HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.1 General Correspondence (2)
'If /"
c,
}/.~ ~," 'J
t/
JAMES L. DOTSON
CIVIL ENGINEER
August 5, 1985
22737 BARTON ROAD, SUITE 7
POST OFFICE BOX 885
GRAND TERRACE, CA 92324
(714) 824-9510
Robert Schoenborn
Public Works Director
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, California
92335
Attention: Robert Porter
Re: Beech Avenue Sewer Improvement
ALTERNATE PROPOSAL/ENGINEERING SERVICES
Gentlemen:
As you requested we have completed our review of a revised alignment
for referenced project as shown color-marked on an enclosed map
entitled Exhibit "A". The colored area thereon is that which we
anticipate to have plotted from aerial photos. The purpose of
our review, of course, was to determine any effects upon our
estimate of engineering costs; and, the results are both positite
and negative, good and bad, cheaper and more costly.
At this point this letter will present discussions, comments and
suggestions. At its end, we will summarize the Alternate Proposal
based upon the alignment as shown on Exhibit "A".
Please refer to a series of enclosed photos showing the North side
of Foothill Boulevard from Sultana to East Avenue. It appears
that in the reach from Beech to Cherry, the only practical position
for a 21-inch sewer main is within the most northerly traffic
lane of Foothill. The southerly side of Foothill is literally
loaded with water, gas and irrigation mains; and the northerly
side is occupied by eucalyptus trees, sign structures, gas and
water mains and a few other and sundried items. Placing the
main in one of Cal Trans' traffic lanes of course invites a
possible horrendous cost of resurfacing at least one lane and
maybe the entire north half of Foothill.
Placing the main north of the eucalyptus trees will probably
invite even more cost, particularly for engineering, in order
to determine and prepare plans for items to be removed, relocated,
repaired, avoided, negotiated and abandoned. Our major concern
for this corridor is potential liability arising from possible
damage to the root systems of the eucalyptus trees and eventual
felling of the trees by high-winds.
It is our recommendation then, that the chosen alignment be
the north traffic lane, at least in that first 1-mile reach.
West of Cherry, the main could be placed north of the pavement,
at least until we approach East Avenue where drainage structures
Robert Schoenborn
Beech Avenue Sewer Improvement
Alternate Proposal/Engineering Services
August 5, 1985
Page Two
become a problem. Please note Photos 18, 19, and 20 which show
a roadside drainage flume. If we place the main north of the
flume, somewhere downstream we may have to cross this. We
must also reckon with Etiwanda Creek and its RCB crossing
Foothill. If it is planned that a sewer main coming down East
Avenue will join our sewer main, it is our recommendation that
our main angle east of Etiwanda Creek, turn southwest and cross
Foothill, and allow the East Avenue sewer to cross Etiwanda
Creek and join our main. Otherwise, the sewers will cross the
Etiwanda RCB twice.
In summary, it is our recommendation that the entire Foothill main
be located in the northerly traffic lane. With further consideration
we prefer that you consider yet another route: Arrow Route. This
would involve extending the Beech main to Arrow, turn west and
follow Arrow to East Avenue, which would involve constructing
another 1/2-mile of main. However, such an alternate route may
actually create a savings by avoiding Cal Trans' sacrosanct Foothill
Boulevard. The Arrow Route does pose one question however, that
concerning the existence of old concrete pavement below asphalt,
a typical occurrence for the Freeways of the 1920's. Most of
these old concrete roadways were only 22-feet wide however, probably
leaving plenty of room to squeeze in a 21" - 30" sewer main.
Notwithstanding any of the discussion and recommendations above,
should you direct us to proceed with the Foothill alignment,
specifically within the northerly traffic lane thereof, our
original Proposal should be modified as follows:
Preparation of Aerial Topo
Fees to Pictorial Science
Survey Research (40 hours at $40.00/hr)
Aerial Targeting/Control (60 hours at $90.00/hr)
*Preparation of Blank Plan Sheets
Sub-Total
$ 9,000.00
1,600.00
5,400.00
500.00
$ 16,500.00
Preliminary Services
Alternate Proposal Research/Review
Additional Conferences/Cal Trans
Sub-Total
TOTAL INCREASE
$ 1,100.00
500.00
$ 1,600.00
$ 18,100.00
*Delete if City provides us with 20 - 24" x 42" pre-bordered
mylar plan/profile sheets with City Title Blocks preprinted
Robert Schoenborn
Beech Avenue Sewer Improvement
Alternate Proposal/Engineering Services
August 5, 1985
Page Three
thereon. Otherwise, we will prepare a single master for
reproduction by Pictorial Sciences at cost of $500.00.
Nothing else in our original Proposal is to be changed, including
stipulations in the text thereof, EXCEPT that because of delays
in starting this Project and anticipated intransigent of Cal
Trans, we wish to extend the time-to-complete as measured from
Pre-Design conference to start of Bidding Process from 75-calendar
days to 90-calendar days. Both our firm and our aerial photo
firm (Pictorial Sciences) were ready to begin work on this
Project a month ago and have now filled the void with other
committments, which we now must fulfill before we can start.
Originally Pictorial Science was to produce the aerial maps
in 5-days. Now they want 3-weeks for all sheets but we have
asked them to "dole" out the sheets as completed in order to
speed the process.
In summary, our original Proposal shall be modified as follows
to reflect the alternate alignment:
(1) Sewer main to be placed within the most northerly
traffic lane of Foothill Boulevard between Beech
Avenue and East Avenue.
(2) Sewer main to be terminated easterly of Etiwanda
Creek.
(3) Time to complete engineering work from Pre-Design
Conference to start of Bidding Process to be extended
to 90-calendar days.
(4) Original Proposal price of $68,000.00 will be increased
to $86,100.00 and shall include additional services
of providing aerial surveying/mapping; preparation
of blank plan sheets (*); cost of preparing revised
Proposal; and, cost of dealing with Cal Trans.
(5) (*) If City provides pre-printed, pre-bordered
mylar plan/profile sheets, delete $500.00 from
Proposal.
We ask that you consider our revised Proposal very carefully,
particulary with regard to placing the sewer main within the
pavement of Foothill which could add $100,000 - $200,000 in
overall expense for the Project; and with regard to considering
Arrow as another possible and better alternative.
Robert Schoenborn
Beech Avenue Sewer Improvement
Alternate Proposal/Engineering Services
August 5, 1985
Page Four
If there are questions or instructions, please contact me
directly.
Respectively
cf
ames L. Dotson,
JLD:Rena
Enclosures:
CE
Exhibit "A" (Map of Proposed Route)
Photos (4-Sheets)
~ ~ ~ ~ 2~,. ~ · ' .........:"' .......
· ~ =.-' - .... ': ~
- . ; ~ :" .. ,.,, ..... , -/ e' _ .,
% . : { ~ ~ ~-~ ,: ..-
, = ...........~-----·' :~ Z ' ;" '
'~I ' ~ ."' .......
~ ' ; ':' · "' "" : ' ~ ~ '~ v -- ', ;; -,
. ". ' ~':" ~ i~ '
,,,.,. - ~.. ~
: I-:
, % . --, :__: : ' _ ~ ' ~-
~ , ~' . ; .....;-~5,-
:.:... ~ "~
~ '~' : ~; ,." ,' ~ C=3 "~ "'
/ ' · Sdw~· """- -~./ I~ Z~ ,~
, , . ~ ~. ..-
' 32 . 33 · ~: .
· , · ...: /' ~.~'~ -,,_, "',,.,. . - , : ~
''~ ="'"' t ,/. "~ . "'--.~, "~7r ~",- _. ~~r"'
· 1 ~...~ '.== '7~, .... , , ~ ,.,,~ '~...:, . '~, .,
..... "' ~"~
.,', /. . ........·: .................~-~-· , .... ,,
: , "-, ::' ~ ;--~=4 .~ .~ ~"
,. - ...... . .~:.:
· .~" : ~' I " j"-,~
.~-~,~,... _~ -.~ % ,~. =. ~ - : ~ ; . . ,
/ ,
. · .. ', __. J;.'~.. · ·~:, .~ ""~,:. -~: . ; .;:4~'~.,*~.;.· . .
/-'~ .~:, ,' ".. :.~-' 7/./;' ~.,,~ ;' ..= :-~--_~; ~L "'~:-----:~. ~'; "~...:;t~" ~...-:::~;''~-~ ~--~ ~.-:,-:..-.
~ ,, "a,.;.o-"',']":~,,. 9~ ~;.-.~ :..~.::;.-.~ '.,.~-u:':.~;..;.~'~:..:- ~::,:,..uV 1'~:.:;'~;.~ j '~.'
' . · ' " ;' , ' .-' .... ' .... ' ~'~ ' '.:t~:::;;;.~~' -t~ ' ' ' , ........ '
- _ .~%,,..~'.:~ :{.~.'~ ...a,, "~ --'*-'-~;':~..,' ........;:; ....'..;.~""':. ~ ,, ._7-- ~ :~;,~ a',,fZ~---
,~ ,.:-..:. -'..,,,, ,,,.:'....~:....: :.~: _-,- :. '. -... ~.-~
\
\
City of Fontana
CALIFORNIA
October 31, 1985
James L. Dotson, Civil Engineer
Post Office Box 885
Grand Terrace, California 92324
Re: PO 4735 and Your letter of October 17, 1985
Mr. Dotson,
I will attempt to corrrnent on any questions you may have raised in your rrost
recent letter of October 17, 1985. First, let me reassure you that the letter
sent in response to your first correspondence was forwarded to the city
attorney's office for his review. Also included in the packet was a copy of
your enclosure regarding the court findings, along with a copy of the purchase
order and our original request for a business license. I have had no adverse
resr.x:>nse from his office and must assume that he concurs with my opinion.
'i-Je also acknowledge that the purchase order dollar figu Ie is a maximum arrount
allocated for the described project. Therefore, we would accept an estimated
amJunt of $50,000.00, which is equal to a $50.00 license fee. We would be
happy to refund you the difference in the license fee should the contract fall
below the estimated figure.
In checking with the Public Works Department, we have verified that it has been
the p:>licy of the city to include license requirement statements in any project
specifications that are issued from this office. If you \vould be so kind as to
include that stipulation in the specs that you are developing, we would greatly
appreciate it.
I am happy to read that you will pay the city license fee. As to the city
issuing the check, such is not our policy. The rrore logical handling of the
situation would be to deduct the fee from you retention arrount and journal
transfer the revenue to the business license account. However, I should point
out that as a legiti.rnate deduction for a business expense, a license paid- in
this marmer would not render you a valid receipt. A cancelled check fram your
business account would probably better serve your needs.
A basic concept for a free market system is to incorporate your expenses, add
a percentage for profit, and pass the entire aIrOunt to your consurrer. This
process starts with the raw material supplier, who passes to the manufacturer,
who passes to the retailer, who passes to the consumer. The circle bec<:Xtes
canplete and self-perpetuating since through any cycle we're both a consumer
and a producer.
8353 SIERRA AVENUE (P.O. BOX 518) FONTANA. CALIFORNIA 92335 (714) 823-3411
Page 2
My duty as a revenue officer is to generate funds for the city operating
budget which enablesus to do special projects. The budget allows the city
to hire persons, such as yourself, to perfonn certain services. When I tax
those persons, I am generating new revenue incane which enables us to start
the process over the next year.
We can encapsulate the entire theme of this letter by reiterating that we
fully expect payment for a city business license and that we do not find
anYthing unusual in demanding a license fran scrneone perfonning work for the
city.
