,057,000 As Needed
Drainage Zone #8 $4,362,000 As Needed
Drainage Zone #9 $3,542,000 As Needed
Drainage Zone #10 $8,511,000 As Needed
Drainage Zone #11 $9,241,000 As Needed
Drainage Zone #12 $10,314,000 As Needed
Drainage Zone #13 $2,210,000 As Needed
Drainage Zone #14 $1,440,000 As Needed
Sub Total $74,154,000
Total: $81,945,000
City of Mendota • July 2022 Appendix-1
Appendix
City of Mendota • July 2022 Appendix-2
Appendix A
City of Mendota
Hydrologic Design Criteria
June 2018
1 General
The design criteria in this section are the minimum acceptable criteria for use by designers of drainage facilities to be developed within the City. Designers are cautioned to apply their own expertise and judgment in development of final designs. Certain projects or clients may appropriately require more stringent criteria. However, the City will not reimburse for costs associated with systems designed to criteria higher than listed herein, unless those higher criteria have been mandated by City staff or governing bodies. 2 Collection Systems
All elements of the storm drainage collection system (streets, gutters, inlets, pipes, and pump stations) shall be designed in accordance with the variation on the Rational method presented below. The method discussed here does not provide for the most intensive, shortduration storms, which are considered by the standard Rational method. The peak flows from such storms are handled through short-term ponding within street areas. Once the brief peak has passed, the inlets, pipes and pump stations designed according to the City's criteria clear the streets.

Calculated flow for a given system (Q) shall be derived from the standard Rational formula, as modified by the definitions given:

Q = CiA
Where:

Q = Runoff Flow (cubic feet per second)
C = Runoff Coefficient (Per Table, Section 2.1 or as directed) i = Rainfall Intensity (inches/hour, per table, Section 2.2) A = Tributary Area (acres)
Inlets, pipes and pump stations shall be designed to handle the runoff flow calculated by the equation above.

City of Mendota • July 2022 Appendix-3
Runoff coefficients are given in Section 2.1. These shall be used for any future development under consideration. If a specific site plan is available, and higher runoff can be anticipated, City may direct use of higher runoff coefficients. For example, an industrial development covering its entire site with building and impervious surface would require a runoff coefficient of 0.95 rather than the standard 0.80 given in Section 2.1.

2.1 Runoff Coefficients (Inlet, Pipeline and Pump Station Design) The following Table 2-1 shall be used to determine the runoff coefficients for the runoff calculation. For mixed use developments, coefficients shall be averaged on an area-weighted basis.

Table 2-1
Standard Runoff Coefficients
Land Use Type Runoff Coefficient
Industrial 0.80
Commercial 0.70
Multi-Family Residential 0.55
Single Family Residential 0.30
Open Space (Parks & School Yards) 0.20

2.2 Rainfall Intensity
Rather than using standard intensity-duration curves, the rainfall intensities shown in Table 2-2 shall be used throughout the City. For areas with mixed land uses, a composite intensity shall be calculated on an area-weighted basis.

Table 2-2
Standard Rainfall Intensities
Land Use Type Rainfall Intensity (inches/hour)
Commercial and Industrial 0.50
All Residential 0.30
3 Pump Stations
Storm drain pump stations shall be designed in accordance with the requirements of this section, the Standard Drawings, and any applicable Storm Drain Master Plan for the subject area. It shall be the responsibility of the engineer to determine whether the project is affected by a Storm Drain Master Plan, and to coordinate design with the construction of required Master Plan facilities.

City of Mendota • July 2022 Appendix-4
Pump stations shall be equipped with duplex non-clog centrifugal pumps and shall be provided with trash racks in accordance with the Standard Drawings. Should site-specific conditions so dictate, alternative designs will be considered if it can be demonstrated that such alternatives are in the interest of the City. Such alternatives could include propeller or other-type pumps, or alternative wet well designs. In any case, the quality and durability of the supplied hardware and facilities shall be of the level shown on the Standard Drawings.

Pumps shall be selected and designed to provide the required flow when running in tandem, and at least 60 percent of the maximum design flow when running singly. The design engineer shall submit pump design calculations for review along with the Improvement Drawings. Calculations shall include pump curves (simplex and duplex operation) and system head curves overlain on the same scale. The operating range shall give consideration to all variable conditions including discharge head and depth of water in the wet well. Typically, pumps shall be selected to run to the right of the point of peak efficiency on the pump curve. Variance from that policy requires approval of the City Engineer.

Pump submittals shall indicate type, make, model, horsepower, selected impeller type and model number, wire to water efficiency, motor voltage, and any other pertinent information. Typically, impellers shall be single-vane non-clog or vortex; however, in larger diameters dual-vane impellers may be considered.

Wet wells shall be designed to provide not more than ten pump starts per hour for the selected pump and the system conditions. Design engineer shall submit calculations demonstrating the range of required pump starts for approval along with the Improvement Drawings.

Wet wells shall be of sufficient depth to allow complete drainage of tributary pipelines, with pump shut-off elevation set at or below the invert elevation of the inlet pipe. Pump stations shall be located within public rights-of-way, or in landscape easements, so that there is ready vehicular access for pump maintenance.

Pump control panels and electric service shall be located near a right-of-way boundary, against a fence or masonry wall as may be the case. A masonry enclosure with chain link or wrought iron gates (as directed by City) shall be constructed in accordance with the Standard Drawings. The control panel shall be located so as to give a direct line of sight to the pump station by a person standing at the control panel. 4 Storm Drainage Basin Classification
Storm drainage basins shall be classified as temporary or permanent and shall be classified as being for detention or retention, as defined herein. The design engineer shall submit appropriate calculations supporting the selected size and design criteria for any basin included in a development along with the Improvement Drawings.

