HomeMy WebLinkAboutMaster Sewer Plan 10/1982MASTER
EWER PLAN
FOR THE
F FONTANA
illAZ`raCt SEWE . PLR
FOR THE
CITY OF. FONTANA
OCTOBER 1982
CITY COUNCIL
NATHAN A. SIMON - MAYOR
CHARLES A. KOEHLER - MAYOR PRO TEM
BILL FREEMAN - COUNCILMAN
DONALD F. DAY - COUNCILMAN
WILLIAM KRAGNESS - COUNCILMAN
CITY ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF
JACK D. RATELLE - CITY MANAGER .
ROBERT SCHOENBORN - DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
GARY MITCHELL - PLANNING DIRECTOR
' WILLDAN ASSOCIATES PROJECT ..STAFF
• VI.NCENT M. FRASCA - PROJECT PRINCIPAL •
JIMMY W. SIMS - ENGINEERING SUPERVISOR
JEFF WINNER - ENGINEER
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
SECTION PAGE
SUMMARY. 1
A. CONCLUSIONS 1
B. RECOMMENDATIONS 2
11 INTRODUCTION 3
A. SCOPE 3
B. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 4
I11 STUDY AREA 5
A. STUDY AREA LOCATION AND BOUNDARIES 5
B. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 5
C. POPULATION AND LAND USE 5
IV WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS 15
A. GENERAL 15
B. PROJECTED AVERAGE WASTEWATER FLOWS 15
C. PEAKING FACTORS 17
V MODEL DEVELOPMENT 19
A. GENERAL 19
B. EXISTING TRUNK SEWER SYSTEM 19
C. COMPUTATION OF SEWAGE INFLOWS 20
D. SEWER PLANNING AND MODELING SYSTEM (SPAMS.) 20
E. DEFICIENCY CRITERIA 24
F. TRUNK SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES 29
VI RECOMMENDED DEFICIENCY CORRECTION PROJECTS 31
A. GENERAL 31
B. RECOMMENDED. SEWER CORRECTION PROJECTS 31
C. PROJECT COST PROJECTION 31
Vll NEW TRUNK SEWER SYSTEM 39
A. GENERAL 39
B. DESIGN 3.9
C. RECOMMENDED FACILITIES 40
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
SECTION PAGE
Vlll FINANCING OF IMPROVEMENTS 42
A. GENERAL 42
B. METHODS OF FINANCING 43.
C. FINANCING STRATEGY 46
LIST OF TABLES.
TABLE PAGE
111-1 EXISTING CONTRIBUTORY AREAS 9
IV-1 AVERAGE LAND USE FLOW- COEFFICIENTS 16
IV-2 PEAKING FACTORS 18
V-1 SAMPLE PROFILE DATA 25
V-2 TYPICAL OUTPUT FLOW GENERATION 26
V-3 SAMPLE OUTPUT OF DESIGN DATA 27
V-4 TYPICAL OUTPUT PIPE DESIGN 28
V-5 EXISTING TRUNK SEWER SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES
BASED ON THE ULTIMATE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE 30
VI-1 RECOMMENDED DEFICIENCY CORRECTION PROJECTS 33
VI-2 PIPE, EXCAVATION & BACKFILL UNIT COST DATA 37
VI-3 SHORING UNIT COST DATA 38
VI-4 RESURFACING UNIT COST DATA 38
VII-1 PROJECTED COSTS 41
VIII-1 SUGGESTED CHARGES FOR POTENTIAL AND
EXISTING USERS 48
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
1 MASTER, SEWER PLAN MAP
2 VICINITY MAP
3 LAND USE DESIGNATION MAP
4 "n" VALUE AS A FUNCTION OF D/d
PAGE
23
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Ac - Acre
Average Flow
- The average 24-hour rate of discharge of
sewage normally stated in cubic feet per
second or gallons per day.
CFS - Cubic Feet Per Second
Computer Model
- The sewer system defined in mathematical
terms such that cause -effect relationships
can be examined by the computer.
Design Flow - The flow that the sewer must carry at de-
sign conditions (also peak flow) .
GPD - Gallons Per Day
MGD - Million Gallons Per Day
City. - City of Fontana
Peak Flow
- The peak rate of discharge of sewage nor-
mally stated in cubic feet per second or
gallons per day. Peak flow equals aver-
age flow times the peaking factor.
Peaking Factor - The ratio of peak flow of sewage to aver-
age flow.
Surcharged Flow - The pipe is flowing full (under pressure
SECTION 1
SUMMARY
This report represents the culmination of an extensive study and analysis of the
City's trunk sewer system. The purpose of'the study has been to:
A. Determine the ability of the existing trunk sewer system to accept
present'day flows and projected sewage flows including additional
sewage flow from a portion of the unincorporated areas adjacent to
the City.
B. Identify deficiencies within -the existing trunk sewer system land use.
C. Develop recommended deficiency correction measures, including the
assignment of priorities for undertaking the projects.
A computer program was used to analyze the existing trunk sewer system's capa-
city to accept the project sewage flows based upon the existing land use and the
land use projected for the ultimate development of the City. This involved the es-
tablishment of a computerized model which described the geometry of the existing
network of trunk sewer facilities. In addition, information on the contributing
areas, land use, population densities and other factors which affect the volume of
sewage generated was assembled and included as a part of the computerized data
base.
A similar model was established for the preliminary designs of the proposed sew-
er facilities. The system geometry was based on existing land surface conditions
taken from topographic maps of the area.
By establishing these computer models, the City is provided with a Master Sewer
Plan which has the capability to respond rapidly to questions regarding the effects
and cost of any changes in the various parameters affecting the models, including
the final design of the new trunk sewer. system.
A. CONCLUSIONS
1. Approximately 26 miles of existing sewer system were modeled; of
which, 10 miles were found to be deficient given ultimate land use
conditions. For existing land use, approximately 1 mile of existing
trunk sewer system was deficient.
2. Approximately 36 miles of new trunk sewer system is master planned
to provide service in areas presently without sewers.
3. The estimated cost to correct the existing deficiencies is $216,000.
To correct the ultimate deficiencies, the total cost is $1,881,000.
1
4.. Total estimated cost for the master planned trunk sewer system is
$9, 035, 000.
B. RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Although many of the deficiencies are not considered to be of critical
magnitude, it is recommended that the City plan and implement a cap-
ital improvement program to correct the deficiencies identified in this
report. Such a program would eliminate the maintenance and nuisance
problems and provide a margin of safety which would preclude degen-
eration of the problems to critical stages in the next 5 to 10 years.
The forestalling of corrective measures would likely result in in-
creased annual maintenance costs and could possibly lead to the crea-
tion of health hazards. '
2. The City should continue to monitor the sewage flows in its trunk sys-
tem as new land development and/or redevelopment occurs in the com-
munity. By undertaking a periodic monitoring program, the City staff
will be able to compare the projected sewage flow quantities against
those occurring as a result of the change in land use.
3. The City should periodically update the land use data base in the com-
puter model. The model should be updated periodically to •reflect the
construction of new relief facilties and/or the construction of new
trunk lines.
2
SECTION 11
INTRODUCTION
The City of Fontana is undergoing a period of growth in population, land
area, and building development. Existing utilities must be expanded to
accommodate this and anticipated growth. By considering the existing sewer
facilities and projecting future requirements, a plan can be developed which
allows for the orderly expansion of the sewer system while maintaining a
satisfactory_ level of service. Plans for facilities that have a useful life of 50
to 100 years or longer must be flexible enough to adjust to changes that may
occur over the period.
For a Sewer Master Plan to be of value in guiding the development of the -
system, a number of factors which influence growth and design within the
project area must be analyzed and evaluated. Among these factors are the
physical characteristics such as the location and the boundaries of the study
area, geology, topography and climate; and, in addition, the development char-
acteristics such as land use and population. Development characteristics are
then used in estimating future sewage flows. Using these estimated flows as
a basis, the adequacy of the existing facilities can be determined. Where new
facilities are required, either because the system is expanding into new areas
or the flows wil.I exceed the carrying capacity of the system, these estimated
flows serve as a guide in sizing the new facilities. The development charac-
teristics are also used as a guideline in scheduling the construction -of new
facilities.
A. SCOPE
The City of Fontana authorized Willdan Associates to prepare a Sewer Master
Plan for the City. Preparation of the Sewer Master Plan included the following
elements:
1. Collection of data for the existing sewer system (i.e., pipe size,
slope, elevations) .
2. Determination of the land usage for the study area.
3. investigation of, inconsistencies in the data and of missing data.
Formulation of a computer model of the collection system.
5. Analyzing the capacities of the existing system and comparing
them with the quantities determined from the metering of flows
into Chino Basin Metropoliton Water District's Regional Treat-
ment Plant 3.
3
6. Determination of system deficiencies and recommendation of re-
lief facilities.
7. Preparation of cost estimate for the recommended improvements.
8. Preparation of a sewer Master Plan report.
The analysis of a sanitary sewer system can be performed by either a manual
or computerized system. A manual system would be preferred over a com-
puterized system for relatively small sanitary sewer systems (less than ap-
proximately five miles of trunk system) . For larger systems, the computer-
ized system is more cost effective and can be more easily used for modified
analysis of the entire system. Use of the computer simplifies the evaluation
of the effects of the addition of new land areas, a change in land use, and
construction of new trunk sewers or parrallel sewers. The computer also
allows the rapid determination of the size of the sewer lines required as a
result of these changes.
B. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
During the preparation of this report, several individuals have provided in-
formation. Wilidan Associates extends its sincere appreciation to the em-
ployees of the City of Fontana, including the staff of the Public Works, Plan-
ning, Building and Sewer Department, and the Redevelopment Agency. We
especially give our thanks to Robert Schoenborn, Director of Public Works
and the staff of the Chino Basin Municipal Water District.