I must admit, on a personal note, that I am curious about your reluctance to
telephone. I have been tempted to either call or stake out your office for
a possible clue to your behavior. However, I intend to respect your right
to privacy and will allow you to reveal your reason for preference for the
written word in your time and fashion.
We look fOIWard to the return of your business license application. If we
can assist you in completing your application, please let us know.
Re~ctfUII y,
L/Da~
Jane Harris
Business License Inspector
cc: Public Works Director
October 17, 1985 22Y37SARTONROAO, SU~TEF
POST OFFICE BOX 885
GRAND TERRACE, CA 92324
Jane Harris (714) 824-9510
Busienss License Inspector
P.O. Box 518
Fontana, California 92335
Re: PC 4735
Engineering Services/Beech Avenue
Ms. Harris:
I received your October 10 letter of request re: compliance for'
a business license application in Fontana. At the outset of this
diatribe I want to assure you that I fully intend to comply with
your request ..... eventually, maybe, and not yet.
In my previous letter I asked that you refer the issue to the
City Attorney. I could not determine from your October 10 letter
if such consulting has occurred. Your letter also presumed that
because of the "magnificent" scope of the work that I have been
employed to do for the City that somehow I will spend more than
a "few hours" in Fontana. Not so. Of the estimated 1,000 or
more man-hours required to complete the work per PO 4735, if I
spend more than 15-hours in the City I could be accused of
dawdling or flirting with secretaries.
There are many things about my contract with the City that you
probably do not and could not know. However at this point,
there is only one aspect about that contract that I want you
to understand. Although PO 4735 might imply that I will actually
receive $55,100, that is not true. In fact, that amount has
already been reduced to $54,600 and may be reduced more to
$50,600, which will be the maximum that CAN BE charged ..... not
the amount that WILL BE charged. My contract is known as a
"Capped T & M" type, meaning that I will charge at agreed hourly
rates and I cannot exceed a fixed limit, even if I lose my shirt.
The contract is known as a negative incentive type, meaning
that if the Client (Fontaria) lends a hand, the cost will be less.
One significant part of my contract that affects your department
is that if you stick me with a business license fee of any amount,
the same amount will be billed to the Public Works Department.
The City will in effect pay for my business license. Sort of like
robbing Peter to pay Paul. At year's end, the City will have
realized no revenue, as the cost will be offset by the income.
Jane Harris
PO 4735
Engineering Services/Beech Avenue
October 17, 1985
Page Two
The real purpose of my letters to you has little to do with
the license fee you expect me to pay, even though I'll assure
you the issue of business licenses is a constant irritant.
Every city that I and other firms work within has their hand
in our pocket, and several larger firms have a dozen or
more business licenses. The situation is ridiculous and
one of these days we professional-types are going to unite
and nail Cities to the wall.
The sewer. project that Fontana has hired me to design will
hopefully and actually be constructed by a Contractor; and his
fee to 'the City will be on the order of $1,500,000. In addition
to preparing drawings, part of my work will be to prepare a
volume entitled Specifications and Contract Documents; and
the first section of that tome will be entitled Instructions
to Bidders.
Partly as a courtesy but more to prevent problems and hassles
with the Contractor, I usually go to great lengths in that
first Section to make a Contractor aware of certain peculiarities
about the City he will work for and within, for example:
(a) "Bidders are advised that no work shall be performed
from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday, every week
of the year". (Loma Linda)
(b) "Bidders are advised that water used for construction
will be charged to the Contractor by the Water District
at lO-times normal domestic rates". (Beaumont)
(c) Bidders are advised that no work may be done on the
North Shore Highway between October 1 and April 1
to avoid disturbing nesting eagles". (Big Bear)
Depending on my success in arguing with you, I may include the
first Section of my Fontana Specs the following:
"Bidders are advised that for the privilege of
working within and for the City of Fontana, the
City will exact from the Contractor a Business
License Fee in the amount of $300.00 plus $0.25
for each $1,000.00 in excess of $500,000 of the
Contract Amount. Please contact Ms. Jane Harris,
Business License Inspector for the City of Fontana.
Do not argue, do not reason and please do not
explain that the City is in effect paying itself.
All such arguments have already been attempted
to no avail".
Jane Harris
PO 4735
Engineering Services/Beech Avenue
October 17, 1985
Page Three
Ms. Harris, most Cities recognize that to require a business
license fee from "vendoEs" working for and being paid directly
by the City, means that these vendors will merely add the -
cost of a business license to their fee. Therefore, no gain
accrues to the City and the vendor is usually considered
"exempt~'. Accordingly, I'm asking you to declare my contract
exempt, our future sewer contractor'$ contract exempt, and
everybody who draws a dime's pay directly from the City of
Fontana exempt. If you don't, we will all merely add the
license cost to our fee and the City will gain nothing. In
fact the City will lose tothe extent that you will have
to answer silly letters like this and buy stamps, envelopes,
stationery, copy paper, electricity, typewriter ribbons, etc,
etc. etc. What's the point? What's the reason?
On a personal note be aware that my sister assured me that
had she been Business License Inspector during the time I was
employed by the City of Colton on a very similar project to
the one I have with Fontana, she would have demanded a fee,
notwithstanding my argument that I would have merely added
such cost to my billing to the Public Works Department. Her
argument is that the City's Ordinance requires the fee and that
I will jolly well pay it. My rebuttal is that she ought to
advise the Council of the silly situation. Her rebuttal would
probably be that such is not her job and she would probably of~r
me an invitation for me to speak to the Council. I suppose such
dedication from a City employee is to be admired.
If, after enduring this letter, you and the City Attorney still
insist that I pay a fee, please contact Mr. Schoenborn or Mr.
Porter of the Public Works Department to determine the proper
amount of my fee from the City. Then advise me by letter of the
license fee amount. On my next billing to the PW Dept. I will
add this amount to my statement. Further, and in order to -
dramatize the issue, I will request that the City pay that
billing with 2-checks: one to me for a certain amount, and
a separate one directly to your department for the cost of
the business license. Maybe your banker will raise an eyebrow "
when he accepts a City check to be paid to the City.
I suppose at this point you must be wondering what is was that
you ever did to deserve the likes of me. Make inquiries if
you wish and I think you will be surprised. Without a challenge
none of us can learn. When this issue is finally resolved we
will probably both know more of what we speak.
Jane Harris
PO 4735
Engineering Services/Beech Avenue
October 17, 1985
Page Four
You may also be wondering why I don't call since it's cheaper
than writing. There is a reason of course but I choose not
to reveal such yet, I hope you don't mind and that you mince
no words in your return letter.
G.V.W. ASSOCIATES, INC. Engineering
[714] 594-0552 Planning
LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS surveying
667 SOUTH BREA CANYON ROAD, SUITE 27, WALNUT, CALIFORNIA 9'1789
June 25, 1985 Proposal File
Mr. Robert Schoenborn
CITY OF FONTANA
Depsrtment of Public Works
8383 Sierra Avenue
P.O. Box 518
Fontaria, CA 92355
Subject: Beech Avenue Sewer System
Dear Mr. Schoenborn,
We sre pleased to have this opportunity to present this proposal for
design survey and photometric plan and profile sheets for the Beech
Avenue sewer system as shown on the attached plan per our discussion.
The scope of work and cost are outlined below.
SCOPE OF WORK:
Design Survey and Plan Sheets:
1. Research and compile information from public records.
2. Field reconnaissance survey.
3. Set aerial targets for photogrammetric work including
targeting street centerline intersections affecting
survey.
4. Establish Horizontal Control Survey.
5. Establish Vertical Control Survey based on the City of
Fontana and County of San Bernardino Benchmarks.
6. Prepare a 1"=40' pen manuscript with one (1) foot control
interval with existing buildings delineated.
7. Prepare one set of reproducible mylar plan and profile
sheets on four (4) mil film matte finish on both sides,
image on backside with City's title block and borders,
24" x 36" sheet size, with profile grid on top with a
300 foot wide planimetric mapping , screened. Intersec-
tions and sheets shall be overlapped fifty (50) feet
minimum.
Mr. Robert Schoenborn
CITY OF FONTANA- Public Works Dept.
Proposal - Beech Ave. Sewer System
June 25, 1985
Page-2
COST:
The cost of the work defined in the scope of work is outlined
below. Any extra work will be billed on a time and materials
basis per the attached G.V.W. Associates, Inc. Compensation
Schedule.
]. DESIGN SURVEY AND PLAN SHEETS
Cost for completing Scope of Work Items 1-7 is Thirty-two
Thousand Dollars ($32,000.00). This cost assumes all work
will be completed by August 1, 1985.
Any work not completed by the subject dated will be subject
to escalation, per our Union Labor Agreements.
The cost of work shall be billed monthly as work progresses
at the rated shown on the attached G.V.W. Associates, Inc.
Compensation Schedule.
We appreciate the opportunity to prepare this proposal and look forword
to participating with you in this project. If you have any questions,
please contact us.
Very Truly Yours,
G.V.W. ASSOCIATES, INC.
Danny M. Pierce
DMP:cas
enclosure
G.V.W. ASSOCIATES, INC.
[71 4] 594-0552 Planning
~ LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS surveying
667 SOUTH BREA CANYON ROAD, SUITE 27, WALNUT, CALIFORNIA 91789
COMPENSAIlON SCHEDULE
To August 1, 1985
CLASSIFICATION ttOURLY RATE
1. Principal $ 70.00 per hour
2. Registered Engr./Project Mgr. 54.75 per hour
3, Designer 51.00 per hour
4. Draftsperson/Field inspector 43,75 per hour
5, Planner 51.00 per hour
6. Assistant Planner 43,75 per hour
7, 2--Man Survey Crew 105,00 per hour
8. 3--Man Survey Crew 138,50 per hour
9, Survey Supervisor; Licensed Surveyor 51,00 per hour
10. Administrative Assistant 26.50 per hour
11. Electronic Distance Meters 19.00 per hour
Hewlett Packard 3800A
Topcon Model DM-C2
12. CONCAP - Computer At actual costs
[~!lueprints Vendor Cost
Job Travel (excluding 2 & 3-Man Crews) 0.35 per mile
Dalivery 15.00 per hour plus
mlleage
Above ra-fes are subject fo escalatlon on August 1, 1985.
GVW:e
:, ·
HALL & FOREMAN, INC.