City of Mendota • July 2022 Appendix-5

4.1 Temporary Basins
A basin shall be designated as "temporary" if it meets all of the following conditions:
• Provides protection only for a single development or portion thereof. • Is within an area covered by a Storm Drainage Master Plan. • Is not included as part of the scope of work given in the Master Plan; and • In City's sole opinion, is anticipated to have a useful life of five years or less.

4.2 Permanent Basins
Any basin not meeting the conditions given in Section 4.1 shall be designated a "permanent basin."

4.3 Detention Basins
Basins which meet the following criteria shall be designated as "detention basins":
• Designed to receive storm water and concurrently discharge to a pipe, an irrigation ditch, or other facility at a flow rate not to exceed the capacity of the downstream receiving facility, and.
• Downstream facilities are not subject to restrictions on flow discharge or quantity under most operating conditions during the year.

4.4 Retention Basins
Any basin which has no relief outlet, or which has an outlet not meeting the conditions in 4.3, shall be designated a "retention basin."

4.5 Basin Volumes
All detention basins shall be designed to detain two (2) 10-year, 24-hour storm events, with no allowance for percolation or evaporation. See Table 5-1.

If using Method 2 in Section 5.3 for detention basin design, Developer's engineer shall prepare a hydrograph for each detention basin per Section 5.3 and shall submit the design to the City Engineer for approval.

All retention basins shall be designed to store 8.05 inches of rainfall, equal to the total average annual rainfall in Mendota, with no allowance for percolation or evaporation. See Table 5-1. If the proposed basin has an outlet which does not meet the requirements of Section 4.3, the design engineer may apply to the City Engineer for reduction in the required storage quantity which takes the capacity of the relief facility into account.

Design engineer shall prepare calculations showing the areas and runoff coefficients for all area tributary to the proposed basin and shall demonstrate adequate capacity accounting for HGL and City of Mendota • July 2022 Appendix-6
freeboard requirements set forth in Section 5.
5 Basin Design Criteria

5.1 General
Many design criteria are common among the basin classifications. The requirements of this section apply to all basins, whether temporary or permanent, detention or retention. The criteria in this section are minimums acceptable to the City and may be exceeded at the Developer's option. • Basin volume shall be calculated as the volume below an elevation not higher than 0.50 feet below the collection system HGL at the discharge • Hydraulic grade lines of storm water collection pipes shall not exceed 0.50 feet below the flow line elevation of any inlets along such pipe. • Minimum basin freeboard shall be 2.00 feet between the maximum water surface of the basin and the top of the basin embankment.
• Minimum basin bottom elevation shall be determined by the City Engineer upon review of groundwater data submitted by the Developer's engineer but shall in no case be lower than 5.0 feet above the seasonal high ground water level elevation. • Retention basins shall have a maximum depth of water no deeper than 4.0 feet to allow for evaporation of retained storm runoff.
• Basin bottom shall be sloped at 0.5% minimum toward the basin outlet in detention basins, or toward any single area in retention basins, to minimize puddling at low water levels. Retention basins are encouraged to utilize drywells at low points in basin to reduce ponding of nuisance water.
• Detention basin outlets shall be designed to dewater the basin within a maximum of 96-hours.
• All basins shall have an emergency overland escape (breakover) to a safe drainage course. Building pad elevations in tributary area shall be a minimum of one foot (1.0 foot) above the elevation of overland escape.
• Embankment slopes (horizontal to vertical):
o Temporary Basin – 2:1
o Permanent Basin – 3:1
o Permanent Basin/Sport Field (with turf) – 4:1
• Provide minimum 10-foot access path around perimeter of all basins. Access road shall be topped with minimum 4 inches of Class II aggregate base. • Provide six-foot chain link fence built in accordance with Section 25, Chain Link Fence of City Standard Specifications and City Standard Drawings around the outer perimeter of the pond, unless not required by the City. A minimum of one (1) 12-foot swinging gate with access to public streets shall be provided for maintenance purposes. Such access may be either direct, or through an approved access easement.

Table 5-1 shows the required rainfall accumulations that shall be used to design basins of various types.

City of Mendota • July 2022 Appendix-7
Table 5-1
Standard Rainfall Accumulations for Basin Design
Basin Design Criteria Rainfall (Inches)
Two (2) 10 year, 24-hour events 3.18
Average Annual Rainfall
100 year return Annual Rainfall*
Annual Evapotranspiration
Percolation/Infiltration (of native soils)

8.05 12.25

45.75 0
* To be used when directed by the City

5.2 Basin Calculations (General)
Calculation of required pond volume, maximum permissible water surface elevation, and system hydraulic grade line shall be submitted by the design engineer, along with the Improvement Drawings.

All design calculations shall include the time required to completely drain any proposed detention ponds after the design storm event has ended.

5.3 Detention Basin Calculations
Either of the following methods may be used to size and design proposed detention basins:

Method 1:

Detention basins shall be sized based on the basin criteria in Section 5.1 and the following formula:

V = CiA
Where:

V = Detained Runoff Volume (acre-feet)
C = Composite Runoff Coefficient (per Table, Section 2.1 or as directed)
i = Rainfall Accumulation/Depth of two (2) 10-year, 24 hour storm events (feet, per Table 5-1)
A = Tributary Area (acres)
City of Mendota • July 2022 Appendix-8
Method 2:

Where detention basin criteria call for submission of a hydrographs it shall be prepared by the design engineer in conformance with the provisions of this section using the Modified Rational method, for tributary areas up to 20 acres. The City Engineer shall be consulted for larger areas or areas with multiple in-line (routed) basins.