4
SECTION 111
STUDY AREA
A. STUDY AREA LOCATION AND BOUNDARIES
The project location is in the San Bernardino Valley approximately 50 miles
east of downtown Los Angeles and approximately 10 miles west of the City of
San Bernardino (see Figure 2) and encompasses approximately 55 square
miles. Fontana is situated in a valley formed by the San Gabriel Mountains
to the north, and the Jurupa Mountains to the south, at an elevation of 1,325
feet above sea level. The City is situated on a large alluvial deposit formed
by the historical deposition of Lytle Creek. Fontana's political boundaries
abut the City of Rialto to the east, the cities of Rancho Cucamonga and Ontario
to the west, and the Riverside County line to the south.
B. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Topography
Five major physiographic features form the regional topography of the study
area: the San Gabriel Mountains, the upper and lower Santa Ana River basins,
and the Santa Ana Mountains -Chino Hills. The San Gabriel and San Bernardino
Mountains rise to over 10,000 feet at the head of the upper Santa Ana River
basin. The Santa Ana Mountains -Chino Hills exhibit a northwest -southwest
structural trend, separating the upper basin from the lower basin coastal plain.
Prominent, consistent alluvial fans radiate southward from the San Gabriel
and San Bernardino Mountains into the Chino and San Bernardino valleys,
yielding gentle slopes of less than 3 percent. These regional landforms have
been formed by large-scale geographic disturbances marked by faulting at
the -boundaries of the inland plain and the adjacent mountain ranges.
Climate
The climate of the study area is characterized by warm, dry summers and
short, mild winters. The three closest climatological stations are located in,
Pomona, Upland and San Bernardino. Current data from these shows that
temperatures range from a low of 27 ° F in the winter months to a high of 108 ° F
during the summer months. The mean annual temperatures for the 1967-1977
period was 63.1° F (Upland) . Rainfall averages approximately 18 inches per
year, primarily occurring in the fall and winter months.
C. POPULATION AND LAND USE
Fontana's General Plan projects a population of 145,000 by year. 2000 and 235,000
upon ultimate buildout of the Fontana Planning Area. This is an increase from a
current population of 67, 000 within the study area. Current and proposed land
use within the study area encompasses single-family rural -residential units,
high density condominiums,- general commercial areas, neighborhood shopping
Santa
Ana ®
Corona
Cleveland 1
L
Pacific Ocean
WILLDAN
ASSOCIATES
Engineers & Planners
San Bernardino National Forest
San Diego County
To San Diego
VICINITY MAP
Figure
2
J
centers, areas of specialized employment and regions of heavy industry. The
dominant land use, however, is the traditional single-family residential category
of 3 to 5 units per acre. The City's General Plan is shown on Figure 3.
Data for the present and ultimate land use was taken from the General Plan,
Southern California Association of Governments Regional Housing Allocation Mod-
el (SCAG), California State Department of Finance's various reports entitled
"Housing Units by Type for Cities and Counties", and Southern California Edi-
son's, Eastern Division, survey\entitled "Land Use for San Bernardino County",.
In addition to the reports and studies listed above, specific plans for major devel-
opments in the area were also considered. These developments helped to estab-
lish the new trunk sewer system's alignment and include the following projects:
Walnut Village, Rancho Fontana, Sierra Heights and Southridge Village.
Contributory areas to the existing trunk system a e shown in Table 111-1 .. Ulti-
mate areas for each district are tables with the computer printout of the SPAMS
program.
Legend
r1 RES 0-2 O.U./G.A.
[L RES G-s D.U./G.A.
ROM RES 6-14 D.U./G.A.
RES 15-24 D.0 ;G.A.
_ABASED ON NET O.U./ACJ P'F' J PUBLIC FACILITY
'IND4STRY
wi
�}. , PiDUSTRY
Areip. 41,16
LAND USE
COMMERCjCIAL INDUSTRY
Pi�it:_':�J GENERAL COMMERCIAL [® INDUSTRY
0 SHOPPING CENTER � g'g':'` SPECIALIZED EMPLOYMENT
0
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
PUBLIC/GUASI PUBLIC
IDO.C. I
OTHER LANG USES
R.P. —I REGIONAL PARK
OPEN SPACE
COUNTY COMPLEX I--..•l GUARRY
o CAV. CENSITYCGROSSIFROM 'I 5.6 O.U./AC.) Cyy'C' jCIVIC CENTER PROJECT BOUNDARY
II
HOSPITAL. AIRPORT / INACTIVE
RES35_
FIGURE - 3
CITY OF FONTANA
GENERAL PLAN
scale 1
la
Adopted by the City Council of the City
of Fontana, as Resolution 81 - 183, en this
15th day of December, 1981.
Mayoi
.
City Clerk i
Table III-1: Existing Contributory Areas
District
Manhole
Area Acres
Land Use
Area Acres .
Land Use
Area Acres
Land -Use
Area Acres
Land Use •
10 10503 23.87 Res. 3-5* 29.62 Comm.
10410 21.67 Res. 3-5 7.47 Res. 6-14
10408 34.28 Res. 3-5
10405 7.60 Res. 3-5
10404 13.58 Res. 3-5
10402. 11.06 Res. 3-5
10317 19.91 Comm.
20 ' 20304 47.86 Res. 3-5
20206 42.14 Res. 3-5
20204 5.82 Res. 3-5
20203 3.80 Res. 3-5
ca 20201 14.39 Res. 3-5 2.83 Comm.
20128 2.40 Comm. 8.79 Industrial 5.46 Res. 15-24
20119 7.20 Comm. 7.93 Res. 15-24 76.00 Hospital
20115 9.30 Comm. 3.73 Res. 15-24
20111 2.90 Comm. 17.54 Res. 15-24
20107 15.55 Res. 3-5 5.10 Comm.
30 30605 7.11 Res. 3-5
30511 25.52 Res. 3-5
30509 3.37 Res. 3-5
30506 2.66 Res. 3-5 4.76 Res. 15-24
30427 2.73 Res. 3-5 1.50 Res. 15-24
30426 1.00 Res. 15-24 2.70 Comm.
30424 0.61 Res. 15-24 7.47 Res. 3-5
30423 13.43 Res. 15-24
30418 9.11 Res. 3-5 2.43 Res. 15-24
30414 3.65 Comm.
*"Residential areas are expressed as a range of dwelling units per acre.
Table 111-1: Existing Contributory Areas (Continued)
District
Manhole
Area Acres
Land Use
Area. Acres
Land Use
Area Acres
Land Use
Area Acres
Land Use
30
30410
30408
30404
30401
30206
30205
3.00
3.11
5.66
11.93
1.21
8.18
Res. 15-24
Res. 6-14
Res. 15-24
Res. 15-24
Res. 6-14
Res. 3-5
1.39 Res. 6-14,
9.88 Res. 15-24
2.62 Comm.
11.33 Res. 6-14
40 40420 42.00 Res. 3-5
40419 14.92 Res. 3-5
40416 1.64 Res. 3-5
40412 2.53 Res. 15-24 4.28 Res. 3-5
40411 1.00 Res. 15-24 1.00 Res. 3-5
40409 12.60 Res. 3-5 9.31 Res. 15-24
40408 9.90 Res. 3-5
40407 8.64 Res. 3-5
40404 1.50 Res. 3-5 1.99 Res. 15-24
40402 1.00 Comm.
40213 7.23 Res. 15-24
40212 2.38 Res. 15-24
40210 1.41 . Res. 15-24
40209 3.74 Res. 15-24
40202 3.42 Res. 15-24
40201 5.00 Res. 15-24 1.90 Comm.
40105 3.44 Res. 15-24
40104 20.64 Res 3-5
40103 3.86 Res. 3-5
40102 3.78 Res. 3-5
40101 53.36 Res. 3-5
3.80
7.99
Res. 6-14
Res. 3-5
7.94 Res. 3-5
Table 1I1-1: Existing Contributory Areas (Continued)
District
Manhole
Area Acres
Land Use
Area Acres
Land Use
Area Acres
Land Use
Area Acres
Land Use
50
50520
50518
50514
50512
50507
50505
50503
50501
50412
50407
50403
50402
50303
50302
50205
50103
11.69 Res. 3-5
1.06 Res. 3-5
22`. 06 Res. 3-5
1.60 Res. 6-14 1.00 Comm.
6.20 Res. 15-24 29.70 Res. 3-5
2.73 Res. 15-24
2.30 Comm.
5.15 Res. 15-24
2.07 Res 15-24
2.98 Res. 15-24 1.60 Comm. 5.78 Industrial
3.84 Industrial 1.00 Comm. 4.69 Res. 15-24
1.82 Res. 15-24
2.40 Res . 15-24
1.55 Res. 15-24
5.00 Res. 15-24
4.81 Res. 15-24
60 60433 3.28 Res. 3-5
60430 5.93 Res. 3-5 3.54 Res. 15-24
60429 2.98 Res. 15-24
60428 4.21. Res. 15-24
60427 6.00 Res. 15-24 5.00 Comm. 27.10 Res. 3-5
60426 9.87 Comm.
60424 7.64 Comm.
60419 3.50 Comm. 12.41 Res. 3-5
60418 5.38 Comm.
60417 11.44 Comm.
60415 6.05 Comm.
60412 32.36 Comm. 4.59 Res.. 15-24
60408 . 14.93 Industrial
Table 1I1-1: Existing Contributory Areas (Continued)
t
District
Manhole
Area Acres
Land Use
Area Acres
Land Use
Area Acres
Land Use
Area Acres
'Land Use
60 60404 8.03 Industrial
60304 3.62 Comm.