Civil Engineering-Land Planning-Land 8u~veging
3170 Redhill Avenue
Costs Mesa, California ~2626-3428
Telephone (714) 641-8777
PRELIMINARY
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
Estimate date: 11Julg 1988
FOOTHILL TRUNK SEWER (BEECH TO LIME AVE.) By: B. AMEJKO
Guantity Unit Cost Item Total
~ SANITARY SEWER8 .~*
Mains:
12'° EXTRA 8TRENOTH V.C.P ......... 1~68 LF 42.00 82,656.00
8" EXTRA 8TRENOTH V.C.P ....... 38 LF 14.00 532.00
Mains eubtotsl: 83, 188. O0
Manholes:
48" PTecast Manhole ........... ~ EA 1,100. O0 5, 500. O0
DTop Manhole .................... I EA 3, 000. O0 3, 000. O0
Manholes sub total: 8, 500. O0
Miscellaneous:
42"X 3/8" Steel Casing ............ 230 LF 75.00 17,250.00
Plug End o~ ~).C.P. Se~eT ........... I EA 250.00 250.00
Remove TTees ....................... 60 EA 750.00 45~000.00
Remove end TeetoTe chain link ~ence 360 LF 12.00 4,320.00
Remove and Taplace existing curb... 270 LF 8.00 2,160.00
Remove existing 72" R.C.P .......... 40 LF 70.00 2,800.00
Const. ConcTete ColleT ............. 1EA 200.00 200.00
Miscellaneous sub total: 71,980. O0
SANITARY SEWER8 total: 163,668.00
Page 1 o~ 2
Construction Cost EstimaYe - 3e06 %m/
MAJOR CATEGORY TOTALS (without contingencies):
SANITARY SEWERS: 163,668.00
SUMMARY:
CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL: 163,668.00
CONTINGENCIES ~ 10%: 16,366.80
OTHER COSTS: 0.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST: 180,034.80
NOTES:
1. 8inca Hall & Foreman , Inc., hoe no control over the cost o~
labor, mateptals, or equipment, or ove~ the cont~actor's methods
determining prices, or over competitive bidding or market conditions,
out opinions o~ estimated project cost or construction cost provided
~Qr herein ape. to be made on the basis o~ ou~ experience and
qualieicatiDns and represent ou~ best Judgment as design professionals
~amiliar with the construction tndust~g~ but Hall and Foreman
Inc., cannot and does not, guarantee that p~opoeals, bids,
the conetPuctton cost will not va~g ~om opinions o~ estimated cost
prepared bg the ei~m.
Page
coordinate with the engineering efforts of RBF Engineers and Hal i and
Foreman to result in an engineerInG study covering the overal I area as
shown on Attachment A,
This reconmendation Is made for the following reasons:
o The orIGInal sewer Ilne~ proposed te do down Beech, passes through
~onslderable unlncorporated area from which little "hook-up"
reimbursement can be expected In the near 'Future;
o Capacity in the originally proposed Beech line would be totally
consumed by the development of Rancho-Fontanaj necessitating addition
construction to accommodate other development In the North Fenlane
RDA;
o West End and Hunters Ridge developers have shown a considerable
Interest in participating in a ncertlflcate of participation program~:
beca~se the proposed routing will save both developments money over
original estimates. Both West End and Hunters Ridge are "single
ownerle developments facilitating their participation;
o it appears that by themselves# the "active" landowners In Rancho
Fenlane are having trouble guaranteelnG the takedown schedules
required by the "Certificate of Participation" program. Therefore,
the effect of fa!llng to provide the sewer connection revenues
required in the original concept Ranthe Fontanals burden will be
reduced through the proposed expanded program;
o With the proposed pipe sizing and routing, the amended sewer alignment
wll I acconTnodate a._~l~ development foreseen in the North Fontaria RDA and
contiguous areas to the North. (Foothill to be a collector with areas
easterly of Beech requiring the later Improvement of reaches to
Footliill); and
o The proposed amendment supports the concept of RP-4 but does not
require that it be built in order to function. If RP-4 falls to be
functioning by 1991-94, then an additlon~l 18" line may be required to
parallel the proposed line down Ettw~nda.
o A r4~deflnltlon of Mr. Dotson's contract might generate concern on the
par~ of the engineering firms originally involved in the competition
for selection. Bob Schoenborn suggests that the amended work may
increase the contraGt amount wlth Mr. Dotson but that this
redeflnition does not require a readvertlsement and could be acted on
by the CIty Council as an amendment to their previous action.
o Because we're dealing with more actors, and a large project, the
overall time for Implementation may take longer.
o Amend Mr. Dotson~s scope of work reflect an amended study area, add
top,agraphlcal studies to the contract and require that the cost
increase be comnensurate with the increase in work.
o Authorize staff to formally Invite other developers including but not
limited to B.D, Investors and Ist City ?toperties to partlclpite In
the subject "Certificate of Participation" program.
TOTAL ROJEC
p
AREA
PROPOSED
"' City' of Fontana
CALIFORNIA
MEMOR~ANDUM
TO: Reed Flory, Development Agency Consultant ~.
FROM: Bob M. Porter, Deputy Public Works Directo~'~ .
SUBJECT: Alternate Route for Beech Avenue Sewer Main
DATE: June 18, 1985
In accordance with the request from the Development Department, costs have been
computed for an alternate route for the Beech Avenue Sewer Main. They are as
follows:
Part I: 1/2 mile north of Baseline to Foothill Boulevard
Approximate Estimate:
1. 8" V.C.P. = 2,640 L.F.
2. 12" V.C.P. = 5,240 L.F.
3. 21" V.C.P. = 5,140 LoF.
4. 21" V.C.P. = 100 L.F. Jacked under Railroad
5. Manholes = 33 Ea.
6. A.C. Paving - 1,000 Tons
Cost Estimate:
1. 8" V.C.P. 2,640 L.F. @ $18.00/L.F. $ 47,520.00
2. 12" V.C.P 5,240 L.F. @ $26.00/LoF. 136,240.00
3. 21" V.C.P. 5,140 L.F. @ $33.00/L.F. 169,620.00
4. 21" V.C.P. Jacked w/steel @ $130.00/L.F. 13,000.00
5. Manholes, 33 Ea. @ $1,500/Ea. 49,500~00
6. A.C. Paving 1,000 Tons @ $45/Ton 45,000.00
Sub-Total $460,880.00
10% Eng. & Staking 46,000.00
Contingencies 8%± 37,000.00
Total ± $543,880.00
CIVIL ENGINEERING · LAND PLANNING · LAND SURVEYING
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL I' * -23-85 I'~°eN°' 3366
TO: City of Fontana
8353 Sierra
Fontana, CA 92335
ATTENTION: Bob Porter
REGARDING: Preliminary sewer master plan
CONTENTSANDREMARKS: Attached, for your revzew and comment,
is our preliminary Sewer Master Plan. I was contacted by
Reed Flory last week and informed that the line between
Cherry Avenue and East Avenue on Foothill Boulevard should
be 27" rather than 24".
BY: John Sims
Project Engineer
fp
c(;: Reed Flory, City of Fontana
3186-L AIRWABYOAbVE~ande" COSTAMESA, CALIFORNIA92626-4675 " (714) 641-8777
AGREEMENT
FOR PREPARATION OF SANITARY SEWER
COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
THIS AGREEMENT dated January 20 , 1982, is made and entered into by and
between the CITY OF EONTANA, a municipal corporation hereinafter called
and Willdan Associates, an Engineering firm, heroinafter called "Engineer",
IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
A. Engineer shall perform and carry out to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer the professional services necessary to prepare a Sanitary Sewer Collec-
tion System Master Plan to cover growth projections for the present City limits
and projected growth area. The scope of the work is to encompass the following:
Part I - System InventOry and Data Collection
The purpose of this phase of the project is to collect and assemble available
drawings and information on the existing trunk and main line sewage collection
systems serving the City. The work program includes all the necessary manpower,
material and equipment costs necessary to accomplish the following:
1. Collect and assemble all available information on the existing trunk
sewage collection systems serving the City of Fontana. This will also
include record information on sewage flows through the meter that moni-
tors the flow of sewage to Chine Basin Municipal Water District for
treatment and disposal. Sewer link ~izes, length, and manhole sewer
invert and ground elevations will be determined from the plan and pro-
file drawings of the indivi~Fal sewer lines. The plan and profile
drawings of the existing sewer segments to be modeled will be furnished
to Willdan by the City. The flow invert elevations at several strategic
manholes will be verified by filed survey, The elevations shown on the
City's sewer base map will ~be verified by statistical sampling compari-
son with the original construction drawings.
2. Compile and plot the trunk 'system on a reproducible map plotted to a
suitable scale.' The plotted information will include trunk sewer sys-
tem manhole locations and manhole numbers. The City of Fontone maps
will be used as the base map.
3. Interview sewer maintenance personnel and review sewer maintenance
records to determine locations where operational problems occur and the
frequency and duration of these problems.
4. Estimate, from City maps and topographic maps, the lengths and slopes
of the sewer links that will be required to service the presently un-
sewered areas of the fifty-five (55) square mile General Plan study area.
Part II - Development of Existing and Projected Land Uses
Under this part of the project, all pertinent data on existing land use and the
land use pattern projected for the ultimate build out in the study area will be
compiled and tabulated for use in the computations of tributary sewage flows to
the trunk sewer system. The proposed work program to accomplish this task Is as
follows:
1. Match' the existing land use pattern to the trunk sewer system manhole
pattern.' Th~s will include tabulation of the individual land uses and
their areas appurtenant to each manhole. Maps showing the existing
land use pattern within the City limits will be provided by the City.
C
2. Match the ultimate build out land use pattern to the trunk sewe~
tem manhole pattern. Maps showing the ultimate build out land us
pattern within the study area will be provided by the City.
3. Delineate appropriate extensions and other modifications to the trunk
sewer system as required to provide sewer service to presently
sewered portions of the study area~
Part III- Mode.~lDevelopment for Trunk Sewer Facilities
In this part of the project, it is proposed to establish a detailed mathematical
model of the existing trunk sewage collection system within the City using a
computer program for the modeling and analysis of the systems. The model is to
be so constructed as to provide for input of data in standard civil engineering
terminology and is to consider such things as:
1. The profile of the exiating and projected sewers, including ground
surfaces and flow line elevations.
2. Land use and corresponding unit flow data. The unit flow coefficients
developed by other sewering agencies sueh as the Orange County Sanita-
tion District, the City of Lancaster and the City of Fullerton will be
utilized in the determination of the unit flows. The calculated total
flow will be compared to the metered flow at the City of Fontaria/Chine
Basin connection and adjustment of the unit flow coefficients will be
made..
3. Infiltration of groundwater.
4. Peak flow to average flow ratio as a function of flow rate.
5. Pipe size.
6. Pipe material.'
7. Line slope.
8. Point source inflow from outside areas.
Utilizing the information developed'in Parts I and II on the existing trunk
sewer system, unit flow coefficients and peeking factors, and land uses will
be developed. It will include the following work tasks:
1. Establish, in conjunction with the City staff, the extent of the ~ewer
trunk system to be modeled. The sewer network to be selected for
modeling will consist, for the most part, of main trunk lines. It will
generally exclude all local sewers which are not likely to be extended
and which, by observation, are of sufficient capacity that~hey do not
warrent modeling and analysis.
2. Compile for input into the computer program all pertinent data on ex-
isting and future land uses.
3. Establish methodology for analysis of inflows, diversions, special
manholes and pump stations.
4. Develop, program and test the computerized mathematical model of the
City's trunk sewer system using all data previously developed or com-
piled. Th~s work includes all coding, ~erifying, editing and a suffi-
cient number of computer test runs to establish the validity of the
model.
Part IV - Trun.k Sewer System Analysis
Under this portion of the project, the analyses of the sewage flows in the
trunk sewer system and projected extensions will be performed, This will
clude:
-2-
C
1. Perform analysis of trunk sewer using the existing land uses for
areas tributary to the system. The analysis will consist of dete~
nation Of average daily flows in the system and flows in the indivi,
ual system segments at peak flow. Industrial wastewater discharge
permits and water use records will be reviewed to identify high sys-
tem point source inflows that need to be included in the analysis.
2. Perform analysis of the trunk sewer system and projected extensions
using the projected ultimate build out land uses for the areas tribu-
tary to the system.
3. The final computer print-out for each land use condition, together
with a sewer key map with manholes numbered for easy reference, will
be provided to the City. This will be available as a convenient and
easy to use reference in answering day to day questions about the
trunk sewer system.
Part V - Identification of Trunk Sewer System Deficiencies
The purpose of this portion of the project is to identify the deficiencies of
the trunk sewer system under existing and future conditions. This includes the
following:
1. The flows within the existing trunk sewer system segments will be
calculated~at the peak flow condition and the existing land use
pattern. Criteria as approved by the City will be used to designate
at one point d/D ratio) a sewer line is to be considered at capacity.