The time of concentration (Tc) shall be 30 minutes unless approved otherwise by the City Engineer.

The design storm for the basin hydrograph shall be a 10 year, 2-day storm event with a rainfall intensity of 0.040 inches/hour. The runoff coefficient shall be prorated to account for the composite land use within the study area set forth in Section 2.1.

The design storm shall be routed through the proposed basin and utilize a weir structure discharging into gravity pipe(s) or a pump station, as necessary. For the purpose of these calculations, the pump's outflow shall be considered to be a single pump's capacity even in a duplex pump station.

5.4 Retention Basin Calculations
Retention basins shall be sized based on the basin criteria in Section 5.1 and the following formula:

V = CiA
Where:

V = Retained Runoff Volume (acre-feet)
C = Composite Runoff Coefficient (per Table,
Section 2.1 or as directed)
i = Average Annual Rainfall, per Table 5-1 (feet)
A = Tributary Area (acres)
1 AGENDA ITEM – STAFF REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: NANCY BANDA, FINANCE DIRECTOR
VIA: CRISTIAN GONZALEZ, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: CLAIMING LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 DATE: AUGUST 9, 2022
ISSUE
Should the City Council approve Resolution 22-50, claiming Local Transportation Funds for Fiscal Year 2022-2023?

BACKGROUND
The Fresno Council of Governments (“FCOG”) has the authority to review claims and allocate such funds in accordance with the Transportation Development Act (“TDA”) of 1971 and Chapter 3 of Title 21 of the California Administrative Code for the purposes allowed under Articles III, IV and VII which provides funding to be allocated to encourage inter-jurisdictional coordination of transportation needs and increased coordination of transportation implementation planning. This funding is allocated by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, which takes the amount of sales tax collected and returns the general sales tax revenue to the Council of Fresno County Governments. They in turn, allocate it to each City in the County based on population for the projects that were budgeted for the 2022-2023 fiscal year.

ANALYSIS
The attached resolution and claim forms for each applicable funding program are routine and required by FCOG to receive the funding for the Local Transportation Funds. With the funding provided under the TDA, the City can fund street projects approved during the budget for each fiscal year, rural transit and assist with regional transportation planning.

The total amount allocated for the City of Mendota is $755,839.00. However, the City will be payable $543,154.00 from the total allocation. The remaining $212,685.00 will be distributed among four sections: Regional Transportation Planning, Community Transit Service, Article 4.5, Fresno County Rural Transit Agency LTF and Fresno County Rural Transit Agency STA. The following table displays each sections allocation:

FY 2022/2023
Regional Transportation Planning $ 17,832.00
Community Transit Service, Article 4.5 $ 30,834.00
Fresno County Rural Transit Agency LTF $ 46,170.00
Fresno County Rural Transit Agency STA $ 117,849.00
$ 212,685.00
2 Regional Transportation Planning is a long-term design of a region’s transportation system. The plan identifies and analyzes transportation needs of the metropolitan region and creates a framework for project priorities.

Community Transit Service, Article 4.5 is a transportation planning agency for community transit services for those disabled, who cannot use conventional transit services. Transportation services which connect intra-community origins and destinations in which needs are not being met in the community.

Fresno County Rural Transit is a transportation service offered in Fresno County to the 13 rural incorporated communities and many unincorporated rural communities with limited services to neighboring counties Kings County (Avenal and Hanford). There is a Demand Responsive or Fixed Route Basis for all passengers. The difference between LTF and STA funding is STA is specific to transit purposes.

FISCAL IMPACT
$543,154.00 to the City of Mendota “LTF” Fund.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Council to approve Resolution No. 22-50, claiming Local Transportation Funds for Fiscal Year 2022-2023.

Attachment(s):

1. LTF Claim Forms for Fiscal Year 2022-2023

2. Resolution No. 22-50
Enter Date: Claimant Name: City of Mendota
From: Applicant:

Address:

City/State/Zip:

Contact Phone/email:

Local Transportation Fund
Apportionment: $ 637,990.00
Unexpended, Held by Claimant:

Other Agency:

State Transit Assistance Fund
Estimate: $ 117,556.00
Unexpended, Held in Trust: $ 293.00
Other
Other:

TOTAL
$ 755,839.00
Please print and sign after completing form
Authorized Signature:

Name/Title:

Date:

TRANSPORTATION FUNDING CLAIM FOR FISCAL YEAR: 2022/23
Instructions: Please note that each page of this claim is a separate worksheet, please click through all tabs and complete. Also note that light yellow fields require an entry if applicable, light grey fields contain formulas that will automatically calculate based on corresponding entries. A date and claimant name field is at the top of the first page, and automatically repeats on following pages, (date should be formatted 00/00/0000) When completed, please print, sign and send signed original via mail to:

Les Beshears, Director of Finance, Fresno Council of Governments, 2035 Tulare Street, Suite 201, Fresno, CA 93721
City of Mendota
This applicant is an eligible claimant pursuant to Section 99203 of the Public Utilities Code and certifies that the following transportation funds are available to be claimed:
for the purposes and respective amounts specified in the attached claim be drawn from the Local Transportation Fund and State Transit Assistance Fund.
spell out total amount in above cell
Enter Date: Claimant Name:

TRANSPORTATION FUNDING CLAIM DETAIL FOR FISCAL YEAR: 2022/23

PURPOSE AMOUNT SUBTOTAL

1. Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities:

Article 3: $ 12,769.00
Article 8a:

Audit Exceptions (General Fund Payback);
Unexpended Funds, Held by Claimant:
$ 12,769.00