60302 - , 4.06 Comm.
60204 3.86 Res. 15-24
60101 1.70 Comm. 3.93 Res. 15-24
1 .52
13.34
2.60
Comm.
Industrial
Industrial
3.48
4.16
1.76
Res. 15-24
Res. 15-24
Res. 15-24
70 70422 1.53 Res. 3-5
70420 7.14 Res. 3-5
70418 12.15 Res. 3-5
70417 3.42 Res. 3-5
70415 1.77 Res. 3-5 1.20 Comm. 2.08 S-Res. 4.1
70412 1.75 Comm. 1.28 Res. 15-24
70410 4.69 Res. 15-24 2.13 Comm.
70404 4.30 Comm. 2.91 Res. 15-24 15.98 Res. 3-5 7.44 Industrial
70308 7.59 Industrial
70304 4.41 Industrial 3.99 Res. 15-24 4.77 Res. 3-5
70302 2.26 Res. 3-5 4.01 Res.. 15-24 _
70205 2.52 Res. 15-24 5.47 Res. 3-5
70202 2.56 Res. 15-24
70109 23.81 Res. 3-5'
70107 5.69 Res. 3-5
-70105 3.37 Res. 15-24
71 71229 13.27 Res. 3-5
71225 22.75 Res. 3-5
71224 5.23 Res. 3-5
71221 2.30 Res. 3-5 ' 2.90 Res. 15-24
71218 7.68 Res. 15-24 4.65 Res. 3-5
71217 9.12 Res. 3-5
71216 10.12 Res. 3-5 2.47 Comm.
Table 111-1: Existing Contributory Areas (Continued)
District
Manhole
Area Acres
Land Use
Area Acres
Land Use
Area Acres
Land Use
Area Acres
Land Use
71
71215
71209
71208
71206
71205
71203
71115
71113
71110
-71106
71105
71103
71101
8.96 Res. 3-5
2.95 Comm.
23.86 Res. 3-5
1.72 Comm.
2.32 Comm.
3.84 Res. 3-5
32.06 Res. 3-5
25.16 Res. 3-5
10.07 Res. 3-5
21.20 Res . 3-5
5.49 Res. 3-5
1.64 Res. 3-5
30.16 Res. 3-5
2.05 Comm.
3.61 Res. 15-24 7.73 Res. 3-5
72 72319 83.60 Res. 3-5
72316 15.30 Res. 3-5
72315 8.68 Res. 3-5
72313 8.63 Res. 3-5
72312 8.16 Res. 3-5
72310 5.96 Res. 3-5
72308 1.80 Comm. 3.19 Res. 15-24 1.74 Res. 3-5
72305 5.11 Res. 3-5 2.73 Res. 15-24
72304 5.36 Res. 3-5
72303 4.49 Res. 3-5
72302 4.98 Res. 3-5 4.14 Res. 15-24
72301 3.98 Res. 15-24 4.19 Res. 3-5
72223 4.54 Res. 15-24 1.01 Comm.
72219 2.15 - Comm. 3.85 Res..15-24
72215 6.03 Res. 3-5
72213 25.43 Res. 3-5
Table III-1: Existing Contributory Areas (Continued)
District
Manhole
Area Acres
Land Use
Area Acres
Land Use
Area Acres
,Land Use
Area Acres
Land Use
72
72209.
72208
72206
72201
72106
12.14 Res. 3-5
6.67 Res. 3-5
5.00 Res. 3-5
15.85 Res. 3-5
.77 Res. 3-5
73 73217 23.41 Res. 3-5
73216 56.18 Res. 3-5
73215 7.92 Res. 3-5
73214 6.98 Res. 3-5
73212 21.96 Res. 6-14 14.35 Res. 3-5
73209 4.29 Res. 6-14 4.04 Comm.
5 73207 1.00 Comm. 3.26 Res. 3-5
73203 9.12 Res. 3-5 2.16 Res. 15-24
73127 1.36 Res. 15-24.
73124 6.42 Comm. 1.14 Res. 15-24
73123 3.88 Res. 15-24
73119 1.00 Res. 3-5
73117 4.36 Res. 3-5
73115 3.63 , Res. 3-5
73113 11.25 Res. 3-5
73112 13.27 Res. 3-5
73110 51.61 Res. 3-5
73109 2.06 Res. 3-5
73105 9.67 Res. 3-5
73103 5.45 Res. 3-5
SECTION IV
WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
A. GENERAL
The quantity of sewage contributed to a community's sewer system is partially de-
pendent upon the per capita contribution of wastewater from its residential area.
It is also dependent on the quantity and type of industrial and commerical develop-
ment.
There are many variable factors which affect the flow of wastewater in a community.
The volume of wastewater flow varies with the nature of the area, the economic
conditions, the complexity of the development, season of the year and many other
factors. Moreover, the advent of garbage disposals, dishwashers and other con-
veniences have contributed to increased wastewater flows. The result is that there
are no "standard" per capita or per unit flow factors which are applicable to all ur-
ban areas and to all sewage facility design.
B. PROJECTED AVERAGE WASTEWATER FLOWS
Average unit flow factors were established from the modeling of the existing sewer
system. These factors are based on both the type of land use being considered
and the City's design criteria. According to that design criteria, it is assumed
that each person produces 100 gallons of wastewater each day and that 3 people
reside in each dwelling unit. Therefore, a total of 300 gallons per dwelling unit
was established. Unit flow factors are then established by multiplying the housing
density in an area by the sewage generation rate per dwelling unit.
Flow factors for areas of either commercial or industrial use were more difficult to
determine. 1t was decided to use comparable data from other sources; such as,
the Los Angeles County Sanitation District and the Orange County Sanitation Dist-
rict. From these sources, a reasonable value of 3,200 gallons per acre was deter-
mined. For industrial areas, it was assumed that all process water (non -reclaim-
able waste) was placed in the non -reclaimable waste line as shown on Figure 1.
All sanitary waste from industrial areas was considered to be flowing into the trunk
sewer system. The volume of this wastewater was estimated to be the equivalent of
what one (1) dwelling unit per acre would produce.
When the existing trunk sewer system was modeled, using the City's criteria of
300 gallons per dwelling unit, it was found that the flow generated at the treatment
plant did not correspond to the actual metered flow supplied by the CMWD. This
situation was adjusted through further test runs which determined that 90 gallons
per person per day coupled with 2.80 people per dwelling unit resulted in a more
reasonable criteria for modeling the future sewer system. Therefore, all future
modeling and design calculations were based on the latter and average unit flow
coefficients were generated according to specific land uses. These figures are
shown on Table IV-1.
15
Table 1V-1: Average Land Use Flow Coefficients
Average Unit Flow
Land Use gpd/ac
Res. 0-2 units/acre 252
Res. 2-3 units/acre 630
Res. 3-5 1010•
Res . 6-14 1500
Res. 15-24 3780
S-Res. 4.1 1030
S-Res. 4.5 1130
S-Res. 5.0 1260
S-Res . 5.6 1410
Commercial 3230
Industrial (Sanitary Only) 252
Public Facilities 3230
Parks 500
Elementary Schools 1500
Secondary Schools 1000
Specialized Employment 3230
Hospitals 800 gpd/bed.
gpd = gallons, per day
ac = acres
16
C. PEAKING FACTORS
The design of a sewer system is based on the instantaneous peak flow. The rela-
tionship between average daily flow and peak flow was established from the City's
design criteria which states:
Q=0.3h+4(h)0.5
Where Q = Peak Flow Rate in Gallons Per Minute;_
h = Dwelling Units or Equivalent Dwelling Units
This formula is based on an average daily flow of 300 gallons per day per housing
unit. .By modifying the formula to the following:
PF= 1.44+333 Z.5
Where PF = Peaking Factor
z = Average Daily Flow - Gallons Per Day
the proper format for input into the computer program is produced. Note that the
average daily flow in gallons per day multiplied by the peaking factor is equal to
the peak flow in gallons per day. The peaking factors used are shown in Table
IV-2.
17
Table IV-2: Peaking Factors
Average Flow
gpd
Peaking Factor
300 20.64
1,500 10.03
3,000 7.51
4,500 6.40
6,000 5.73
7,500 5.28
9,000 4.95
10,500 4.69
16,500 4.03
30,000 3.36
60,000 2.80
120,000 2.40
480,000 1.92
960,000 1.78
1,920,000 1.68
3,840,000 1.61
7,680,000 1.56
15,400,000 1.52
30,700,000 1.50
18
SECTION V
MODEL DEVELOPMENT
A. GENERAL
The model development phase of the project involved the establishment of a
computerized mathematical model of the City's trunk sewer system utilizing
the information assembled in the first phase of the project.
The purpose of the model development phase was to:
1. Develop a schematic of the trunk sewer network.
2. Compute the sewage flows tributary to the trunk system using
data pertaining to the existing and ultimate land uses within each
tributary. area.
3. Analyze the existing trunk sewer system using the computer
model to determine the system's capacity to accept sewage flows
based on:
a. Existing land use
b. Ultimate land use
4. Establish a recommended deficiency correctionprogram including
the assignment of project priorities and projectedcost estimates.
B. EXISTING TRUNK SEWER SYSTEM
A complete review was made of the City's records on the existing trunk and
mainline sewage collection system in order to establish the trunk sewer net-
work to be modeled. The records researched included the City's sewer map
and the existing sewer improvement plans on file in the Public Works Divi-
sion.
The trunk sewer system network recommended for inclusion in the computer-
izedrmodelwas established in conjunction with the staff of the City's Public
Works Division and was based on the data collected and assembled in the ini-
tial phase of the project. The sewer network selected for modeling consists,
for the most part, of those main lines which carry wastewater from the col-
lector sewers to the treatment plant. It generally excludes all local sewers
which are not likely to be extended and which, by observation, are of suf-
ficient capacity that they do not warrant modeling and analysis.