Wherever the calculated flow exceeds the design capacity, the pipe
segment is considered to be deficient.
The sewer Segments that are deficient in capacity will be identi-
fied and tabularized with respect to severity of flow capacity defi-
ciency.
3. The sewer segments that are not deficient in capacity will be iden-
tified and the unused (design minus actual) flow capacity will be
determined and presented in terms ef flow and of equivalent popu-
lation,
4. In cunjunction with the analysis of the existing trunk sewer system
for eegments deficient in flow capacity, the City's maintenance and
Engineering staff will be interviewed to identify known problem areas.
Field investigations of the noted problem areas will be conducted by
Engineering staff to establish the extent of the problems, possible
solutions and correlation with the computer analysis.
Part VI - Sizing of System ~xtensions and Modifi.~a~io~e~o
Meet Ultimate Build Out F~ow Conditions
Using the design criteria presented in Part V, ~, above, determine the sizes of
the system extensions and modifications required to provide sewer service to
the General Plan study area. The extensions and modifications will be sized to
the peak flows: from the ultimate build out land use pattern.
Part VII - Development of Priorities and Cost Estimates for
Correction of Trunk Sewer System Deficiencies
Development of priorities and cost estimates for correction of the sewer sys-
tem deficiencies is the purpose of this effort. This will include:
1. A priority listing will be prebared for the recommended deficiency
correction projects. This priority listing will be developed so as
to initially deHnea~e those projects required to relieve existing
deficiencies and then indicate the additional improvements required
to correct those deficiencies ~ttributable to new development in the
community. The projects will be prioritized based upon severity of
the problem (health hazard, current or projected) and other p~rtinent
-3-
C
factors. In the formulation of the deficiency correction projects,
consideration will be given to the diversion of flows to take advan-
tage of unused capacity in other portions of the trunk sewer system
in order to minimize the cost for construction of new facilities
and to maximize utilization of the available trunk sewer facilities
within the City. Information to be furnished for each of the defi-
cienoy correction projects will include identification of the loca-
tion~ size and preliminary grade for the new facilities.
2. In conjunction with input from the City staff, projected tentative
locations of future master planned lines in undeveloped areas will
be es;tablished. The future master planned mains will have prelimi-
nary grades and pipe size established based upon the ultimate build
out land use pattern.
3. Sewer construction cost models applicable to the City of Fentana
will be developed. One cost model will be applicable to the cor-
rection of deficiencies in the existing sewer system. The second
cost model will be applicable for the extension of the sewer system
into presently unsewered areas.
4. Developing cost estimates for correction of the deficiencies in the
exisHng trunk sewer system.
Part VIII - DevelopRent of Cost Estimates for Trunk Sewe~
System Extensions and Modifications
This effort will include:
1. Development of cost estimates for the trunk sewer system modifica-
tions required to meet the sewage collection requirements of the
study area for the time of u_~timate build out.
Part IX - Examination of' Punding Alternatives and
Funding Recommendations
This effort will include:
1.The examination of funding alternatives, including grant funding
and user fee funding.
2. DevelDpment of funding recommendations.
Part X - FinalR~port
The study methods, findings and recommendations will be presented in a bound,
final report with all necessary exhibits and maps. The final report will ipclude:
1. A discussion of the City's development and growth potential and ef-
fects of growth on the sewer system.
2. A discussion of existing system identifying present deficiencies, and
recommendations on their elimination.
3. A discussion of the future system, including alternative plans and
staging plan for meeting the City's projected wastewater collection
requirements for the undeveloped areas.
4. Suffioient maps to depict deficiencies and planned facilities to elimi-
natedeficiencies and nrovide for future development of the unde-
veloped areas.
5. Cost estimates of facilities needed to correct deficiencies and to pro-
'vide for future development are to be included.
Six (6) copies of the preliminary draft report will be submitted to the City staff
for its review and approval. Upon approval of the preliminary draft, fifty (50)
copies of the final bound report, together with the originals of the accom-
panying maps and exhibits will be furnished to the City. The quality of the
printing and binding of the final report, including maps, will be at least
equal to that used in ~he City of Monterey Park Sewer System Master Plan
dated April 1981, previously prepared by the Engineer. If requested,
Engineer will make presentations on results of the project to the City
Council.
B. City will provide the following:
l. Staff liaison.
2. All available maps, survey information, bench mark data, improve-
ment plans, etc.
3. Prompt review of material submitted by the Engineer for comment.
C. Engineer shall commence work on the project within fifteen (15) days
of the execution of this agreement and shall be completed within one
hundred and eighty (180) calendar days.
D. Fee and payment for Engineering services wilt be on a time and
materials basis, with a "not to exceed" amount of $20,25D. Payment
will be made by the City based on an hourly rate approved by the City.
Rates are So include direct salary plus overhead and profit. Not
more frequently than monthly, Engineer may submit an invoice for pay-
ment based upon the approved rates. Upon approval by the City
Engineer, the City shal.l make payment within'thirty (30) days.
E. Miscellaneous terms and conditions of this agreement are as follows:
1. In the event that the City elect~ to revise the original scope of
work, the additional wo~-Irshall be paid for by the City as extra
work at the same rates and in the same manner as provided in
Section D, above. All extr~ work shall be authorized in writing
by the City.
C. This Agreement may be .terminated by either party upon wri tten notice
to the other party in the event of breech by such other par~y; or if
before the professional services herein described have been rendered,
City deems i t necessary to abandon the project. In event of such
termination or any suspension of work at the written direction of the
City, City shall pay the Engineer for work actually performed.
D. The heroin shall ~onstitu~e the entire Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have accepted, made and executed
this Agreement upgn the terms, conditions, and provisions above stated, the
day and year first above written.
WILLDAN ASSOCIATES
MAYOR, CITY OF IONTA
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
' ~ CiTy~L~E~K ~
· ~TTORNE~
· ' . ../..;""" ....\
1401 QUAIL STREET
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663 DATE
( 714 ) 8334070 C::)_(x~_ ~,:-9¢~,
SH OF
ITEM FAC, UNIT ESTIMATED
NO. NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY COST CO,"4ST, EOST
CIVIL ENGINEERING · LAND PLANNING · LAND SURVEYING
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL I°~',;~e~ I~°~"°' 33,6
TO:
· CITY68~ FONTAbL,~
:~353 Sierra
ATTENTION:
REGARDING: F'~OTHILL INTERCEPTOr';
CONTENTS AND REMARKS:
sketch bowing tile Fropo,~ed
::,i::e~ and flows to~-ch(:r w:i~h c.':st
3186-L AIRWAYAVENUE * COSTAMESA, CALIFORNIA92626-4675 · (714) 641'8777
CIVIL ENGINEERING · LAND PLANNING · LAND SURVEYING
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL I DA _23_85 aoBr~o. 3366
TO: City of Fontana
8353 Sierra
Fontana, CA 92335
ATTENTION: Bob Porter
REGARDING: Preliminary sewer master plan
CONTENTSANDREMARKS: Attached, for your review and comment,
is our preliminary Sewer Master Plan. I was contacted by
Reed Flory last week and informed that the line between
Cherry Avenue and East Avenue on Foothill Boulevard should
be 27" rather than 24".
BY: John Sims
P~oject Engineer
fp
cc: Reed Flory, City of Fontana
3186-L AIRWABYO, j~E~and~ COSTAMESA, CALIFORNIA92626-4675 · (714)641-8777
!, , I
,,,, ,~ ~SF BARTON ROAD,
~ -/ ~osT O~F~CS BOX
GRAND T~RRAC~, CA
(~14) 8~4-9610
LETTER ~OF TR~NS~ITT~L
,.'
Date: March 24, 1986
To: John Sims
Mall & Foreman, Inc.
Enclosed: Revised co~y of Foothill/R~ch Tn~r~,p~nr M~r g~wer
Plan (March 10, 1986 Revision Date)
Comments: This revised copy reflects mihor changes as a resdlt of'
the relocation of some tributary area boundaries. Re~ions 6,10A,_
12~13,14 & 15 have been. affected. At this time we are aware Of some
questions regarding the direction of discharge for re~ion 6 (ie. to
the southeast as shown or to the southwest as some parties involved
have expressed an interest in doing.) We are not Darticularly
concerned with this because it will not affect the sizing of our
interceptor main.
James L. Dotson, CE
cc: Stephen Gratwick
Bob Schoenborn
CENTENNiAL
CENTENNIAL CAPITAL, INC.
March 25, 1986
Mr.. Robert Schoenborn
Public Works Director
City of Fontaria
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontaria, CA 92335
RE:: La Cuesta Fontaria Sewer Service
Dear Mr. Schoenborn:
The Centennial Group has started design work to implement
the! La Cuesta Pontana specific plan and expects to start
construction within 18 months. After talking with Reed
Flery, we understand a trunk sewer must be extended
from Beech to serve our development and that the city
is now considering construction phasing and financing
mechanisims for providing sewers to the entire North
Fontana redevelopment area.
We formally request that our sewer reach be included
in the city's first phase of sewer construction. Please
let us know if there is anything else we must do to
make this a reality.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
CENTENNIAL CAPITAL, INC.
ald M. Robbins
Development Planner
GMR/sd
cc: Reed Flory
282 S. Anita Drive, Orange, California (714) 634-9200
Mailing Address · P.O. Box 399, Orange, California 92666-0399/Facsimile (714) 634-9242
File: ProjeCt 71-.7218
Beech Ayehue Sewer 'Ma~n
Centennial Capital? Inc,
P,O. Box 3~9
Orange, CA 92666-0399
Atteution: Gerald M. Robbins
Development Planner
Subject: North ?ontana Sewer Program
This letter is in repiy to your letter of 'May 19, 1986, in which you
asked several questions regarding the North ?ontana Sewer Program. I
will attempt to answer your questions as followst
1. City requirements bidding, construction and construction
management if webuild the line,
Answer: Copy of City procedure enclosed~
2. City policy or instructions to he followed to ensure our
right of reimbursement for oversizingor costs in exeess of
the current $600/equivalent dwellling unit fee.
Answer: This matter will be handled By separate contract. Thi~
contract will ensure that you are reimbursed for your extrs costs
as others make use of the sewer line you have built,
3. City'a best estimate for wh6n we could tie into the Beech
Avenue line and when that system would be operationSl,
Answer: A lot depends on the aTnount of interest that is shown by
developers. My personal guess would be July i, 1989, but the date
could be six or nine months later,
If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact me.
Robert Schoenborn, P.E.
Maintenance/Engineering Services Agency Director
RS:wp
Enclosure - cc: Reed Flory, Development Department Consultant
:3353S~ERRA AVENUE(P O. BOXSI8} FONTANA, CALIFORNIA92335 (714}823-3411
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BID PROCEDURES
RELATIVE TO PUBLIC WORKS
INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
Step A. Authority to Proceed - The Developer, in cooperation with the
Agency, establishes what infrastructure items shall be developed
and'when.
Step B Plans and Specifications The Developer causes plans and
specifications to be developed for each infrastructure item to be
constructed. A cost estimate is prepared for the project.
Step G Approval to ~ollctt Bids - The Redevelopment Agency authorizes
the solicitation of bids.
Step D AdvertisinR for Bids .- The Developer, acting as a "public works
contract bid administrator" on behalf of the Agency, causes the
advertising for bids through notification in a local newspaper,
and notification to the Green Sheet. Notice shall be published
at least twice, not less than five (5) days apart. The first
publication of the notice shall be at least ten (10) days before
the date of the opening of the bids.