2. Regional Transportation Planning: $ 17,832.00 $ 17,832.00

3. Public Transportation State Transit Assistance Funds (STA): $ - Other:
$ -

4. Community Transit Service CTSA, Article 4.5: $ 30,834.00 $ 30,834.00

5. Streets & Roads: Article 8a: $ 530,385.00
Unexpended Funds, Held by Claimant:
$ 530,385.00

6. To Be Claimed By:

Fresno County Rural Transit Agency LTF: $ 46,170.00
Fresno County Rural Transit Agency STA: $ 117,849.00
Other $ -
$ 164,019.00

7. Reserve in Fund Pending Further Claiming $ -
GRAND TOTAL $ 755,839.00
Claim Total Must Agree With Total on First Page $ 755,839.00 Minus Non Transit Claims $ 212,685.00
GRAND TOTAL PAYABLE TO CLAIMANT $ 543,154.00
Allocation instructions and payment by the Fresno County Auditor-Controller to the applicant is subject to such monies being available for distribution, and to the provisions that such monies will be used only in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Transportation Development Act.

City of Mendota
Enter Date: Claimant Name:

PROJECT TITLE & BRIEF DESCRIPTION PROJECT COST

1. Various Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities throughout the claimant's jurisdiction: $ 12,769.00 AND/OR:
$ -
$ -
$ -
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ 12,769.00

PROJECT TITLE & BRIEF DESCRIPTION PROJECT COST
$ 530,385.00
AND/OR: $ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ 530,385.00
City of Mendota
Other - describe briefly if applicable:

Other - describe briefly if applicable:

Other - describe briefly if applicable:

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES FOR FISCAL YEAR: 2022/23 Two percent (2%) of the claimant’s Local Transportation Fund apportionment must be spent on bicycle and pedestrian facilities (PUC 99233.3 and 99234); such claims are to be filed as Article 3. Claims for projects in excess of 2% may be filed as Article 8a (PUC 99400(a)). If other funding is to be used with Local Transportation Funds to implement projects, such funding should be shown on the claim form.

Other - describe briefly if applicable:

Other - describe briefly if applicable:

Other - describe briefly if applicable:

Local Transportation Funds coming to claimants within Fresno County may be used for streets and roads improvements and maintenance pursuant to Article 8 (PUC 99400), but only after Fresno COG makes a finding that public transportation needs within the claimant’s jurisdiction are reasonably met by satisfying the service requirements set forth by the Regional Transportation Plan (PUC 99401.5).

STREETS AND ROADS CLAIM FOR FISCAL YEAR: 2022/23

1. Development, Construction & Maintenance Facilities throughout the claimant's jurisdiction:

Enter Date: Claimant Name:

CONTINGENCY PROJECT LISTING FOR FISCAL YEAR: 2022/23
CHECK ALL THAT APPLY (Enter "X" in yellow box)

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION STREETS & ROADS Article 3 Article 4 Article 8a

STANDARD ASSURANCES FOR CLAIMANTS
CLAIMANT ASSURANCES: (initial yellow box all that apply) The undersigned hereby certifies that the above statements are true and correct.

Please print and sign after completing form
Name/Title:

Date:

City of Mendota
A. Claimant certifies that it has submitted a satisfactory, independent fiscal audit, with required certification statement, to the RTPA and to the State Controller, pursuant to PUC 99245 and 21 Cal. Code of Regulations Section 6664 for the prior fiscal year (project year minus two). Claimant assures that this audit requirement will be completed for the current fiscal year (project year minus one).

Authorized
Signature:

B. Claimant certifies that it has submitted a State Controller Report to the RTPA and to the State Controller, pursuant to PUC 99243.
1 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE

CITY OF MENDOTA, COUNTY OF FRESNO
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 22-50

OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA CLAIMING

LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023
WHEREAS, the City of Mendota (“City”) hereby submits a Local Transportation Fund Claim from the Local Transportation Fund of Fresno County for Fiscal Year 2022- 2023; and
WHEREAS, the Fresno Council of Governments (“FCOG”) encourages interjurisdictional coordination of transportation needs and increased coordination of transportation implementation plans; and
WHEREAS, FCOG has the authority to review claims and allocate Local Transportation Funds in accordance with the Transportation Development Act of 1971 and Chapter 3 of Title 21 of the California Administrative Code.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mendota that the City hereby requests FCOG allocate $755,839.00 from the Local Transportation Fund to the named applicant for the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 for the purposes allowed under Articles III, IV, and VIII of the Transportation Development Act of 1971, as identified in the attached claim and in accordance with the adopted Regional Transportation Plan,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council authorizes the City Manager to execute all associated agreements and documents required to submit the attached claim for the requested Local Transportation Fund allocation.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Mendota hereby requests that the City’s total Transportation Fund apportionment for Fiscal Year 2022-2023, said amount being $755,839.00, be allocated from the Local Transportation Fund to FCOG for the purpose of conducting Regional Transportation Planning. ______________________________
Rolando Castro, Mayor
2 ATTEST:

I, Celeste Cabrera-Garcia, City Clerk of the City of Mendota, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted and passed by the City Council at a regular meeting of said Council, held at the Mendota City Hall on the 9th day of August, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Celeste Cabrera-Garcia, City Clerk
1 AGENDA ITEM – STAFF REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: NANCY BANDA, FINANCE DIRECTOR
VIA: CRISTIAN GONZALEZ, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: APPROVING A LEASE AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH CALIFORNIA BUSINESS

MACHINES FOR COPY MACHINE SERVICES AND AUTHORING SIGNERS DATE: AUGUST 9, 2022
ISSUE
Shall the City Council adopt Resolution No. 20-51, approving a lease and maintenance agreement with California Business Machines for copy machine services and authoring signers?