The existing trunk sewer system network, consisting of approximately 26
miles of sewer mains, was divided into ten (10) drainage districts for input
into the computer model. The input data consisted of a numerical designation
19
for each manhole, the distance between manholes, the sewer invert eleva
tions at each manhole, sewer size and rim elevation at each manhole.
C. COMPUTATION OF SEWAGE INFLOWS
Once the schematic of the trunk system network was established, data was
compiled on the tributary drainage basins, land use and other factors which
affect the volume of sewage generated. Through analysis of the City's sewer
system, it was possible to define the tributary drainage areas discharging to
the trunk system. These contributing areas were combined into drainage
areas which discharge to the various trunks.
Next it was necessary to compute the area of each type of land use, such as
low density residential, medium density residential, commercial, industrial,
etc., within each tributary drainage area. The unit flow coefficients were
then applied to the computed area of land use within each drainage area.
The unit flow coefficients, when applied to the land use areas, provide aver-
age daily flow rates for each particular land use category. The sewage flows
calculated for the various land use categories, within the drainage area, were
then accumulated to provide the calculated average flow for the entire drainage
district. The accumulation of estimated sewage flow is accomplished totally
within the computer program.
The computer program also applies established peaking factors to the average
sewage flow to establish the peak flow in each Zink of the trunk system. Since
the design of the sewer main is based on peak, rather than average flow rates,
it is necessary to include the peaking factor adjustment in the computer pro-
gram and the analysis of the trunk sewer system.
To model the existing trunk system, aerial photographs were used to estimate
the percentage of build -out in an area contributory to a manhole. The areas
were also adjusted to reflect the actual existing housing densities. The ulti-
mate existing system was analyzed assuming 100 percentbuild-out in all areas.
In the areas designated 6-14 and 15-24 units per acre, housing densities were
set at 6 and 15 units per acre, respectively. All other housing densities were
taken as the median of a given density range on the general plan.
The majority of the new trunk sewer system lies within areas that are desig-
nated as having specific plans. Two cases were considered for the design of
the new trunk sewer system; the first design was completed using 50 percent
build -out of the specific planned areas and, for the second case, 100 percent
build -out was assumed.
D. SEWER PLANNING AND MODELING SYSTEM (SPAMS)
i
Sewer Planning and Modeling Systems (SPAMS) is a computer programming
system that enables engineers to design or analyze wastewater collection
facilities.
20
The SPAMS Program uses the following criteria to design or analyze the sew-
age system.
1. Manning's equation Q = KD8/3s1/2 for the calculation of flow in
pipes. n
This equation is derived from the basic Manning's equation of
Q = 1.486ar2/3s1/2 using the following steps:
n
r2/3 = a2/3
p2/3
Q = 1.486a5/3s1/2
np2/3
For circular conduits:
a = 1/8 (e - Sing) D2 and p = 1/2-A D
X
Where:
n = Manning's coefficient of friction.
a = Area of flow.
p = Wetted perimeter.
$ = The angle between the radii subtending the water
surface - in radians.
X = D = The ratio of depth of water to diameter of conduit.
d
s = Slope.
D = Depth of water.
d.= Diameter of pipe.
5/3
D.
Q = ] 486 1/8 (p - Sin0) 50 s1/2
n 1/2 � D 2/3
X
Simplifing: Q = KD8/3s1/2
n
Where K = 1.486(1/8(0 - Sin6))5/3
X8/3($l 2/3
2
Since9G is a function of X, K is a function of X only. Valves of K
for different values of D/d are shown in Table 7-13 of the Handbook
of Hydraulics by Ernest F. Brater and Horace Williams King.
2. A nominal value of 0.013 is used for Manning's coefficient of fric-
tion (n) in full flow conditions. This nominal value of "n" varies
in the program by pipe size, depth of flow and velocity of flow.
21
Variable flow conditions, deposition of debris, grit and other for-
eign materials, the build up of slimes and greases and the quality
of construction also cause "n" to vary through the range of flow
depths. Figure 4 shows values of Manning's "n"-for different
values of D/d.
3. Design capacity of the pipe at peak flow.
There are number of terms which should be defined at this point since they
are common to all parts of the program.
They are as follows:
Link- An upstream manhole and the pipeline connecting it to the
next manhole downstream.
Strip -
A series of links along with a ground profile has been estab-
lished. The smallest numeric station must be at the down-
stream end.
District - One or more strips which will be processed as an entity.
The total design or analysis and estimate will always per-
tain to a district.
Node - The upstream manhole used in defining the link.
Numerous other terms used in the program and appearing on the computer
printout sheet are defined at the end of this section.
There are a number of program limitations which affect the description of
system geometry and the development of the modeling program. They are as
follows:
Maximum manholes per strip = 40
Maximun strips per district = 40
Maximum manholes per district = 200
Maximum profile points per strip = 250
Maximum profile points per district = 2000
The general methodology of the computer program for the analysis of existing
wastewater collection system is:
1. All links are specified by length, diameter, upstream invert eleva-
tion and slope.
2. Sewage flow is calculated based on contributing area, average
unit flow coefficients for the various land uses, and a peaking
factor curve.
22
DIAMETER
OF DEPTH TO
1.0
.9
.8
.7
.6
.5
.4
.3
.2
.1
0.0
o. .013
1-.
c
.014 .05 .016 .017
n VALUE
NOMINAL n VALUE = .013
WILLDAN
ASSOCIATES
Englneers & Planners
"n" VALUE AS A
t.
FUNCTION OF D/d
Figure
4
23
3. The computed flow is compared to the capacity of the existing
pipe. (Pipe capacity is rated at D/d = .75)
4. If the capacity of the existing pipe is not sufficient to carry the,
flow without surcharging, the diameter of the pipe is increased
until adequate capacity is provided. The program prints an
asterisk to denote that the existing pipe diameter is inadequate.
5. Pipes are not allowed to pass more than the full flow rate be-
cause of the unstable hydraulic characteristics of a circular
section between approximately 0.80 depth and full depth. In this
range a very small change in flow rate can cause instantaneous
surcharge which can drastically change the hydraulic grade line.
Even a small wave going down the pipe could be sufficient to cre-
ate surcharged conditions. The maximum flow rate, however, is
achieved at D/d = 0.93, but it is potentially unstable.
The main advantage to using a computer to aid in the designing of any project is
that it allows minor changes to be accomplished quickly and easily. This re-
sults in lower costs for both the engineer and his clients. Also, a better
quality design can be achieved since more trials can be run at a cheaper cost
than can be done by hand methods. A sample of the output from the SPAMS
program is shown in Tables V-1 through V-4.
E. DEFICIENCY CRITERIA
The City's trunk sewer system was modeled for analysis with Willdan's Sewer
Planning and Modeling System (SPAMS) computer program: The SPAMS pro-
gram is designed to provide capability for both the analysis of existing sewer
systems and the design of new trunk networks.
In designing a wastewater collection system the Engineer must establish cer-
tain criteria upon which to base his design. These include such things as
available pipe sizes, minimum slope, minimum cover, friction factors, etc.
Many of these design criteria are not required for the analysis of an existing
collection system where the pipe diameter, slope and cover are known. In
this case, which is the type of analysis that was performed on the City's trunk
sewer system, the SPAMS program determines what proportion of the pipe's
capacity will be required to carry the projected flows. The design criteria
are selected to provide for a reasonable factor of safety in the event that
the design flows are exceeded by the actual flows.
For modeling the existing system, the •City's criteria allows a maximum flow
depth equal to 75 percent of the pipe diameter. At this flow depth percen-
tage, the flow rate percentage is approximately 91 percent of full capacity.
Hence, there remains a small safety factor while the majority of the capacity
of the pipe is being utilized.
24
Table V-1: Sample Profile Data
( STRIP NO 5) (EFFLUENT LINE AVE 35TH NEST INTERCEPTOR
STATION OF FIRST MANHOLE IN STRIP =
0 00 STATION OF FIRST MANHOLE
(23001 23907 23906 23905 23904 23903 23902)
STAT. ELEV. STAT. ELEV. STAT. ELEV. STAT. ELEV.
STAT. ELEV.
0.0 2469.8
36.4 2468.0 560.2 2476.0 1085.2 2485.4 1610.2 2494.6
The assigned strip
number
A listing of the man-
hole designation
numbers in the strip
The station and In-
vert elevation of. the
. manholes In the strip
The common name
of the strip
ON PLOTTED OUTPUT. 0.00
STAT. ELEV. STAT. ELEV.
2135.2 2503.5 2668.6 2517.3
CL1N1t (ON1
NO AREA
1130 945.
1131 7.
61 0.
60 0.
59 0.
58 0.
57 15.
56
♦ ♦
This Is the upstream
manhole designation
Number In the link.
CUM CONYAREA PC
945.7
952.1
U.0
952.7
952.7
95Y.7
967.8
The cumulative
contributing area
(acres)
♦
22129.3
297.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
279.5
•V 3
Table V-2: Typical Output Flow Generation
CUM
PE
22129.3
22426.6
0.0
2242b.o
22426.8
22426,8
22706.4
25390,7
1SANIIAR
�VG
2212936
224k688.
u.
2242688.
2242688.
2242688.
2270642,E
2539074„
2539074.
PK
FAC
1.b
1.6
0.0
1.6
1.6
1.e
1.6
1.6
1.6
. •
AN1 TN / S')NHCC SOVRCC
S16N. CGwT Cum
3687925.
3732500.
0.
373i500.
3132500.
3732500.
37/4265.
4167862.