Step E Submittal of Bids - Generally, it should state that all bids
shall be submitted to the City Clerk. It is permissible for bids
to be submitted to the offices of the Developer or his
engineering contractor with prior approval of the Agency.
Step F Ope__ninE_~f Bids - All bids are opened by the City Clerk in the
Council Chambers. Bids are ranked from lowest to highest and are
compared against the estimate prepared for the project. Late
bids are not accepted. Bids opened in the offices of the
Developer must follow the same procedure and be witnessed by a
City Official.
Step G Award of Contract - ~le lowest responsible bids are tabulated and
submitted to the Agency along with a recommendation for award of
the contract. The Agency may or may not accept the bids or the
Developer's recommendation. If the Agency takes no action
regarding a contract award recommendation, it shall be deemed as
approval of the Developer's recommendation.
Successful bidder is required to furnish a Performance Bond and a
Labor and Materials Bond.
RAY BRAGG #1 / RDA.BP / 5-23~86:brs / pg2
FFRTIFICATICfi REGARDING
PUBLIC BIDOING PRQCB3URES
IN REDEVELOPII!NI' PROJECT NIFJ~
Project:
(Contract Title)
Developer hereby certifies that all applicable public bid proGedures.of the
Fontana Redevelopment Agency and the Local Agencies Public Construction Act
(Public Contracts Code Section 20160~ et, seq,) have been followed,
1, Notice of a request for bids was published two times, at least 10 days
before the bid opening as follows:
First Publication:
(Date) (Publication)
Second Publication:
(not less that 5 (Date) (Publication)
days after first
publication)
2, BIds were received on at
(Date) (Time)
in the Office of the City Clerk or at the office of
3. Bids were publicly opened on at
(Date) (Time)
The bid, as accepted, Is the lowest responsible bid and is reasonable
pur!~uant to Industry standards for such contract,
Developer
Title
Date
Attachment: Proof of Publications
DON GEE #1 / BID-CERT [ 4-29-86:brs
CCENTENNIAL )
CENTENNIAL CAPITAL, INC.
May 19,. 1986
Mr. Robert Schoenborn, Director
Department of Public Works
City of Fontana
8353 Sj. erra Avenue
Fontaria, CA 92335
RE: NORTH FONTANA SEWER PROGRAM
Dear Bob:
I was pleased to meet with you and Bob Porter on May 7 to discuss
the status of the sewer program and how our project fits into the
overall_ picture. As you know, we need to have.sewer service avail-
able to us when we apply for building permits, which we anticipate
in 12-].6 months.
To this end, we are seriously contemplating building the stretch of
line from Beach Avenue at Foothill, the corner of Highland and
Citrus to serve our project. We have, in fact, retained Williamson
and Schmid to design this line. To help us'decide on our options,
we request the following from your office.
1. City requirements bidding, construction and construction
management if we build the line.
2. City policy or instructions to be followed to ensure our right
of reimbursement for oversizing or costs in excess of the current
$600/equivalent dwelling unit fee.
3. City's best estimate for when we could tie into the Beech
Avenue line and when that system would be operational.
Your prompt response to this letter will be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
CENTENNIAL CAPITAL, INC.
Ge~ldM. Robbins
Development Planner
GMR: f lm
cc: Reed Flory
282 S. Anita Drive, Orange, California (714) 634-9200
MailiEng Address · P.O. Box 399, Orange, California 92666-0399/Facsimile (714) 634-9242
Ci-[y of Fon- ana
C~kLIFOl~$I~k
May 16, 1986
File; West End Project
& Beech Avenue Sewer Main Project
Timothy J. Sabo
5855 Topang~ Canyon Blvd., Suite 100
Woodland Hills, CA 91367'
In accordance with your recent request, the City is providing
you with the figures indicating the costs of Phase I and
Phase II of the planned North Fontann sewer system (see attached).
In addition to these figures, you need to include any right-of-
wa~ costs, engineering coSts~ and legal administrative costs
and contingencies. Thesehhar~es could increase the costs by
as much as an additional 25 percent.
If you should hsve any questions regarding these figures, please
eontect this office.
'Robert Schoenborn,
7Maintenance/Engineering Services Agency Director
RS:wp
Attachment
ca: Reed
8353SIERRAAVENUE(PO. BOX5~8) FONFANA, CALIFORNIA92335
350-76Z0
SABO & GONDEK ~
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION L')
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 207
(816) 704-0195 SUITE 100 L...' ~SA 440 WEST COURT STREET
TELECOPIER: (818) 784-4729 5855 TOPANGA CANYON BOULEVARD N BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92401
WOODLAND HILLS, CALIFORNIA 91367 (714) 884-2960
(714) 824-7302
March 21, 1986
Mr.. Jack Ratelle
Ex~;eutive Director
Fontana Redevelopment Ageney
City Hall
83,~i3 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, California 92335
Dear Jack:
Enclosed please find a draft letter which I have previously reviewed and '
commented on explaining the proposed North Fontana Sewer Project. This letter
will be signed by the Mayor and Agency Chairman after your approval. Please
review this draft letter and provide me with your comments prior to said letter
being presented to the Mayor and Agency Chairman for their signature.
If you should have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to
eaX1.
Very truly yours,
SABO & GONDEK
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Timothy J. Sabo
TjS:ds
Enel.
· ' v "" DRAFT
March 12, 1986
Re: North Fontana Backbone Sewer Program
Dear Property Owner:
The City Council of the City of Fontana and the Fontaria Redevelopmerit
Agency' have undertaken an effort which will result in the construction of a
Backbone Sewer system for the '~North Fontana" area in which your property
is located. The financing of this effort requires the participation of
property owners. INITIALLY, ONLY THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS WHO C}tOOSE TO
PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROGRAM WILL BE PERMITTED TO USE THE SYSTEM. T]IOSE WHO
DO NOT PARTICIPATE IN TItIS INITIAL Fb'NDING EFFORT MAY BE REQUIRED TO WAIT
UNTIL THE NEW REGIONAL SEWER TREATMENT FACILITY IS IN OPERATION (ESTIMATED
TO BE BETWEEN 1992 AND 1994). North Fontana is a fast growing area. The
lack of backbone sewers is a major obstacle to the orderly development of
this area. We believe this program offers to you, the property owner, an
opportunity to more fully realize the economic potential of your property.
The City and the Agency are asking that you consider participating in the
program which will require the following commitments on your part:
1. Agreement to Pay a Fee: Based on the number of total participants
in this program, a Sewer Connection Fee is to be developed and is to
be collected for every residential, industrial, commercial or other
type of improvement proposed to be developed on your property. This
fee will replace the current $600.00 sewer hook-up fee currently
charged to every new Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) in the City. We
expect this new hook-up fee to be $600 - $750 per EDU and to be
increased each year by an amount equal to the City's cost associated
with the financing of this project. However, it is our goal to keep
this fee as close to $600 per EDU as possible.
As property owners you would be required to either prepay this fee to
avoid the additional costs or to pay a slightly escalated fee at the
time a building permit is obtained.
2. Schedule of Payment of Fee: In order to provide the security that
is needed to obtain project financing, each property owner who desires
to participate at this time in this sewer improvement program will
agree to a schedule for the payment of the fee described in paragraph
1 above. The requirements of the financing program will necessitate
fee payments to follow the agreed upon scheduie. A property owner
would not be able to accelerate development by way of an early payment
and even though a property owner may not be prepared to develop at the
date agreed to in the schedule, the fee will be due. It is
anticipated that most owners of property of less than 25 acres who do
not wish to develop their property immediately will be required to
agree to a schedule for the payment of the required fee over a period
of time estimated to be between 5 and 15 years. Property owners are
~eing asked to agree to a schedule which will not permit yod to build
~n your property sooner than as agreed yet will require the payment
~f fee according to such agreed upon schedule even though the
Eroperty owner may not yet be ready to develop the subject property.
3. Guarantee: Any anticipated project financing, if and to the extent
required to implement the project, would require that the fee and
payment schedule be a contractual agreement between the property owner
and the Fontana Redevelopmerit Agency. This contract in the form of an
"Owner Participation Agreement" would probably involve a guarantee in
the form of cash deposits, a letter of credit or a recorded "covenant
running with the land" which, in the case of default on the part of
the property owner, grants the Agency the "power of sale" of the
property. If property owners elect payment methods other than full
~ash payments, they would be required to guarantee the timely payment
of sewer connection fees through cash deposits, letters of credit or
the recordation of a lien against the property.
A large sewer implementation program such as the one proposed to you herein
is a very complicated issue. This initial communication to you may have
raised more questions than i~ answers. We have therefore set aside a six
week period during which both City and Agency staff will be available to
discusa the topic and within which period of time we must determine which
property owners desire to participate. Within six weeks, we will review
the amount of anticipated full cash payments and the cumulative fee payment
schedules as proposed to be contained within the Owner Participation
Agreements and proceed to establish the parameters of any financing program
to complete the North Fontana sewer project.
If you desire more information or seek to participate in the program as
described above, we ask that you communicate your interest in the North
Fontana Backbone Sewer Program to either Reed Flory or Roseann Mulhollen at
the City of Fontana (714) 350-7696.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours, Very truly yours,
Nathan Simon William Kragness
Mayor, City of Fontana Chairperson, Redevelopment
City of Fontana
C A L 1 F O ~ N 1 A
March 13, 1986
File: 71-7218
Foothill/Beech Sewer
James L. Dotson
Civil Engineer
22737 Barton Road, Suite 7
Grand Terrace, Ca. 92324
Re: Foothill/Beech Interceptor Sewer Project
Authorization for revision of plans and cost
This letter is in response to your February 19th letter regarding re-
visions to plans & Engineering Services Contract.
Per this letter; we are approving the revisions of the sewer plans and
authorizing the additional cost for the revisions at the current contract
unit prices-not to exceed $11,200.
If you should have any further questions, please call our office.
Robert Schoenborn, P.E.
Maint/Eng. Services Agency Director
By: Bob M. Porter
Engineering Services Director
RS:BMP:sm
cc: Reed Flory
8353 SIERRA AVENUE (P.O, BOX 518) FONTANA, CALIFORNIA 92335 (714) ,350-7600
227S7 8ARTON 80A0. SURTE 7
February 19, 1986 POST OFFICE BOX 885
GRAND TERRACE, CA 92324
(714) 824-9510
Robert Schoenborn, PE
Public Works Director
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, California 92335
Attention: Robert Porter, Deputy Director
Re: Foothill/Beech Interceptor Sewer Project
3~"qISIONSTO~PI~%N~ AND ENGIN~R~ING SERVICES CONTRACT
Gentlemen:
As you instructed at our meeting of January 31 just past, which
included Engineers of Hall-Foreman as representatives of the
Village of Heritage development, we have been endeavoring to
prepare an estimate of the cost and effort that will be required
to revise our Plans to accommodate the proposed storm drain along
Foothill between East and Beech. We have deliberately delayed
our response a bit in order to be certain that we have been
provided all required information, which we have been receiving
piecemeal and which includes proposed sewer, storm drain and water
main locations, depths, sizes, etc. At this writing we are not at
all sure we have all such information but we are tired of waiting
and submit this estimate accordingly. In fact this is the third
version of this letter, the other two having omitted some
considerations.