BACKGROUND
The City of Mendota (“City”) contracts with a third party for copy machine services for City Hall and the Mendota Police Department (“MPD”). The leasing contracts for both the City Hall and MPD have expired. The City issued a request for proposals for copy machine services at City Hall and the MPD. The City received four proposals.

ANALYSIS
The City received four proposals from the following companies, Automated Office Systems, Caltronics Business Systems, California Business Machines and Ray Morgan Company. City staff reviewed the proposals submitted and determined the contract with California Business Machines is the best option for the City and the MPD. Here is the breakdown for each complete proposal:

Automated Office Systems $39,961.28
Caltronics Business Systems $39,928.42
California Business Machines $39,211.23
Staff is recommending moving forward with California Business Machines. The City will be saving an estimated $21,298.00 per year for copy machine services.

FISCAL IMPACT
$7,934.03 estimated per year based on past usage to be expended from the following accounts, General, Water and Sewer.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 22-51, approving a lease and maintenance agreement with California Business Machines for copy machine services and authoring signers.
2 Attachment(s):

1. Resolution No. 22-51

2. Exhibit “A” - Lease Agreement and Maintenance Agreement 1 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE

CITY OF MENDOTA, COUNTY OF FRESNO
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 22-51

OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA APPROVING

A LEASE AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT

FOR COPY MACHINE SERVICES AND

AUTHORIZING SIGNERS
WHEREAS, the City of Mendota (“City”) contracts with a third party to provide copy machines and related services for City Hall and the Mendota Police Department (“MPD”); and
WHEREAS, the contracts for the copy machines at City Hall and the MPD have expired; and

WHEREAS, the City advertised a request for proposals for copy machine services at City Hall and the MPD; and
WHEREAS, the City received four proposals with California Business Machines submitting the lowest, responsible proposal.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mendota that the lease and maintenance agreement for copy machine services with California Business Machines is approved in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit “A,”
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager and Finance Director are authorized to execute all documents necessary to effect the lease and maintenance agreement approved herein.
______________________________
Rolando Castro, Mayor
2 ATTEST:

I, Celeste Cabrera-Garcia, City Clerk of the City of Mendota, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted and passed by the City Council at a regular meeting of said Council, held at the Mendota City Hall on the 9th day of August, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Celeste Cabrera-Garcia, City Clerk
Exhibit A

1 AGENDA ITEM – STAFF REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: NANCY BANDA, FINANCE DIRECTOR
VIA: CRISTIAN GONZALEZ, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: APPROVING PROFESSIONAL AUDITING SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING SIGNER(S) DATE: AUGUST 9, 2022
ISSUE
Shall the City Council adopt Resolution No. 22-52, approving professional auditing services and authorizing signers

BACKGROUND
The City of Mendota (“City”) contracts with an accounting firm to perform an annual audit for the City’s finances from July 1st through June 30th. Price Paige & Company is the accounting firm that has been performing auditing services since 2009.

ANALYSIS
The City issued a request for proposals on June 15, 2022 for certified public accountants to audit its financial statements ending June 30, 2022. The City received two proposals from Mann, Urrutia, Nelson CPAs & Associates LLP and Price Paige & Company. After review of the proposals, Price Paige & Company submitted a responsible proposal. This procurement process was initiated in efforts to reduce the City’s cost on auditing services. However, after receiving two proposals we were unable to reduce the cost. Staff will be reaching out to agencies interested in submitting a proposal but did not to get an understanding of the timing to issue an advertisement for auditing services.

The City has financial obligations to issue financial statements in a timely manner. Staff recommends approving services with Price Paige & Company.

FISCAL IMPACT
$51,950.00 for Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2022 to be expended from the following funds:

General, Water, Sewer, Refuse, and Streets.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 22-52, approving professional auditing services and authorizing signer(s).

Attachment(s):

1. Resolution No. 22-52
1 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE

CITY OF MENDOTA, COUNTY OF FRESNO
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 22-52

OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA APPROVING

THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY PRICE

PAIGE & COMPANY FOR PROFESSIONAL

AUDITING SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING

SIGNERS
WHEREAS, the City of Mendota (“City”) contracts with an accounting firm to perform an annual audit for the City’s finances from July 1st through June 30th; and WHEREAS, in efforts to reduce the City’s cost on auditing services, the City issued a request for proposals on June 15, 2022, for certified public accountants to audit its financial statements ending June 30, 2022; and WHEREAS, on July 8, 2022, the City received two responsive proposals for auditing services; and
WHEREAS, Price Paige & Company submitted the lowest, responsible proposal.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mendota that the professional auditing services proposal submitted by Price Paige & Company is hereby approved.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager and Finance Director are authorized to execute all documents necessary to effect the retention of Price Paige & Company for the audit process.
______________________________
Rolando Castro, Mayor
ATTEST:

I, Celeste Cabrera-Garcia, City Clerk of the City of Mendota, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted and passed by the City Council at a regular meeting of said Council, held at the Mendota City Hall on the 9th day of August, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Celeste Cabrera-Garcia, City Clerk
1 AGENDA ITEM – STAFF REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: JERONIMO ANGEL, CHIEF PLANT OPERATOR
VIA: CRISTIAN GONZALEZ, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: AUUTHORIZING LIGHTHOUSE ELECTRICAL, INC. TO INSTALL UNGRADES TO WELL NUMBER 5
DATE: AUGUST 9, 2022
ISSUE
Shall the City Council adopt Resolution No. 22-53, approving the scope of services provided by Lighthouse Electrical, Inc. to install upgrades to well number 5 to serve as a water source to irrigate Pool Park?

BACKGROUND
The City is responsible to maintain both sides of the Pool Park which is located outside of City limits. This park was heavily used in 90’s as a place for families to gather for recreation and fishing activities, with a proximity to the Fresno Slough that runs on the east side of the park.