4187882.
0.
969334.
4278177.
0.
0.
0
0.
0.
The computed peak
flow (gallons per day)
•
The computed contri-
buting flow rate
(gallons per day)
4
The cumulative con-
tributing flow rate
`(gallons per day)
•
The computed average
flow (gallons per day)
♦ •
0.
969334.
427817/.
5247511.
5247511.
5247511.
5247511.
This 1s used to define
contributory point
source flow (gallons
per day)
The peaking factor )
1
1
0.
0.
U.
.0.
U.
U.
0,
The cumulated point
source flow (gallons
per day)
•
TOTAL hIHIMU�I
OMPUTE0 FLOP
3687925. 0. 3687925.
4701835. 0. 4701635,
4276177. 0. 427817/.
8980012. 0. 8980012.
6980012. 0. 8980012.
8980012. 0. 8980012.
9021776. 0. 9021776.
Q435394. 0, 9455394.
0. 9435394.
0. 9570560.
•nTn"tbn.
This allows for infil-
tration flow to be
entered here (gallons
per day)
The total computed
flow (gallons per
day)
•
A minimum flow may
be specified here
(gallons per day)
The total computed
peak flow
(LODE
NO
4020..
6019
5820
4324
3323
3322
3320
r319
316
31'
39
36
34♦
34.
29+
26,
25.
22•
19.
1
(STRIP
NO
.5
5.5
5.5
2.7
2,5
2.7
2.7
7.7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CENT. MANHOLES
1st 2NU 3R0
. 0
6020
6019
5820
3324
3323
3322
3320
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
Table V-3: Sample Output of Design Data
HIM
ELEVATION
I1 0 220.68
0 218,90
2 0 210.79
R 0 216.67
2 0 215.36
0 214.71
0 214.81
0 211.22
2 0 209.2u
2 0 208.22
2 0 206.43
207,83
• ♦
The total number of
lines entering and
leaving the manhole
•
These are the desig-
nation numbers of
the manholes which
contribute flow Into
the manhole being
defined
The assigned strip
number
•
The station of the
manhole
•
Thls Is the down-
stream manhole
designation number
at which flow Is
contributed
•
J
•
b0WNSTRLAM
DISTANCE
1•
286.00
180.00
72,80
440.20
319.8u
120,00
275.00
300.00
160.80
405,80
203.20
192.00
PE
CUM
1506.
1506.
1506,
1513.
1537.
1555.
1555,
166b.
1690.
1707.
1732.
17°'
0
0
0
a
u
6
6
e
5
5
3
(AREA 1
CUM
29.3
29.3
29.3
29.8
31.3
32.5
3i.5
39.8
41,2
e -
DESIGN
IGPJI
311532.
311832.
3115Se.
313333.
31782b.
321414.
321416.
343t+,
• SPECIAL PARAMETERS FOR LINK •
(DIA, c FNICT IAT jIm
MIN
SLOPE
0.003
0.004
0.014'
0.003,
0.003'
0.002.
0.0131
The cumulative con-
tributing area (acres)
♦
The cumulative aver-
age flow In the pipe
(gallons per day)
• •
This Is the distance
between the manhole
'being defined and
the next manhole
Immediately down-
stream (feet)
♦ i
•
This is the manhole
rim elevation
•
•
This code indicates the
change In direction of flow
at the next downstream
manhole. The code Is:
0=No bend; 1=45 degree
bend; 2=90 degree bend
•
9
2
2
0
9
0
2
e
8
8
8
d
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
80
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
0
•
0.0u
U.00
0.0u
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
• nn
A special minimum
cover for a manhole
can be specified
here `
A special friction fac-
tor may be specified
here which will over-
ride the District fric-
tion factor
The diameter of the
existing pipe being
modeled (Inches)
♦
The slope of the
existing pipe being
modeled
•
The computed peak
flow ,(gallons per
day)
•
UP
NO
1333
1758
1760
1757
1756
UN DIST
NU IF11
Table V-4: Typical Output Pipe Design
01* SLOPEII CAPACCITT
I
1131 658.
00
1757 26.
1757 340.
00
00
1756 534.
00
1753- 0-
These are the desig-
nation numbers for
the upstream and
downstream manholes
This Is the distance
between manholes
(feet)
•
DESIGN
GPO
VEL
(FPS/
DEPTH
IIN)
12 0.0020
103237
66
12 0.0134
15. 0.0025
267153 . 772
208754 1576
•
The diameter of the
existing pipe be-
tween manholes
(inches)
0.0037
•
Indicates the increased
pipe size to handle the
computed flow when the
existing pipe has insuf-
ficient capacity (inches)
255670.. 2348
•
The pipe slope
between manholes
J
14.
0.95
74.
06.
2.3
3.83 5.0
2,54 10.8
80.
INVERT
UP
•
ELEV.
UN
GROUND ELEV.
UP ON
SEWER DEPTH
UP ON
89.70 88.37
99.38
91
.15
9.67 2.
77
104.85 104.50
10.5.35 104.50
112.45 112
113.87 112
.60
.60
7.60 8.
8.52 8
09
to
3.31 12.5
The computed peak
flow (gallons per
day)
The capacity of the
pipe (gallons per
day)
The velocity In
feet -per-sec
104.50 102.49
'112.60 107
.49
`^ 102.31
The depth of flow
In pipe (Inches)
107.4°
These are the Invert`
elevations for the
upstream and down-
stream manholes
•
8.09
These are the ground
•elevations for the up-
stream and down-
stream manholes
a
O..
These are the upstream
and downs ream manhole
depths (feet)
For. the design of a completely new trunk line, a more conservative approach
is used." for pipes equal to or Tess than 28 inches in diameter, thefollowing
formula is used:
D = 0.44d + 0.0075d2
Where d = Pipe Diameter (in)
D = Allowable Flow Depth
For pipes greater than 28 inches, the allowable flow depth is 65 percent of the
pipe diameter.
Input into the`SPAMS program requires that D/d ratios be used; the following
table shows the allowable flow depths for the pipe diameters stated.
D/d . Pipe Diameters
0.50 8" - 12"
0.55.t 15" - 18"
0.60 21" - 24"
0.65 27" and greater
F. TRUNK SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES
Using the previously outlined method, the flows generated by the existing and
proposed land uses shown in the General Plan were discharged into the exist-
ing system. The resulting deficiencies are shown on the Sewer Master Plan
map, Figure 1, and are listed in Table V-5. Based on ultimate buildout, there
are approximately 9.60 miles of deficient trunk sewer system.
In the output from the design portion of the SPAMS program, the deficient
reaches are resized to the pipe diamter needed to carry the hydraulic load.
Any pipes that have been resized are indicated by an asterisk (*) next to the
pipe diameter.
29
Table V-5: Existing Trunk Sewer System Deficiencies Based on the Ultimate General Plan Land Use
Deficiency
Manholes in
Existing
Required
Maximum Surcharge
Maximum Required
Designation
Deficient Reach
Size
Size
Length
in Reach (mgd)
Capacity in Reach
(mgd)
1 10310-10309*
2 20115-20103*
3 72107-72106*
4 10103-10101
5 10206-10103
6 10309-10206
7 10317-10310
8 20103-10317
9 20119-20115
10 20206-20103
11 40105-20206
12 40202-30103
13 30208-20206
14 60204-50204
15 60408-60304
16 60427-60411
17 72106-71103
18 30414-30405
19 50501-40212
20 40209-40206
21 70308-70306.
22 70404-70403
23 60433-60427
24 72308-72304
25 30421-30420
21
12
15
24
21
21
21
21
12
21
21-
15
15
18
12
10-12
15
10
12
12
15
12
8
8
10
33
18
21
39
33
30
30
30
18
27
27
18
18
24
15
12-18
18
12-15
18
15
18
15
10
10
12
346
4118
484
966
2632.
4682
2990
2607
1270
2 582
2788
2369
2653
1242
2621
4562
2252
2298
1315
1176
714
322
2245
1171
305
11.46
1.82
0.97
12.66
13.35
16.85
7.43
8.25
0.51
3.97
3.25
1.24
0.47
1.10
0.14
0.82
0.017
0.33
0.010
0.200
0.051
**
0.14
0.081
0.090
TOTAL 50,700 ft. = 9.60 miles
19.64
3.84
3.55
37.74
34. 18
27.93
26.32
25.57
3.18
18.45
10.94
5.55
8.55
8.81
5.13
3.72
3.71
2.80
1.96
4.69
3.04
1.87
1.90
1.54
1.22
* Reach deficient under existing conditions.
** Surcharge between 75% and 100 % of existing capacity.
SECTION VI
RECOMMENDED DEFICIENCY CORRECTION PROJECTS
A. GENERAL
Several alternatives were studied in developing the recommended schedule of defi-
ciency correction projects. Construction of a parrallel trunk facility to carry the
excess sewage flow is an obvious solution to most of the deficiencies; however,
this solution is not necessarily the most economical or practical approach. In many
instances, the construction of a single relief main can be planned in such a way
that it will relieve several trunk lines, thereby avoiding the construction of paral-
lel facilities and the duplication of cost. The recommended correction projects are
expressed in terms of a parallel line needed to eliminate the deficient section. The
actual design of the relief project can only be determined when actual construction
of the facility becomes feasible. It should also be noted that the relief facilities -
were sized using thesamecriteria used during the modeling portion, D/d = .75.
B. RECOMMENDED SEWER CORRECTION PROJECTS
Table VI-1 lists the recommended correction projects and their priority. In estab-
lishing the priority listing, the following criteria were used:
1. Deficiencies existing in the present trunk system were given priority
over the ultimate deficiencies.