The changes required affect all 20-Sheet~· of our Plans. Both plan
and profile of Sheets 2-7 must be erased, redesigned and redrafted,
and the profile os Sheets 8-11 must be similarly revised. ~----
Stationing and certain other plan items are integrated within the
plans as a whole and these must also be changed somewhat on all
sheets. Additional right-of-way acquisition documents, some~''
additional preliminary field work and revision of miscellaneous
items such as quantity/cost estimates will also be required. We
had not begun work on the Project Specs nor bid documents, so no
effect is suffered in that regard.
Frankly we have no idea how much the changes will ultimately
cost and accordingly we offer the same sort of proposal here as
contained in our original Proposal, to wit, a not-to-exceed cost
with actual fees to be determined by hourly rates as set forth in
the PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF FEES of the original Proposal, which is
included as Exhibit "A" Of eur original contract. The proposed
not-to-exceed cost is $11,200.00.
· Robert Schoenborn, PE
Foothill/Beech Interceptor Sewer Project
Revisions to Plans and Engineering Services Contract
February 19, 1986
Page Two
The $11,200.00 has been determined by estimating that the changes
will require between 210 and 300-man hours. Our average cost per
man-hour for design and drafting has been $37.34/hour, and multiplying
this rate by the maximum estimated hours yields approximately
$11,200.00. The wide gap in estimated hours is based upon a
strong suspicion that a lot of time will be required for meetings,
coordiDation, calls, etc., which we prefer not to do but recognize
that we will probably have to do anyway just to get the Project
completed.
At the moment it appears we will have to coordinate only with the
firms of Hall-Foreman and Bein-Frost. However, a couple of days
ago we were called by Milt Madole who represents the Citation
Development along Beech between Miller and Baseline. We provided
Madole with plans for that reach along with a copy of the Amended
Master Plan and asked that they advise us quickly if our Plans do
not fit. their circumstances. Through other sources we are also
aware that Presley is becoming active with his developments north
of Baseline.
Along with our amended proposal herein, we again request that the
City host a general meeting of all developers, their engineers and
planners, utility agencies, etc. who may be affected by our Plans
for the! expressed purpose of giving each such person one chance
only of expressing their wishes regarding alignment, depth,
manhole and service points, etc. We feel that this is the best
method to ensure that no other costly changes will be required.
It would not be our recommendation to be entirely "democratic" at
such a meeting. To allow 15 or so developers/engineers to impose
their own petty concerns upon our design effort would create
chaos. The purpose of the meeting would be more to advise and to
seek out only serious conflicts and concerns.
As we advised at our recent meeting, the changes caused by the
conflict with Hall-Foreman's storm drain will add as much as
$100,000 to the Project's cost. In addition and because of the
increased depths required along Foothill, we will be considering
the use of gravel bedding which will increase the cost even more.
When depths exceed 15-feet we simply do not trust that the trench
bottom material will be the same as that visible at the surface.
Since we are not providing boring tests we prefer to be
conservative and specify gravel bedding. We can always delete
some or all if field conditions and construction methods permit.
Please advise us soon if the proposal included herein is
acceptable. A verbal response is sufficient to begin work. Be
Robert Schoenborn, PE
Foothill/Beech Interceptor Sewer Project
Revisions to Plans and Engineering Services Contract
February 19, 1986
Page Three
advised. that we have ceased all work on the Project while awaiting
your instructions. As before, we prefer to prepare the amendment
to our contract and will do so if you concur.
If there are other questions or instructions, Please call.
Respectful ly,
James L. Dotson, CE la:
Gity of Fon.- ana
CAiLIFO_'RNIA
September 20, 1985
File: 70-7218, Beech Avenue
Sewer Main
James L, Dotson
22737 Barton Road, Suite 7
P.O. Box 885
Grand Terrace, CA 92324
Enclosed, for your files, is a fully executed copy of the
Agreement for the provision of engineering services in the
preparation of the Beech Avenue Sewer Improvement Plans.
If you should have any questions regarding this matterr please.
contact this office.
Robert Schoenborn,
Public Works Director
RS:wp
Enclosure
8353 SIERRA AVENUE (P O, BOX518) FONTANA, CALfFORNIA92335 (714)823-3411
DEPARTMENT OF TRAN , ORTATION/
FLOOD CONTROL/AIRPORTS
825 East Third Street · MICHAEL G. WALKER
November 6, 1987
Pile: Yard 3/Beech Avenue
City of Pontana ~v~ · '
Pontana, CA 92335-0518
Attention: Bob Porter, Engineering Services Direchef
Subject: Beech Avenue Sewer Project Between Foothill Blvd. and Base Line
Dear Bob:
In reply to your letter of November 2, 1987, please be advised that
all easements and fee-owned properties, (See Streets & Highways Code No.
989), convert to the city upon incorporation or annexation; therefore, the
12' wide strip is now in your control north of Fontaria city limits.
In respect to the same 12t wide strip south of the city limits down
to Foobhill Boulevard, we request that you transmit sewer plane to Mr. Don
Wells, our Permits Engineer. Since there are no road improvements, he can
issue you a gratis letter of non-objection for installation of your sewer
lines.
This should satisfy your concerns, but if you have any additional
questions, feel free to call me at (714) 387-2623.
Very truly yours,
KEN A. MILLER~ Director
Transportation/Flood Control
KAM:AJG:df
cc: JES-Reading File
Don Wells
CIVIL ENGINEERING · LAND PLANNING · LAND SURVEYING
November 5, 1987 Job #3906
42,7 L1
City of Fontana
Engineering Dept.
P.O. Box 518
Fontana, CA 92335
Attention: Bob Porter
Regarding: Foothill Sewer Interceptor
Beech Ave. to Wet Well
This is a follow-up letter to confirm our conversation a few
weeks ago regarding design criteria for the subject sewer.
The following criteria will be used unless we hear otherwise
from you:
Total No. of Homes Served = 1500
Average Daily Sewage Flow/Home = 250 G.P.D.
Peaking Factor = 2.0
Should you have any questions, please contact the
undersigned.
HALL & FOREMAN, INC.
m~~
Ah S
Project Engineer
AS:dr
3170 REDHILL AVENUE · COSTAMESA, CALIFORNIA 92626-3428 · (714) 641-8777
City of Fontana
~: A L I F 0 B N I A
November 2, 1987
File: Beech Avenue Sewer Project
San Bernardino County Transportation
& Flood Control
San Bernardino County
Department of Transportation/Flood Control
825 E. Third Street
San Bernardino, CA 92415
Attention: Ken Miller, Director
This letter is in connection with a 12-foot strip of land currently
owned by the County between Foothill Boulevard and Baseline Road and
within the future alignment of Beech Avenue.
Currently, the City is having sanitary sewer improvement plans pre-
pared for the construction in this area, with future plans to develop
Beech Avenue in the same area (see attachment). At this point in time,
the City would request that you consider this information and obtain
the necessary Board of Supervisors' approval to grant the City an ease-
ment of the above noted 12-foot strip for street and highway purposes.
If you should have any questions or need any additional information,
please contact this Department.
Robert Schoenborn, P.E.
Maintenance/Engineering Services Agency Director
By: Bob M. Porter
Engineering Services Director
RS: BMP: wp
At tachmen t
8353 SIERRA AVENUE (P,O. BOX 518) FONTANA, CALIFORNIA 92334-0518 (7t4! 350-76:,5
City of Fontana
CALIFORNIA
~'/~O october 12, 19S7
File: Foothill/Beech Sewer Project
Kobayashi & Associates
P.O. Box 3729
Fullerton, CA 92631
Attention: Eiichi Kobayashi
Subject: Right-of-Way for Foothill/Beech Sewer Project
This letter is being written in connection with our telephone conver-
sation of October 7, 1987, regarding a proposal from your company to
handle the right-of-way acquisition for a proposed sewer project.
Attached you will find a vicinity map showing the proposed route of the
sewer and a typical section within Foothill Boulevard.
If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please contact
this Department.
Robert Schoenborn, P.E.
Maintenance/Engineering Services Agency Director
By: Bob M. Porter
Engineering Services Director
8353 SIERRA AVENUE (P.O. BOX 518) FONTANA. CAUFORNRA 92334-0518 (714) 350-7600
CIVIL ENGINEERING · LAND PLANNING · LAND SURVEYING
3170 REDHILL. AVENUE · COSTAMESA, CALIFORNIA 92626-3428 · (714) 641-8777
/Motion was made by Councilman Koehler, seconded by Mayor Simon APR. BUDGET
to authorize a budget adjustment for the Foothill/Beech Sewer ADJ. FOOTHILL/
Main Installation (71-7218) increasing the budgeted amount by BEECH SEWER
$32,0G0, and carried by the following vote: #71-7218
APR. AGREE
AYES: M~VO~ Simon. Councilmen Boylos, Yn~hlo,
~lct~on ~as made Oy Mayor Simon, secon~e~ by Councilman Koehler
to approve an a~reement with Hall and Foreman for the preparation of sanitary sewer
plan, contract administration and inspection from Cherry and Foothill to Beech and
Baseline and also from Beech and Foothill to Lime and Foothill, and to authorize the
execution by appropriate ~ity offtciala of an a~reement in the amount not to exceed
$B1,1~8.00. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Mayor Simon, Councilmen Boylos, Koeh~er, Kragnesa
NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Day
~27~7 BARTON ~OAD. ~U~TE 7
September 2, 1987 POST OFFICE BOX 885
GRAND TERRACE, CA 92324 -
(714) 824-9510
Robert J. Schoenborn, CE 85=072_CF
Public ~gorks Director
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontand,, CA. 92325
Attn.: Robert Porter
Re: Foothill/Beech Interceptor Sewer Project
ENG][NEERING SERVICES PROPOSAL (REVISED)
Bob(s) ::
On Friday 28 August just past we met and discussed my providing
3-revised proposals:
1) Foothill/Hemlock-Lime
2) Beech/Foothill-Baseline
3) Right-of-way acquisition for both.
On Sunday 30 August I set about to prepare said proposals as I
implied at our meeting that I would. After 3-hours into that
effort I allowed a rage to overwhelm me. I flung everything on
my desk in every direction and went for a long walk. Upon
returning I cleaned up the mess (which was major) and repaired
the damage (which was minor).
No revised proposals to you from me are forthcoming. I quit.
I've had it !
I reviewed my files and discovered that we have:
I) Been involved in this Project since May 6, 1985, a total
of 850-days.
2) Submitted 1-original and 7-modified proposals for all or
portions of the Project.
3) Prepared S-versions of the so-called Master Sewer Plan
for the Project.
4) Made 1-major and 3-mlnor changes to our "completed"
plans to accommodate other proposed utilities.
5) Logged 41-hours on the telephone with Developers and/or
their Engineers who called us (not counting Hall & Foreman)
discussing the "situation in Fontand", the time for which the
City paid us nothing.
6) Artended 9-meetings with various City officials,
cc, nsultants, developers, w. heels and big-whigs~ for which the
City paid us plenty.
Robert J. 5choenbo CE
Robert Porter
Foothill/Beech Interceptor Sewer Project
Engineering Services Proposal (Revised)
September 2~ 1987
Page Two
7) Constructed not ONE FOOT of sewer main, except for that
portion of the Project relinquished to Hall and Foreman
at my suggestion.
Something is terribly wrong~ either with me or with City Hall.
Within 90-days of submission of my very first proposal
realize([ that the City should never have hired me or any other
Engineel' for this Project and that such hiring was very
premature.
My opinion of the moment is similar and I strongly recommend
that the City needs neither mine nor an other Engineerls services
to get this job done. The Master Plan and almost all the
Plan/Profiles are complete and that fact is sufficient to
require whichever Developer screams the loudest to put his
money where his mouth is and pay his own Engineer to package
the damned job and get it built. The City has done enough!