The park is currently still open to the public, but restrooms have been demolished due to structural issues, the grass is currently not irrigated due to a faulty irrigation system and lights have been vandalized. For many years there have been talks about reviving the park and this year, Council approved funds in the 2022-2023 fiscal year budget to upgrade the irrigation system as it is key to having a functional park.

ANALYSIS
Staff reached out to several vendors and received three estimates needed to provide upgrades to the well #5 making in automated with our SCADA system, and ready to provide the water and pressure necessary to irrigate both sides of the pool park. Well #5 is a standby well that can provide drinking water to the city if wells 7, 8 and 9 go down so these upgrades will improve the drinking water system. All estimates address our needs and are as follows.

FISCAL IMPACT
Three quotes were received:

1. Lighthouse Electric $78,300.00

2. STS Automation $80,986.33

3. Telstar Instruments $82,520.00
A total of $78,300.00 from the Water account will be expended for the project. These funds were approved in the 2022-2023 fiscal year budget.
2 RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 22-53, approving the scope of services provided by Lighthouse Electrical, Inc. to install upgrades to well number 5 to serve as a water source to irrigate Pool Park.

Attachment(s):

1. Quotes from all companies

2. Resolution No. 22-53
_0_L7740B
8/4/2022
Scope L7740B - Page# 1 of 4
3585 E. Date Avenue
Fresno, CA 93725
Office (559) 498-3017
Fax (559) 498-0292
www.lighthouseelec.com
Lic# 871256
PWC# 1000024650
Scope #L7740B
8/4/2022
City of Mendota
643 Quince Street
Mendota, CA 93640
ATTN: Jerry Angel
At this time, Lighthouse Electrical Inc (LEI) is pleased to submit for your review and approval its scope to provide electrical installation, controls, and integration services for the Well 5 VFD/CP project.

I. Referenced Information
A. Notes and pictures from the site meeting on 05/04/2022.

II. Scope of Proposal
A. Demo hardware that is no longer needed.
 Existing Pump Panel.
 Existing Telemetry Panel.

B. Furnish and install (1) ICAD - Control Panel.

C. Furnish and install conduit and conductors for (3) valves.

D. Furnish and install conduit and conductors for (1) Pressure Transmitter.

E. Replace broken hub on top of existing Meter Panel.

F. Furnish and install (1) Yagi Antenna on existing power pole.

III. Materials Provided for Controls
A. Control Panel 1 (CP1).

1. Mild steel NEMA 3R enclosure.

2. Mild steel NEMA 3R AC unit.

3. Fused Disconnect.

4. CompactLogix PLC w/ I/O as required.

5. Ethernet switch.

6. 24VDC Power Supply.

7. MDS Wireless Radio.

8. 60HP VFD with Ethernet.

9. (3) HOA Switches.

10. Emergency Stop.

11. Customer Supplied Power Requirements: 480VAC, 3ph.

12. Control power transformer not included.

13. Breakers, relays, and terminal blocks as required.

14. UL 508A certification.

B. Field Devices:
_0_L7740B
8/4/2022
Scope L7740B - Page# 2 of 4

1. Yagi Antenna.

IV. Integration Services Provided
A. Control System Engineering consists of:

1. ICAD Standard Preliminary Engineering Package consisting of:
 Control panel external & internal layouts with BOM.
 Control panel wiring schematics.

2. As-built engineering package consisting of:
 Updated preliminary engineering package. (1 Hardcopy) B. PLC Programming consists of:

1. Any specific customer programming requirements must be listed in writing within this scope. Otherwise, ICAD will provide programming in accordance with its best practices.

C. SCADA Programming consists of:

1. Set up the radio communication to Water Plant.

2. Modify existing Wonderware application to include (3) valves and (1) Pressure Transmitter.

D. Panel Assembly consisting of:

1. Assemble the control panel as defined in Section III. “Materials Provided for Controls.”

2. Control panel will be built in accordance with the National Electrical Code (NEC) standard and sound engineering principles.

E. Factory Acceptance Testing:

1. The completed panel will undergo the FAT process at ICAD’s shop with the customer or authorized representative to ensure that it complies with the engineering and design specification defined in this quote.

2. Not all field conditions, inputs, or outputs can be duplicated during the factory acceptance test, but all efforts will be made to create a reasonable simulation.

3. Customer approval and sign-off are required upon successful completion of factory acceptance testing.

F. Onsite Startup Services:

1. The cost allowance for an onsite startup, debugging, and training of the programming provided by ICAD has been budgeted into this proposal at 10 manhours. This does not include any overtime or off-schedule hours. Any additional time beyond the budgeted man-hours will be charged at $195 per hour, port-toport, plus travel expenses at a 15% margin.

2. The cost for any delays in startup due to equipment malfunctions, installation delays, project scheduling, delays in production, instrumentation by others, etc., will be in addition to this quotation.

V. Assumptions & Qualifications
A. LEI standard insurance will apply; the cost for additional insurance requirements will be in addition to this quote.

B. Controls and integration services provided by ICAD Automation.

C. It is assumed that there is an existing and functional wireless radio located at the Water Plant.
_0_L7740B
8/4/2022
Scope L7740B - Page# 3 of 4
D. Valves and pressure transmitter provided by the customer.

E. Project includes trenching and backfill services for conduit and conductor installation. A non-union operator will complete these services.

F. This project quote is based on a regular schedule prevailing wage labor charge and does not include overtime.

G. LEI will be provided with schedules of any onsite work being performed by others to ensure adequate time to schedule its crew and work.