2. Deficiencies for the ultimate. condition were ranked by the greatest
need; ie., sections with the greatest incremental change in pipe di-
ameter were given priority. -
3. Downstream reaches were considered before deficient upstream
lengths.
Obviously, this ranking is subject to change depending upon when areas are either
developed or redeveloped. The City should monitor growth within the City care-
fully and adjust the priority of the sewer correction projects accordingly.
C. PROJECT COST PROJECTION
Table VI-1 also lists the estimated costs to correct the deficiencies within the exist-
ing trunk sewer system. These costs were based upon the unit prices shown in
Tables VI-2 through V1-4. These unit costs were established from bid prices re-
ceived on similar jobs in the Southern California area, manufacturers, material and
equipment suppliers, and local contractors. These prices do not reflect any right-
of-way acquisition or other legal fees. -
Obviously, these costs can be expected to change. It is recommended that the Sew-
erage Construction Cost Index for the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area be used to up-
31
date the prices presented in this report. This index is compiled by. the Water
Quality Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and is reported quar-
terly in the Engineering News -Record Magazine.
It should be noted that the recommendations of this report are general in nature
and, hence, are conceptual ideas rather than a final absolute design. Naturally,
further analysis and refinement is necessary before the initiation of the final de-
sign for any improvement plans.
32
Table V1-1: Recommended Deficiency Correction Projects
Deficiency
Recommended Relief Facilities Cost
Existing Line Size = 21"
Future Line Size = 33"
Construct 30" Parallel Line
Existing Line Size = 12"
Future Line Size = 18"
Construct 18" Parallel Line
Existing Line Size = 15"
Future Line Size = 21"
Construct 15" Parallel Line
Construction $ 23,300
25% Contingency* 5,800
Sub -Total $ 29,100
Construction $ 136, 000
25% Contingency 34, 000
Sub -Total $ 170, 000
Construction $ 13, 100
25% Contingency 3,300
Sub -Total $ 16,400
Existing Line Size = 24" Construction $ 64, 900
Future Line Size = 39" 25% Contingency 16,200
Construct 30" Parallel Line
Existing Line Size = 21"
Future Llne Size = 33"
Construct 27" Parallel Line
Existing Line Size = 21"
Future Line Size = 30"
Construct 24" Parallel Line
Sub -Total $ 81,100
Construction $ 151, 000
25% Contingency 37, 700
Sub -Total $ 188,700
Construction $ 233, 700
23 % Contingency 58, 400
Sub -Total $ 292,100
Existing Line Size = 21" Construction $ 149,300
Future Line Size = 30" 25% Contingency 37,300
Construct 24" Parallel ;Line
Sub -Total $ 186, 600
* includes engineering design and construction contingencies.
33
Table VI-1: Recommended Deficiency Correction Projects (Continued) -
Deficiency
Recommended Relief Facilities Cost
Existing Line Size = 21"
Future Line Size = 30"
Construct 24" Parallel Line
Construction $ 130,100
25% Contingency .32, 500
Sub -Total $ 162,600
Existing Line Size = 12" Construction $ 25,500
Future Line Size = 18" 25% Contingency 6,400
Construct 10" Parallel Line
Existing Line Size = 21"
Future Line Size = 27"
Construct 18" Parallel Line
Existing Line Size = 21"
Future Line Size = 24"
Construct 10" Parallel Line
Sub -Total $ 31', 900
Construction $ 85,300
25% Contingency 21,300
Sub -Total $ 106,600
Construction $ 48,000
25% Contingency 12,000
Sub -Total $ 60,000
Existing Line Size= 15" Construction $ 39,600
Future Line Size = 18" 25% Contingency 9,900
Construct 8" Parallel Line
Sub -Total $ 49,500
Existing Line Size = 15" Construction $ 42,200
Future Line Size = 18" 25% Contingency 10,600
Construct 8" Parallel Line
Sub -Total $ 52,800
Existing Line Size = 18" Construction $ 33,700
Future Line Size = 24" 25% Contingency 8,400
Construct 15" Parallel Line
Sub -Total $ 42, 100
34
Table VI-1: Recommended Deficiency Correction Projects (Continued)
Deficiency
Recommended Relief Facilities Cost
Existing Line Size = 12"
Future Line Size = 15"
Construct 8" Parallel Line
Existing Line Size = 10-12"
Future Line Size = 12-18"
Construct 8" Parallel Line
Existing Line Size = 15"
Future Line Size = 18"
Construction 8" Parallel Line
Existing Line Size = 10"
Future Line Size = 15"
Construct 8" Parallel Line
Existing Line Size = 12"
Future Line Size = 18"
Construct 8" Parallel Line
Existing Line Size = 12"
Future Line Size = 15"
Construct 8" Parallel Line
Existing Line Size = 15"
Future Line Size = 18"
Construct 8" Parallel Line
Construction $ 39, 970
25% Contingency 9, 990
Sub -Total $ 49,960
Construction $ 93, 060
25% Contingency 23, 270
Sub -Total $ 116,330
Construction $ 33, 910
25% Contingency 8,480
Sub -Total $ 42,390
Construction $ 36,400
25% Contingency 9,100
Sub -Total $ 45,500
Construction $ 19,810
25% Contingency 4,950
Sub -Total $ 24,760
Construction $ 16,320
25% Contingency 4,080
Sub -Total $ 20,410
Construction $ 14,470
25% Contingency 3, 620
Sub -Total $ 18,090
35
Table VI-1: Recommended, Deficiency Correction Projects (Continued)
Deficiency
Recommended Relief Facilities Cost
Existing Line Size = 12"
Future Line Size = 15"
Construct 8" Parallel Line
Construction $ 7,580
25% Contingency 1, 900
Sub -Total $ 9,480
Existing Line Size = 8" Construction $ 41,010
Future Line Size = 10" 25% Contingency 10,250
Construction 8" Parallel Line
Sub -Total $ . 51,260
Existing Line Size = 8"
Future Line Size = 10"
Construct 8" Parallel Line
Construction $ 22,840
25% Contingency 5,710
Sub -Total $ 28,550
Existing Line Size = 10" Construction $ 3, 620
Future Line Size = 12" 25% Contingency 900
Construct 8" Parallel Line
Sub -Total $ 4,520
TOTAL COST FOR ALL CORRECTION PROJECTS $1,881,000
36
Table VI-2: Pipe, Excavation & Backfill Unit Cost Data
- Pipe Size
Dollars per Lineal Foot for Varying Depths of Trench
Pipe Cost
Inches
0-6 6-8 8-10 10-12 12-14 14-16 16-18 18-20 20-22 22-24 24-26
$/Lin.Ft.
VCP
8.
10
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
39
42
RCP
7.36
8.32
9.28
10.40
11.52
12.48
13.92
15.04
16.64
17.76
19.04
20. 16
21.28
9.61
10.57
11.69
13.13
14.41
16.49
17.29
18.57
20.33
21.77
23.05
25.05
26.49
12.01
13.45
1.4.73
16.49
18.25
19.69
21.93
23.69
25.93
27.69
29.45
31.77
33.53
12.57
14.01
15.29
17.05
18.81
20.25
22.49
24.25
31.93
34.17
36.25
40.38
42.46
17.53
19.45
21.37
23.93
26.49
28.57
31.77
34.33
37. 53
40.09
42.65
47. 10
49.66
20.21
22.45
24.69
27.73
30.61
32.69
36.53
39.41
43.09
46. 13
49.01
53.94
56.82
22.61
25.17
27.73
31.09
34.45
36.85
41.17
44.53
48.69
52.05
55.41
60.66
64.02
25.17
28':05
30.93
34.77
38.29
41.01
45.81
49.49
54.13
57.97
61.65
67.38
71.06
30.72
33.76
36.80
40.96
45.28
48.32
53.60
57.76
62.88
67.04
71.20
77.11
81.27
33.12
36.64
40.00
44.48
49.12
52.48
58.24
62.72
68.48
72.96
77.44
83.83
88.31
35.68
39.36
43.04
48.00
52.96
56.64
62.88
67.84
73.92
78.88
83.84
90.55
95.91
3.20
5.20
7.20
12.20
16.60
22.70
30.20
36.10
44.00
55.50
64.20
75.00
88.60
48 20.16 25.05 31.77 40.38 47.10 53.94 60.66 67.38 77.11 83.83 95.91 46.15
54 22.24 27.45 34.81 44.22 . 51.58. 59.06 66.58 73.94 84.31 91.67 99.19 56.30
60 24.32 29.85 38.01 47.90 56.06 64.34 72.34 80.50 91.51 99.67 107.83 67.15
66 26.40 35.40 44.20 53.00 61.80 70.72 79.52 88.32 100.30 109.10 117.90 77.05
72 28.48 37.80 47.40 56.84 66.28 75.84 85.44 94.88 107.50 116.94 126.54 88.70
Manhole Cost: $1,200 per Manhole
Excavation and backfill costs based on $16.00 per cubic yard.
Shoring costs included for all trench depths over 6 foot.
Table VI-3: Shoring Unit Cost Data
Pipe Diameter
Inches
Dollars per Lineal Foot for Varying Depths of Trench
10'orless
11-14 15-20 21-25
0 - 36
36 - 63
66 - 90
0.97
1.53
4.68
1.53
3.42
4.68
1.65
3.54
4.80
4.80
6.55
7.98
Table VI-4: Resurfacing Unit Cost Data
Dollar Per Lineal Foot Based on
Pipe Diameter 3" A.C. on Compacted Native Subgrade
Inches
Cost
VCP
8 1.30
10 1.45
12 1.60
15 1.81
18 2.02
21 2.17
24 2.43
27 2.64
30 2.89
33 3.10
36' 3.31
39 3.51
42 3.77
RCP
48 3.51
54 3.88
60 4.24
66 4.60
72 4.96
Resurfacing cost based on $33 per ton.