As you may know, I have served in the positions of City and
District Engineer for several local agencies for over 20-years.
Accordingly I feel certain by experience that I know what has
occurred in Fontanals City Hall to cause this Project to become
a mess. Many times I have been caught between politics and
reality and almost every time I lost. The few times I
required[ that I perform a little butt-kicking, black-
mailing, favor-trading or whatever. Of course I was fired
several times also, and even labeled 'intractableu on occasion.
So be it! There remains only one way to get a project
completed: Hire a good Engineer~ hire a good Contractor then get
the Hell. out of the way.
I suggest somebody in City Hall is "in the way"~ is bringing
unnecessary pressure on your staff~ and is accomplishing nothing
in the process. My departure is not going to help you in that
regard and in one sense I feel like a traitor. Maybe that
could be changed to "martyr" and some good will come from the
deed. Remember, only by us stepping aside did any of this
Project get completed.
Please advise me as to the disposition of your plans~ records
and data.. No further charges will be made to the City.
However I reserve the right to charge the socks off any
Developer's Engineer for copies of anything in my possession.
' Robert J. Schoenbor~s~CE
Robert Porter
Foothill/Beech Interceptor Sewer Project
Engineering Services Proposal (Revised)
September 2~ 1987
Page Three
Although I believe my action is in the best interests of the
City~ I know you will suffer accordingly, and I apologize for
that. I enjoyed the Project~ I learned a lot and I
particularly enjoyed shop talk with Bob Porter.
Good luck fellows~ good luck.
u_~with Regrets~
James L. Dotson~ CE
JLD:sande
CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS
August 2% 1987
Mr. Robert Schoenborn
City Engineer
City of Fontana
P.O. Box 582
Fontana, CA 9233t~
Dear Mr. Schoenborn:
SUB3ECT: LA CUESTA, FONTANA - OFF-SITE SEWER;
OUR 3OB NO. 85611.70
Based upon our recent telephone conversations, it is my understanding that the
off-site sewer which will be serving the La Cuesta project is existing in Marlay
Avenue, Etiwanda Avenue, Arrow Boulevard, and continues up to the intersection
of Foothill Boulevard and Cherry Avenue where it presently originates in a
manhole.
Additionally, there are two more reaches that will be constructed by the
City: in Foothill Boulevard, from Cherry Avenue to Beech Avenue, and in Beech
Avenue from Foothill Boulevard to Baseline Avenue.
The plans for the remaining City funded sewer improvements are essentially
complete. Although there remains some right-of-way to be acquired on Beech
Avenue, the remaining sewer reaches should be completed by February 1989. If
my understanding of our telephone conversation is incorrect, please advise me.
Sincerely, : -
Barry L. Beech
Corporate Office
mct
cc: Mr. Gerry Robbins, Centennial Development Fund V
Mr. Richard R. Schmid, Williamson and Schmid
Mr. Tom Melendrez, Williamson and Schmid
(;orporate Office · 17782 Sky Park Blvd. · Irvine, California 92714 · 7141261-2222
Inland Empire Office · 1630 E. Francis St., Ste. B · Ontario, California 91761 · 714/947-0447
San Diego County Office · 5375 Avenida Encinas, Ste. C · Cadsbad, California 92008 · 619/438-4332
CIVIL ENGINEERING · LAND PLANNING · LAND SURVEYING
August 7, 1986 Job #3614
#3586
City of Fontana
Dept. of Public Works
P.O. Box 518
Fontana, CA 92335
Attention: Bob Porter
Regarding: Foothill Blvd. Sewer
Pursuant to our conversation, we understand that you will authorize
Jim Dotson, the engineer for the Foothill Blvd. sewer, to proceed
with his plans, submit for plan check, and gain approval of such.
We respectfully request that the plans be given an expedition
checking time, as they tie into both the Etiwanda Trunk Sewer and
the Cherry Avenue sewer that we have prepared and submitted.
Also, we would like to include his plans from East Ave. to
Foothill Blvd. into our Mello-Roos package for the West End
project. If he needs any information from our office to proceed,
he may contact myself or John Sims at his convenience.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
HALL & FOREMAN, INC.
Project Manager
cc: John Stephenson
Doug Ford
Hugh Foreman
3170 REDHILL AVENUE · COSTAMESA, CALaFORNIA 92626-3428 · (714) 641-8777
TO: Bob Schoenborn, Tim Sabo, Reed Flory, A1 Uman, Jerry Linton,
Bruce Varner, Jerry Robbins, Stan Hoffman, Bob Porter
FROM: John Davis
SUBJECT: Update and Timetable for North Fontana Sewer
DATE: November 22, 1986
Ourlng the past week, I learned the following about the North
Fontaria Master Plan Sewer.
1. The ordinance providing for levy and collection of sewer
connection fees for the Etiwanda Interceptor Sewer Line is
scheduled for introduction on December 2, adoption on December
16, 1~86 and effect on January 15, 1987.
2. The West End segment of the line is in final plan check,
with bidding scheduled for December 1986. Construction is
expected to begin in March 1987 under a four contractor arrange-
ment, to be complete in May 1987. The line has been financed
through sale of Mello-Roos Bonds.
3. Jim Ootson's design of the Beech Avenue line to serve
Rancho Fontana is substantially completed. A1 Uman and Jerry
Litton agreed to pursue right-of-way acquisition for the Beech
Avenue line, extending to its connection with the West End
line on Foothill Boulevard. Citation has suggested connecting
with the West End line at its terminus at Target Warehouse,
along Miller Avenue to provide service north of Miller and
west of Beech, as well as providing possible temporary service
for the Beech line north of Miller. City staff will support
addition of the Miller Avenue extension between Beech and
Target, subject to provision of design work by Citation.
City staff will not support changing design capacity on the
West End line. The Beech Avenue segment must be completed
as now planned and designed.
4. 'the following is necessary to complete the Beech Avenue
line: (a) City to enter into acquisition and reimbursement
agreement for right-of-way with Presley, Centennial and other
interested developers; (b) Beech Avenue design to undergo
plan check; (c> Caltrans and rail permits need to be secured.
5. The Miller Avenue interconnect between Beech and West
End needs: (a) acceptance as a City Master Plan line; (b)
design, acquisition and reimbursement agreements with Citation
and other interested developers; (c> determination of capacity
for interim use pending completion of the Beech Avenue line.
6. A likely timetable for the Beech line is 90 days for
right-of-way, plan check and permits, 60 additional days for
bidding, and 120 additional days construction.
North Fontana Sewer
Page ;!
7. The La Cuesta segment is proceeding with design by Williamson
and Sohmidt, with changes in alignment supported by City staff.
The d~slgn will llnk La Cuesta to Beech and Nillet, the terminus
of the line north is undertermined. Dedication of the line
en lieu of fees may be accomplished through a Mello-Roos or
assessment district in place prior to the expiration of the
first 30 day period for cash payment, at $600 per equivalent
dwelling unit. Dedication may be accomplished by guaranteeing
according to the deferred payment schedule during the second
30 day period, at the fee in place on the date of dedication.
The City will determine the value of the llne at dedication.
3erry Robbins has been advised accordingly.
City of Fontana
CALIFORNIA
September 30, 1986
File: Foothill/Beech Sewer Project
Williamson & Schmid
1630 E. Francis Street, Suite B
Ontarfo, CA 91761
Attention: Tom Melendrez
Subject: Proposed Alignment for the Foothill/Beech Sewer
Interceptor Extension; Your Job Nor 85611.2
This letter is in response to your request to modify the City of
Fontana's Master Sanitary Sewer Plan. Your request has been re-
viewed by our Department and discussed with Mr. Peter Broy in our
Planning Department, with a determination that yonr request is
reasonable and appropriate, The changes have been made, and you
may request a copy of the revised plan if you wish.
If you should have any further questions regarding this matter,
please contact this Department.
Robert Schoenborn, P,E,
Maintenance/EngineerinR Services Agency Director
By: Bob M. Porter
Engineering Services Director
RS:BMP:wp
8353SIERRAAVENUE(PO BOX518) FONTANACALIFORNIA92335 (714)823-3411
/tlJil ;;
1773~ser~lNE BLVD., Suite No. 201. TUSTIN, CA 92680 {',~,e;"731-0141"~
September 2, 1986
Bob Schoenborn
City Engineer
City of Fontana
P.O. Box 518
Fontana, CA 92334
Dear Bob:
The purpose of this letter is to implore you to initiate
discussions with Caltrans regarding the Foothill Boulevard sewer
with Bill Edmonds rather than at the "normal" staff level.
The complexity of this line coupled with the importance of
approval time makes for a higher level conference at the start
a rational beginning.
I know this is not your preferred way, but this situation has a
lot of different factors.
Sincerely,
CITATION BUILDERS, a partnership
\
F. G.. Lint n, Jr.
Manager]
ec: Jack Ratelle, City Manager
W'iL_ !AMSON % SCHM!D
CONSULTING ,CIVIL ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS
September 2, 198~
Mr. Robert M. Porter
Engineering Services Director
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
Dear Bob:
SUBJECT: PROPOSED ALIGNMENT FOR THE FOOTHILL/BEECH SEWER
INTERCEPTOR EXTENSION; OUR JOB NO. 85611.2
In response to your letter dated August 8, 1986, I've review-
ed the impacts on the future sewer system for the area north
of Baseline near Citrus relative to the proposed interceptor
alignment (see Exhibits A,B and C). Sewer flows were tabulat-
ed utilizing the parameters outlined in the Master Sewer Plan
of the City of Fontana - 1982 and correlated with the current
land[ uses projected in the 1981 General Plan (Exhibit D).
In summary, the future sewer line in Baseline west of Citrus
would have to be upsized from 10" to 12". There does not ap-
pearto be any change on the size of the proposed interceptor.
Upon approval of the proposed alignment our office will pro-
vide! a more comprehensive sewer study for the proposed inter-
ceptor extension.
I hope this information will assist you in your final decision
r~garding the proposed interceptor's alignment and look for-
war~ to discussing this matter with you again soon. Feel free
to contact me if you have any question about the material I
have submitted.
Sincerely,
Inland Empire Office
skr
Enclosures: Four Exhibits (3 Sets)
Three Charts (3 Sets)
cc: Jerry Robbins, Centennial W/Enclosure (1)
C,)rporate Office · 17782 Sky Park Blvd. · I~ine, California 92714 · 714/261-2222
Inland [Empire Office . 1630 E. Francis St., Ste. B · Ontario, California 91761 · 714/947-0447
San Diego County Office · 5235 Avenida Encinas, Ste. C · Carlsbad, California 92008 · 619/438-4332
227~7 8~RTON MO~O, 8U~TE
POBT OFHCE BOX 888
December 23, 1985 GRAND TERRACE, CA 92324
(714) 824-9510
Bob Porter
Deputy Public Works Director
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana. CA 92335
Re: Foothill/Beech Interceptor Sewer Project
SEWER EASEMENT FORMS
Bob:
As we discussed enclosed are forms we prepared and recommend for
use in recording easements to beacquired for the project. The
enclosed forms are almost identical to those used by the City of
Beaumont, City of Big Bear Lake and a couple of special districts
for which I have been employed to obtain easements.
Please note thatthere are two (2) forms, one for individuals and
one for corporate. We anticipate a need for both and detest having
to staple a special notarial acknowledgement to a standard form.
The Recorder complains about the staples also.