H. Any changes to the reference information after the acceptance of this quote will be considered a change order.

I. Necessary welding on equipment or structures will be the responsibility of others.

J. Modifications to any underground utilities or obstructions will be the responsibility of others.

K. Variable frequency drives and soft-starts are solid-state equipment with operational characteristics differing from those of electromechanical equipment. It will be the responsibility of the user for applying solid-state equipment for its intended application.

Continuous heavy shock currents and overloads (110% over the continuous current rating of the device) will cause nuisance tripping and may severely damage solid-state equipment.

L. It is the customer’s responsibility to perform a risk assessment on any machinery controlled by this system. The controls provided as part of this package are not certified to any specific safety level or category.

M. All engineering and programming submitted to the customer for approval will be limited to the initial revision. Additional revisions will be considered a change order.

N. Voltage verification will be completed for all LEI-provided connections.

O. If overtime is required due to customers or other trades' delays, the customer will be responsible for the overtime charges.

VI.Job Specifications
A. Material specifications are as follows:

1. Above Ground – GRC and appropriate fittings, NEMA 3R mild steel enclosures.

2. Below Ground – PVC conduit with insulated GRC transitions wherein contact with concrete.

VII. Not Provided
A. Any additional services or materials.

B. Software.

C. Any standby time due to equipment malfunction, project scheduling, equipment, or materials provided by others, etc., will be in addition to this quotation.

D. Mounting, installation, or commissioning of any sensors or instruments unless otherwise noted above. LEI’s responsibility is limited to single point termination and electrical validation for these devices.

E. Mechanical installations.

F. Temporary Power.

G. Any work which is not normally provided by a C-10 License holder.

H. Connection to any other equipment or networks.

I. The cost associated with expediting material deliveries. _0_L7740B
8/4/2022
Scope L7740B - Page# 4 of 4
J. Bonding, Permits, and Fees.

K. Air pollution permits.

L. Drawings for installations beyond manufacturer-provided or unless mentioned explicitly in this scope.

M. Hard Copies of submittals. Only digital copies will be provided.

N. O&M Manuals.

O. Seismic or architectural calculations or drawings.

P. Professional Stamped Engineering requested for permits.

Q. Requested overtime.

This document and the information contained within are considered the intellectual property of Lighthouse Electrical, Inc. and issued in strict confidence. It shall not be copied, reproduced, or distributed without the express written permission of Lighthouse Electrical, Inc.

We appreciate your interest in our organization and its abilities and look forward to working with you on this project. If you should have any questions or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to call.

Regards,
Stephen Redman
_0_L7740B
8/4/2022
FIXED PRICE QUOTATION L7740B - Page# 1 of 2
3585 E. Date Avenue
Fresno, CA 93725
Office (559) 498-3017
Fax (559) 498-0292
www.lighthouseelec.com
Lic# 871256
PWC# 1000024650
FIXED PRICE QUOTATION FIXED PRICE QUOTATION # L7740B
8/4/2022
Bill: City of Mendota
643 Quince Street
Mendota, CA 93640
ATTN: Jerry Angel
Ship: City of Mendota
643 Quince Street
Mendota, CA 93640
ATTN: Jerry Angel
Qty Description Unit Cost Amount
1 Provide materials and services in accordance with Lighthouse Electrical Scope L7740B.
$78,300
Payment Terms:
25% at acceptance (Net 30)
25% at submittal of preliminary engineering
30% at mobilization (Net 30)
20% at completion of scope items (Net 30)
Lump-sum Total
$78,300
Conditions:
 This is a lump-sum fixed price quotation that includes any applicable sales tax.  This quote is based on the current costs of equipment and materials. After acceptance of this quote, any cost increase due to excessive inflation rates, taxes/tariffs, and/or increased costs for shipping would be the responsibility of the customer.  This quote expires 30 calendar days after the proposal date.  Submittals will be given to the customer 3-4 weeks after receipt of the order and approval of credit terms. The items will be ready for delivery/installation 10-14+ weeks from the approval of submittals. Due to current supply shortages, this is only an estimate and can be impacted by backlogs and product availability.
 Any standby time due to equipment malfunction, project scheduling, equipment, or materials provided by others, etc., will be in addition to this quotation.
 All work will be performed M-F, 7 am – 3:30 pm.
 Any buyer requested overtime will be an additional cost.  The existing system is expected to be correct and operable. Troubleshooting of the existing system will be in addition to this proposal.  Any additional hardware or services will be in addition to this proposal. This includes but is not limited to control or communication to any other devices not listed here.
 If a formal contract is required, its conditions must not deviate from this proposal without LEI's written permission.

This quotation constitutes an offer to sell which expressly limits acceptance to the Standard Terms and Conditions which are by reference incorporated into this agreement as though fully set forth herein. Subject to approval of Buyer's credit worthiness and return of this Agreement with Buyer's signature and Purchase Order number.

Buyer:

City of Mendota
643 Quince Street
Mendota, CA 93640
ATTN: Jerry Angel
By: _______________________________
Date: _____________________________
PO#: _____________________________
Seller:

Lighthouse Electrical
Inc.
3585 E. Date Ave.

Fresno, CA 93725
By:

Date: 8/4/2022
_0_L7740B
8/4/2022
FIXED PRICE QUOTATION L7740B - Page# 2 of 2
Standard Terms and Conditions:

All sales of services or materials by Lighthouse Electrical Inc. (Seller) are subject to the following terms and conditions. Seller objects to any additional or different terms contained in any documentation (including, but not limited to purchase orders or acceptance letters) submitted by Buyer. No waiver or modification of these terms and conditions shall be binding on Seller unless authorized in writing by Seller.