38
SECTION VII
NEW TRUNK SEWER SYSTEM
A. GENERAL
The majority of the study area is currently unsewered, requiring extensive design
of new, separate trunk facilities. The capabilities of the existing system to service
a significant percentage of the presently unsewered areas are very limited, as
shown from the results of the modeling section.
B. DESIGN
The proposed new trunk system was established in conjunction with the City's en-
gineering staff, C.B.M.W.D. and various consultants who are currently working
on developments in the Fontana area. This was to ensure that the largest possible
area could be serviced by gravity sewers.
The design parameters for the new trunk sewer systems were established from the
modeling of the existing system. The flow factors and peaking factors were iden-
tical to those used for the modeling portion. Land use designation was again taken
from the City of Fontana's General Plan. Further assumptions include that the pipe
slope matches the ground slope, manholes are set approximately 400. feet apart and
the cover over the pipe is generally set at 5 feet. All elevations were established
from U.S.G.S. topo maps of the area. The criteria above should be noted when
the actual design of new facilities is undertaken. Also, two (2) cases are presented
for the new trunk sewer system; one of 50 percent buildout and the other for 100
percent. This allows the City more flexibility with the actual design of any new
trunk sewer system since 100 percent buildout of the currently undeveloped areas
will not occur for many years.
The majority of the new trunk system is designed to extend sewer service to areas
presently unsewered. There are two (2) strips, Strip 3 in District 73 and Strip 3
in District 80, that also eliminate some of the deficient sewer in the existing sys-
tem. Without the new sewer lines, the trunk sewers running in both San Bernar-
dino and Valley Boulevard would be deficient along their entire lengths under ul-
timate buildout conditions. The need for force mains east of Alder Avenue will also
be eliminated by constructing the second and third strips in District 80. Since
Strip 3 in District 73 and Strips 2 and 3 in District 80 carry flows from existing de-
veloped areas, they were designed for the case of 100 percent build -out only.
Future proposals call for the closing of C.B.M.W.D.'s Regional Treatment Plant
(RTP) 3 and the construction of the 10.2 mgd Fontana Interceptor to convey sewage
from the Fontana Area to C.B.M.W.D's RTP 1. With the future flows from the Fon-
tana Area in excess of 37 million gallons per day (average flow), it is obvious that
the proposed Fontana Interceptor will become surcharged and that additional ca-
pacity will be required at some future time.
39
C. RECOMMENDED FACILITIES
The results from this portion of the study are shown on the Master Sewer Plan Map
(see Figure 1) . Table VI1-1 presents the projected cost for the new trunk sewer
system.
40
Table V11-1: Projected Costs
District Cost
73 Strip 3
80
81
82
83
Construction $ 357, 500
25% Contingency 89,400
Sub -Total $ 446, 900
Construction $ 2,442, 000
25% Contingency 610,000
Sub -Total $ 3, 052, 000
Construction $ 946, 000
25% Contingency 237, 000
Sub -Total $ 1, 183,000
Construction. $ 1, 601, 000
25% Contingency 400,000
Sub -Total $ 2, 001, 000
Construction $ 1,882,000
25% Contingency 470, 000
Sub -Total $ 2,352,000
TOTAL PROJECTED COST FOR NEW TRUNK SYSTEM $ 9, 035, 000
41
SECTION VIII
FINANCING OF IMPROVEMENTS
A. GENERAL
This section presents some of the funding options available to the City to implement
major sewerage capital improvement projects. As property tax sources become in-
adequate and as governmental grants and loans become more difficult to obtain, the
shift is gradually towards more user fees. With this trend, it behooves the City to
develop a stable financing plan which will provide the necessary improvements,
expansions and reconstructions to keep pace with their sewerage needs.
The technical portions of this report identify collection system deficiencies and sets
forth a program of sewer construction. Some deficiencies occur because of exist-
ing development and they need to be corrected without any new connections. Other
deficiencies occurin the existing system when presently sewered areas are 50o to
100% built -out and all possible connections to that system have been made. The
next category of deficiencies occurs when new unsewered areas, either inside the
City or inside the City's area of influence, are added. Each of these categories re-
quire a different approach to financing capital projects.
The cost of treatment plant construction and operations is not included in this dis-
cussion since such costs are funnelled through the City to the Chino Basin Munici-
pal Water District which is the regional sewering agency serving Fontana.
There are a number of financing methods available to implement collection system
construction. Among those are the following:
1. Federal Assistance Programs
2. State Assistance Programs
3. Pay -As -You -Go Financing
4. Assessment Districts
5. Redevelopment Agency Funding
6. General Obligation Bonds
7. Acreage Fees
In evaluating specific funding programs, the services of legal and financial experts
are recommended. It is the intention of this section to present some of the funding
options available to the City and to comment on their adaptability to the specific
circumstances of the Sewer Master Plan.
42
B. METHODS OF FINANCING
Federal Assistance Programs
There are, and have been, a series of federal grant and loan programs which may
be applicable to sewer trunk and collection systems; . however, the qualification
criteria vary from time to time. The programs are subject to the variability of con-
gressional appropriations and, as such, should not be considered as a firm source
of funds.
Federal financing aid in the construction of municipal sewage treatment works was
first authorized in 1948. This was a loan program which was never implemented
because funds were not appropriated by Congress. The Federal Water Pollution
Control of 1956, Public Law 84-660 (PL 84-600) included the first authorization for
federal grants to assist in the construction of waste treatment works. Several
changes were implemented in PL 84-660, most importantly those dealing with the
percentage of local shares. Enactment of PL 92-500 in 1972 resulted in extensive
changes in the construction grant program. The federal share was increased to
75oof eligible costs and projects involving sewage collection system construction
and sewer system rehabilitation became eligible for grants.
Several amendments to PL 92-500 have occurred since 1972; the latter one being the
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Construction Grant Amendments of 1981. The con-
struction grants program has been authorized by Congress through fiscal year
1985; however, it may become part of President Reagan's Federalism policy. The
program's continuation in 1984 and beyond will be dependent upon decisions made
by states and localities. Present planning by the federal government contemplates
ending the construction program under Section 201 of the Clean Water Act
(PL 97-217) by the end of fiscal year 1986. A "Clean Water Trust Fund" may re-
place the grant program with a national surcharge on the user charges of publicly
owned treatment plants. At the present time, grants for collection systems are
near impossible and for interceptor services it is difficult.
The construction of the interceptors and treatment plant expansion to serve Fontana
by the Chino Basin Municipal Water District are being funded by Federal Clean
Water grants and State Clean Water Bond Act grants.
In the past, federal programs administered by the Economic Development Adminis-
tration (EDA) have been funded to spur the economy. Presently, there are no
funds available through this program; however, future Acts of Congress may pro-
vide for extension of the current programs or establishment of new ones.
Another possible source of funds is the Housing and Community Development Act
(HCDA) Block Grant funding program. Under the rules and regulations of the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, part or all of the improvements
necessary to upgrade an existing sewersystem may be funded. Areas within the
City of Fontana that have the greatest overall deficiency in physical conditions
would. receive the highest priority according to the HCDA needs criteria. Proposed
sewer system facilities lie within these areas of need. It is particularly appropri-
ate to solicit HCDA funds to meet health and safety standards as well as to encour-
43
age the overall upgrading of the physical environment. When the total evaluation
of community needs and funding are complete, itispossible that fundsavailable
from this source may be used to finance some portion of the needed sewer system
improvements. This type of financing is considered an unreliable source of funds
due to the financial limits of the program.
In summary, the grants and loans available from the above sources should be mon-
itored closely but should not be relied on for a stable financial plan.
State Grant Programs
A limited amount of public works grant funds have been available to cities from the
State Office of Local Economic Development. Use of such grant funds must result
in the creation of new, permanent jobs in the private sector. In order to insure
that the funds are ultimately assisting those in most need, projects eligible for con-
sideration must be those in areas designated eligible for HUD Urban Development
Action Grants (UDAG) , EDA - Sudden or Long-term Economic Deterioration, or
EDA - Designated Special Impact Area.
Public works funds may be used only to supplement EDA regular program grant
recipients by contributing up to 50% of matching share requirements, either as a
grant or loan. The maximum public works grant/loan amount is $350,000. This
method of financing is also considered an unlikely source of funds due to the finan-
cial limits of the program.
The State of California also has the Clean Water Bond Law which provides 121% of
the cost of programs which are eligible for federal Clean Water, Act construction
grants. The effect of these grants is to reduce local share of these programs to
121%. These funds are about gone and new authorizations are being sought, prob-
ably through the initiative process in the 1983 November elections. With the new
Federalisim, the funding of projects will be more dependent upon state and local
grants.
Sewer funds available through state programs include the California Sewer Finance
Authority; however, here again the possibilities are slim.
State funding should be closely monitored; however, it should not be looked at as
a reliable basis for financial planning.
Pay -As -You -Go Financing
The development of cash reserves or capital improvement funds from the City's
general fund is often referred to as "pay-as-you-go" funding. Under this form of
financing, the initial capital cost of a project must be accumulated in advance of
construction. This method has sometimes been used together with various forms
of short-term financing to construct sewer facilities. While pay-as-you-go financ-
ing'appears to reduce the total cost for construction of a project through the elimi-
nation of interest payments, extended deferment of the project to accumulate funds
can often result in greatly increased construction costs. When the cost of capital
financing is greater than construction inflation, then pay-as-you-go is preferable.