SCOPE. Seller agrees to perform for the Buyer the services described in this document. Buyer acknowledges that Seller shall perform the services based upon information furnished to Seller by the Buyer, and Seller shall be entitled to rely upon such information as being accurate and complete. Seller will not be obligated to provide any services which are (a) outside of the scope defined in the applicable documentation; (b) outside its area of expertise; or (c) in violation of any applicable laws, codes, or regulations.

CHANGE ORDERS. If Buyer requests a change in the scope to be provided, Seller reserves the right to revise delivery schedules and make an equitable adjustment to the price. Any changes within the scope of services must be in writing and approved by both Seller and Buyer before implementation.

PAYMENT TERMS. Unless otherwise noted in this document, this offer is based upon standard industry terms of net 30. Net 45 & 60 terms are available at an increased cost.

INSURANCE. Unless otherwise stated in thisAgreement, Seller's standard insurances will apply. If greater insurances are required, it will be at additional cost to the Buyer.

SCHEDULING. Any estimate of the time required to perform work listed in this Agreement is based upon a start date only after (a) approval of Buyer's creditworthiness and (b) return of Agreement with Buyer's signature and Purchase Order number. The buyer accepts that any timeline estimate given by Seller is only an estimate and is subject to change at any time without penalty to Seller.

PAST DUE ACCOUNTS. For the performance of the services, the Buyer shall pay Seller in the manner and at the times herein specified in this Agreement. If Buyer's account becomes past due on any project that Buyer has with Seller, Seller reserves the right to stop work immediately on all projects for Buyer until all past due invoices are paid. Seller shall not be liable for any liquidated damages or other costs incurred by the Buyer as a result of Seller's stoppage of work due to non-payment. There will be a 1-1/2% per month finance charge for all invoices which are past due.

CONTRACT TERMINATION. Should the Buyer fail to comply with this Agreement as set forth herein, then Seller shall have the right, after giving five days written notice to the Buyer, to terminate this Agreement. Should the Buyer wish to cancel this agreement as set forth herein, the Buyer shall provide Seller 5 days written notice. Upon termination of the Agreement by either party, the Buyer shall be obligated to pay Seller for all work executed and for any proven loss, cost, or expense in connection with the work, plus any accrued finance charges resulting from late payment of invoices, through the date of termination. Additionally, upon the termination of the Agreement by Buyer, Seller shall be entitled to a 5% cancellation fee based upon the initial contract price and added to any other charges presented to Buyer. Upon receipt of such payment in full, Seller shall release to the Buyer all materials, programming, and documentation completed to the date of termination of this Agreement.

WARRANTY. Seller's liability under this agreement shall be limited to re-performing only those deficient engineering or programming services which a) result from Seller's negligence or willful misconduct, and b) are reported in writing to Seller within one (1) year from date of completion of the services hereunder. Under no circumstances shall Seller be liable to Buyer for any consequential or incidental damages, including, but not limited to loss of use or loss of profit. Any change to Seller's design or programming by the Buyer will void and nullify all warranty. Buyer agrees to pay Seller's standard overtime rates for any warranty work performed outside the normal business hours of M-F, 8-5. Seller shall not be required to perform any warranty work if the Buyer's account with Seller becomes past due.

EQUIPMENT WARRANTIES. Seller will use its best effort to obtain applicable warranties from all equipment manufacturers for equipment provided by Seller to the Buyer and will transfer all such warranties directly to Buyer. The Buyer's only recourse shall be under such manufacturers' warranties. Buyer acknowledges that Seller is supplying such equipment without warranty, either implied or expressed.

NO SOLICITATION OR HIRING. Buyer shall not solicit for employment any person employed by Seller, for a period of one year after completion of this work. Should Buyer hire a Seller employee within one year of completion of this work, Buyer agrees to pay Seller an amount equal to one times the employee's annualized salary.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. All documents (including, but not limited to, proposals, price sheets, drawings, and specifications), software and other information or inventions prepared or disclosed by Seller shall remain the sole intellectual property of the Seller. Following acceptance and final payment, Seller shall grant Buyer a non-transferable, non-exclusive license to use such materials for the Buyer's internal purposes only.

ATTORNEY'S FEES. If there is any action or legal proceeding of any kind to enforce or interpret any provision of this Agreement, the unsuccessful party to such proceeding or action shall pay the prevailing party all costs and expenses including reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred by such prevailing party, whether or not such action or legal proceeding proceeds to a judgment.

INDEMNITY. Buyer will defend, indemnify, and hold Seller harmless from all claims, damages, losses, and expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees) arising out of the provision of the services and materials by Seller under this Agreement, including claims related to Seller's use of Buyer supplied drawings, measurements, data, or any other information provided by Buyer that is used in supplying materials or services. However, in no event shall Buyer be liable under this provision for claims arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of Seller. In no event shall the total cumulative aggregate liability of Seller resulting from, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement or the provision of the services and materials by Seller under this Agreement exceed the coverage available under any standard insurance policy Seller has in place which applies to this Agreement, or, in the event no insurance coverage is available, the value of the particular services and materials upon which the claim or damage is based, regardless of the legal or equitable theory upon which the claim or damage is based.

THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARIES. Nothing contained in this agreement shall create a contractual relationship with or a cause of action in favor of a third party against Seller. Seller's services and materials are being supplied solely for Buyer's benefit, and no party or entity shall have any claim against Seller because of this Agreement, or the performance or nonperformance of the services and materials supplied under this Agreement.

INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS. Each party will be and act as an independent contractor and not as an agent or partner of, or joint venture with, the other party for any purpose related to this Agreement or the transactions contemplated by this Agreement, and neither party by virtue of this Agreement will have any right, power, or authority to act or create any obligation, expressed or implied, on behalf of the other party.