44
The City of Fontana collects funds by ordinance to finance its sewer maintenance
and construction. Sewer funds are collected by sanitation and sewer charges,
sewer building permit fees and sewer extension fees. The sanitation and sewer
charges are intended to be used to fund sewer maintenance. Sewer building per-
mit and extension fees are intended to finance construction, reconstruction and ex-
tension of City sewer mains. A portion of the sanitation and sewer maintenance
fund and all sewer connection fees are transferred to the City's general fund for
general administrative costs associated with the sewer system and City operations.
The City operates these funds such that accumulated reserves may be used to fi-
nance sewer construction.
Assessment Districts
In general, special assessment district procedures are established by law to pro-
vide for the financing of the construction and/or acquisition of public works im-
provements, such as sewer systems, and for assessing the costs of such improve-
ments to the benefitting properties. Theassessments are levied in specific
amounts against each of the individual properties on the basis of the benefit each
parcel receives-. The property owner may pay the assessment in cash during a so-
called cash collection period of 30 days. But, if any assessments are not paid in
cash during that period, bonds are usually issued to represent the unpaid assess-
ments. tt
The commonly used assessment acts are the 1911 and the 1913 Acts. The common
bond acts are the 1911 and the 1915 Acts. These assessment and bond acts are
used in varying combinations'depending on the particular circumstances for each
proposed improvement district.
While assessment district proceedings may be reasonable means for financing cer-
tain sewer system improvements, further study and evaluation would be necessary
to determine the practicality of utilizing such a financing method. This is es-
pecially true since most of the deficient systems are relatively short and the area
which is impacted cannot be exactly defined.
Where new systems are to be built to serve clearly defined new or old develop-
ments, assessment districts are a very practical way of constructing sewers.
Redevelopment Agency Financing
Sewer system improvements would be funded through monies generated from the
agency's taxincrement revenue. The sewer system improvement projects would
probably have to compete with other projects planned to be funded by the agency
and a decision would have to be made by the agency as to the priority for funding
of the various projects.. It should also be noted that redevelopment agency funds
can only be used to finance those projects which are located within the boundaries
of the agency's project area or which can be shown to directly benefit the project
area.
45
General Obligation Bonds
Historically, general obligation bonds have been a prevalent method of financing
various types of public works improvements. They are secured by a City's total
assests and payable from ad valorem taxes levied on all taxable properties within
the City's boundaries. However, because of the provision in the Jarvis -Gann
Amendment, which prohibits the levying of ad valorem property taxes, except for
bonds approved by the voters prior to July 1, 1978, the authorization and issuance
of general obligation bonds is not presently considered feasible under current law.
Acreage Fees
Section 66483 of the Government Code relating to subdivisions provides that pay-
ment of sanitary sewer fees may be imposed by adoptionof a local ordinance for
purposes of defraying the actual or estimated costs of constructing planned sani-
tary sewer facilities for local sanitary sewer areas. Any sewer acreage fees col-
lected by the City must be deposited in a sanitary sewer fund and must be expend-
ed for the construction or reimbursement for construction of sewer facilities within
the area from which the fees were collected. The City currently does not have this
fee and it is not -anticipated that the adoption is necessary.
C. FINANCING STRATEGY
The primary objective of the City is to maintain a stable financing plan to support
an orderly program of treatment plant, trunk sewer and collection system facili-
ties' improvements, expansions and replacements. The plan should be designed
to keep pace with development.
Operations, maintenance and replacement (OM&R) revenues are normally gener-
ated through user fees. Costs of treatment plant and the future interceptor sewer
OM&R are borne directly by the Chino Basin Municipal Water District, the regional
sewering agency, and passed on to the City of Fontana. The City is responsible
for the cost of OM&R within their own system. Replacement costs may be construed
as costs associated with improvements or reconstruction to the existing system ne-
cessitated by present uses without new connections.
Funds for new capital projects may be generated from several sources. They in-
clude:
Project Class Funding Source
Improvements Annual Capital Charge
Federal and State Grants
Expansions Connection Fees
Annexation Fees
Assessment Districts
Develop Financed
- Master Plan
- Non -Master Plan
Reconstruction Annual Capital Charge
46
The types of projects identified with this Master Plan of Sewers deal primarily with
the collection of sewage and transport to either the existing treatment plant or ac-
ceptable point of discharge to the proposed Chino Basin Municipal Water District
Interceptor. The CBMWD OM&R and capital costs are not identified herein.
There are several categories of existing and potential users based on the types of
sewer collection facilities required. They are listed as follows:
1. User of an existing sewer system who has paid for present facilities
where there are existing deficiencies.
2. New user where lines exist and they have paid for line either through
assessment, as part of development, or G .0. Bonds. ,
3. New user where lines exist but they have not paid for sewer line at
frontage.
4. New user where lines do not exist and no trunk line extension is ne-
cessary.
5. New user where lines do not exist and oversizing for trunk sewer
along frontage is necessary.
6. New user where lines do not exist, oversizing for trunk sewer along
frontage is necessary and down line extension is necessary.
7. Same as 6 above only no oversizing required.
Sewage system cost elements are broken into three (3) broad categories. They are
monthly fees, treatment and trunk sewer facility connection fees, and new construc-
tion charges.. Each of the user categories described above is subject to charges
which may differ because of location and impact on the sewer system. The types of
charges applicable to each of the above catagories are shown on Table VIII-1.
Where there are existing deficiencies and the users contributing to those lines are
connected, the cost of correcting those deficiencies should be identified with those
users and added to their monthly fee as a replacement or reconstruction item.
Based on the existing deficiencies, this amount is estimated at $51 .00 per dwelling
unit. if spread over a five (5) year period, this would add $.85 to the monthly
service charge.
Where new connections are made and connection charges are levied, $204.00 per
connection would be that portion of the fees allocable to trunk sewers. To that must
be addedtreatriierit plant and interceptor costs. Front footage charge amounts
should be upgraded, periodically, Where reimbursement and oversizing is dictated.
47
Table Vll1-1: Suggested Charges for Potential and Existing Users
Monthly Fees
User
Category OM&R
Reconstructions
and
Replacements
Connector Fees for
Treatment & Major Sewers
Treatment Interceptor Trunk
Plant Sewer Sewer
New Construction Charges
Front Assessment Oversi zing Extension
Footage District or With or Without with
Private Reimbursement Reimbursement
Financing
Full Frontage
1 X
3
6
X
7 X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CITY OF FONTANA
MASTER SEWER PLAN
OCTOBER - 1982
WILLDAIN ASSOCIATES
SAN BERNARDINO
FIGURE '1
J�_X
81
L!OlND
CJ DISTRICT NUMBER
MS DISTRICT BOUNDARY
CONTRIBUTORY AREA BOUNDARY
._,+ MANHOLE NUMBER+
LINE SIZE & DIRECTION OF FLOW
EXISTING
-'-'R FUTURE
® BEGINNING OF STRIP
OO END OF STRIP
• DEFICIENCY DESIGNATION
0' DEFICIENCY NUMBER
FEEDER -▪ -- NON -RECLAIMABLE WASTE LINE
PROPOSED FONTANA INTERCEPTOR
- CITY OF FONTANA BOUNDARY
E.
AVE
BLVD JL
City of Fontana
CALIFORNIA
September 10, 1981
Re: Sanitary Sewer Collection System Master Plan Preparation
Gentlemen:
The City of Fontana is soliciting proposals from qualified consulting engineering
firms to prepare a Sanitary Sewer Collection System Master Plan. Other than for
the development of the original system in 1956, no comprehensive master planning has
been done for the sewer collection system.
The City of Fontana presently encompasses approximately 25 square miles within its
city limits. The City's planning area including the present City limits contains
approximately 55 square miles. At the present time the sanitary sewer collection
system has approximately 100 miles of lines of various sizes ranging from six inch
diameter to twenty one inch diameter.
You are invited to submit a proposal to prepare such master plan to cover growth
projections to the year 2000 for the present city limits and projected growth area.
The scope of the work is to encompass, as a minimum, the following:
1. Review existing city maps and other date to evaluate the sewer system
within the study area and to evaluate extending the sewer system
within the study area to serve all properties not presently served.
2. Present flow rates should be determined as well as the source of the
flows and remaining capacity in existing sewer lines. Review of the
existing mains should be made and recommendations developed to correct
present or projected deficiencies.
3. With information furnished by the City of Fontana's Planning Department,
population and sewage flow rate projections should be made. These pro-
jections should be broken down by sub -areas and for the overall system.
4. Master Plan preparation using current modern methods. The proposal should
fully describe the methods to be used.
5. An implementation program should be developed which would allow for stage
construction of necessary additions to the sewer system. An implementation
schedule should be developed showing priorities, engineering and con-
struction dates, and estimated costs. Recommendations for financing the
implementation program should be made.
6. Furnish 50 copies of the Master Plan
8353 SIERRA AVENUE (P. O. Sox 51B) FONTANA. CALIFORNIA 92335 (714) 823-3411
Re: Sanitary Sewer Collection System Master Plan Preparation
The City will furnish a copy of a map indicating the present sewer system and a copy
of the plan and profile sheets for the individual sewer lines. In addition, the
City will furnish any other information it may have in its files which may be of use
in the preparation of the master plan.
Your proposal should contain as a minimum the following:
1. Qualifications of your firm and individuals intended to work on the
project.
2. Listing of similar projects handled by your firm.
3. Listing of references who will attest to the competence_of your firm.
4. Statement as to how your firm contemplates completing the required work
along with a description of any unique features of your firm's approach
to the assignment.
5. An indication of the contemplated basis for the fee with a "not to exceed"
amount.
6. An estimate of the time period necessary to complete the work.
Proposals should be received by the City of Fontana Public Works Department, 8353
Sierra Avenue, Fontana, CA 92335, by October 26, 1981.
/id
Robert Schoenborn, P.E.
Public Works Director
RS/gw