Please advise of any desired corrections and also if the form is
acceptable. Upon revising we will have several copies of each
prepared and hopefully in printed form on nice stationary.
Respectfully, ~
James L. Dotson, CE C
JLD:sm
Enclosures: Easement Forms (2) ~
(liiy of Fon.- ana
C~kLI FOI~'IA
January 17, 1986
file: 70~7218
Beech kvewse Sewer Main
James L. Dotson
P.O. Box 885
Grand Terrace, CA 92324
Subject: Foothill/Beech Interceptor Sewer Project
Sewer Easement Forms
This is in response to your letter Of December 23, 1985, with
which you enclosed suggested Easement Deed forms to be used in
relation to the subject project.
The City would prefer to use its standard Easement Deed forms.
The forms can be provided to you witb either ind~vid'usl acknowl-
edgement or corporate acknowledgment as needed (see enclosed).
We will provide the number of each form which yon may need.
If you should have any further questions regarding this matter,
please feel free to contact me.
Robert Sehoenborn, P.E?
Public Works Director
By: Bob M, porter
Deputy public Works Director
RS:BMP|wp
Enclosures
:: 535~ERRAAVENLIE(PO BOX518/ ;:ONFANA. C/~LIFORNIA92335 :/14)823-341~
February 6, 1986
James L. Dotson
22737 Barton Road~ Suite ?
Post Office Box 885
Grand Terraces California 92324
AttenLions Mr. Kelth Dagostino
Subject: Foothill/Beech Interceptor Se
Gentlemen:
In response to your letter dat 86~ we have reviewed
your Preliminary Plans for the above pr have comments.
· Approximately 650 feet ~ill be affects by the sewer
interceptor alignment. The design work of our facilities will
be handled by our company. The appr for the relocation work is
$23,000.
If you should furth, please contact the under-
signed.
Very truly yours~
"~'?~i~ Luis F. Montenegro
/' Property Manager
cc: Carlos Navarro
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fentana, CA 92335
LFM:Ju
I 1142 GARVEY AVENUE * P.O. BOX 6010 * EL MONTE, CALIFORNIA 91734 · (213) 448-6183
22737 BARTON ROAD, SUITE 7
November 22, 1985 POST OFFICE BOX 885
GRAND TERRACE, CA 92324
(714) 824-9510
Robert Sehoenborn, PE
Public Works Director
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, California 92325
Re: Foothill/Beech Interceptor Sewer Project
PRE-DESIGN CONFERENCE
Mr. Schoenborn:
As we requested and stipulated in our Proposal, we would like
the City to convene and host a conference of concerned persons
and agencies to review our preliminary design concepts for
the Project. It is our hope that after said single meeting,
we can prepare final plans and specifications in such manner
that none or very few changes need be made.
The Plans will consist of 19 sheets (maybe 20!) and at the
meeting we propose to display prints of these on which will
be shown in "red-line" our proposed horizontal and vertical
alignment, manhole locations, right-of-way requirements,
conducbor tubes, etc. We will also bring along for display
a video-recording of the general route of the sewer.
We consider the horizontal alignment to be the most critical
aspect of the Project. The general route offers several specific
and potentially difficult and/or expensive problems which
must be considered and resolved prior to preparing final
drawings. Our "red-line" plans include proposed solutions
to most of these perceived problems. For example, to avoi~
the expense of restoring existing pavement disturbed by
trenching along travelled lanes of Foothill, we propose to
remove eucalyptus trees and place the sewer main where these
now stand. All other corridors along Foothill are either
paved or occupied by utilities. Avoidance of utilities has
also led to peculiar solution proposals.
Enclosed herewith is a list of those persons and/or agencies
we would like to attend the meeting. We do not know any specific
persons: within these agencies to contact, and we trust that
you do. We request that the conference be held at City Hall
during the afternoon of Friday, December 6, if at all possible.
Also enclosed is a proposed agenda which we ask that you
Robert Sehoenborn, PE
Foothill/Beech Interceptor Sewer Project
Pre-Design Conference
November 22, 1985
Page Two
consider to be very tentative and to revise as you best see
fit. The agenda has been deliberately designed such that
most of those attending can go home after the horizontal
alignment is confirmed. The latter part of the agenda will
involve only your immediate staff.
We prefer to avoid inviting any developers to attend and have
included Hall-Foreman only as a courtesy to their previous
inquiries. However, our proposed alignment includes crossing
Gilfillan Airport property inside the fenced perimeter. We
believe that the Airport now houses a top-secret NSA unit and
accordingly, it may be prudent to invite someone there to
attend the conferenee.
While writing this letter I have been looking at our red-line
plans and it occurs to me that even though not yet in presentation
form, it might be best that your staff also review these plans
prior to the pre-design meeting. There are about six (6)
distinct alignment considerations along the 26,000-feet of
the Project, and we propose to resolve each problem in the
manner we believe to be best. You may prefer different
solutions, however. We don't want to delay the December 6
meeting-date, but if you wish to meet with us before this,
please call.
If there are questions or instructions, please contact either
me or Keith Dagostino.
ResPec~L~u~~
James L. Dotson, CE
~ Proposed Agenda
City of Fontana, California
Foothill/Beech interceptor Sewer Main Project
Pre-Design Conference - December 6, 1985
LIST OF RECOMMENDED ATTENDEES
Robert Schoenborn, Public Works Director
RObert Porter, Deputy Public Works Director
James Lo Dotson, Project Engineer
Representative(s of City Planning Department
Representative(s of City Sewer Oper./Mtce° Department
Representative(s of Cal Trans
Representative(s of Chine Basin MWD (Water Div.)
Representative(s of San Gabriel Valley Water Company
Representative(s of San Bernardino County Flood Control Dist.
Representative(s of Southern California Gas Company
Representative(s of Southern California Edison Company
Representative(s of Southern Pacific Railroad Company
Representative(s of Pacific Telephone Company
Representative(s of Hall and Foreman, inc.
o0o
City of Fontana, California
Foothill/Beech Interceptor Sewer Main Project
Pre-Design Conference - December 6, 1985
PROPOSED AGENDA
I - General Presentation of Project
A - General Alignment
B - Amended Sewer Master Plan
C - Description of Pending Developments
II - Video Presentation of Proposed Route
A - Foothill
B - Beech
III Presentation of Proposed Specific Horizontal
and Vertical Alignments
A - Etiwanda Creek Crossing to East Avenue
B - Foothill-Crossing to Ilex Avenue
C - Foothill-Ilex to Cherry Avenue
D Foothill-Cherry to Beech
E Beech-Foothill to Baseline
F Beech-Baseline to Highland
G Beech-Highland to Terminus
IV Discussion/Revision/Confirmation of Proposed
Alignment
A Cal Trans
B - Utility Agencies
C - Flood Control
D - City Staff
V - Design/Construction Requirements of Outside Agencies
A - Cal Trans
B - Utility Agencies
C - Flood Control
VI - Right-of-Way Acquisition
A - Easement, Dedication of R/W etc.
B - Document Forms
C - Appraisals, Title Reports, etc.
D - Gilfillan Airport
VII Design Criteria
A - Manholes ~
1 - Location 3 - Co+er Elevation
2 - Stubs 4 - Sizing
B - Service Connections
City of Fontana, California
Foothill/Beech Interceptor Sewer Main Project
Pre-Design Conference - December 6, 1985
PROPOSED AGENDA CONTINUED
VII - Design Criteria Continued
C - Special Pipe Bedding
D Surface Restoration
E Conductor Tubes
1 End at Manholes
2 Flotation Counter Measures
VIII - Summary/Reiteration
o0o
l,\
'1.//
''-'1
\'
City
of
Fontana
CALIFORNIA
October 10, 1985
James L. Dotson, Civil Engineer
Post Office Box 885
Grand Terrace, California 92324
Reference: Your letter dated October 7, 1985/Purchase Order 4735
~~r. Dotson,
I read with interest the partial court decision that you orovided with your
letter of October 7, 1935. The focus of the court decision seem to rest on
the key phrase "unapportioned business activity entirely within the taxing
city." A business license fee based on a category of business and assigned
a flat rate tax for that business activity, regardless of the business base,
could fall under this description. However, in Fontana, the business license
tax is apportioned as to the quantum of the transaction actually done in the
city. Accordinq to the figures provided on purchase order number 4735, your
apportioned business activity in Fontana would be $55,100.00. ~~e are con-
fident that a court of law would not hold that dollar figure as "a relatively
small amount", nor would we feel that engineering services performed to align
sewer lines and provide topograhic work \'iould require "only a few hours" of
actual activity within the city.
Based upon this evidence, we will again request compliance with the Fontana
City Code and have enclosed a business license application for your use. If
you need any assistance, or if you have any further questions, please feel
free to contact this office.
I recently had the opportunity to meet your sister, ~ikki Fletcher, at a
~uarterly meeting of the California Municipal Business Tax Association. That
she would disagree with everything you said in your letter is the only point
that you and I have agreed upon.
Respectfully,
~d;otVv~
Jane Harris
Business License Inspector
enc.
cc:
cc:
City Attorney
Public Works Director~
8353 SIERRA AVENUE (P.O. BOX 518) FONTANA, CALIFORNIA 92335 (714) 823<J411
JAMES L. DOTSON
CIVIL ENGINEER
October 7, 1985
22737 BARTON ROAD. SUITE 7
POST OFFICE BOX 885
GRAND TERRACE, CA 92324
(714) 824-9510
Jane Harris
Business License Inspector
P.O. Box 518
Fontana, California 92335
Re: PO 4735
Engineering Services/Beech Avenue
Ms. Harris:
I received your request dated September 30, 1985 for a business
license fee. Before complying with your request however, I
wish to make one of you.
Enclosed is a copy of a brief article about a California Appelate
Court decision concerning a City that tried to collect a
business license fee from an engineering firm which provided
services within that City but which had offices elsewhere.
I hope you find the article interesting and recognize that
my circumstance is similar.
I request that you confer with the City's attorney, advise him
of the Appelate Court decision, and ask for his opinion regarding
my firm being required to pay the fee. You may also find it
interesting that 4-other firms will be employed by me to do
part of the work included under my contract and that none of
these firms are located in Fontana.
Also please note that any fee I pay to your department will
in turn be indirectly billed to the Public Works Department.
In effect then, the City will be paying itself. On a personal
note, be aware that my sister, Mikki Fletcher, is the Business
License Inspector for the City of Colton. She undoubtedly
will disagree with everything I've said in this letter.
If there are questions or instructions, please call.
Respectfully, ~
d' a~ fl.on, CE C-/'
JLD:Rena
Enclosure: ASCE - Court Decisions (03/83)
xc: Mikki Fletcher w/Encl.
T'DECISIONS
--.
OSHA, MUL 11-
EMPLOYER SITE
LAND USE,
SPOT ZONING
1
. .
. The contractual respon- Although the size of a
sibility ~f another contrac- tract is important in a Spot
.tor to provide protection zoning issue it is not the ac-
does not always excuse an tual size that is important, a
.. employer's permitting its Texas appellate court ruled.
employees co be exposed to Rather, the court said, it is
a hazard, a U.S. appellate the size of the rezoned tract
court ruled. in relation to affected
. A company was assessed neighboring lands that is
a S 1 ,600 penalty by the significant.
Occupational Safety and In 1970 the City of T ex-
Health Review Commis- arkana adopted a compre-
sian for a repeated viola- hensive zoning ordinance.
tion of regulations with re- In 19i2 a six-acre tract of
gard to unguarded open land owned by Valentine
sides. The company was a Lukas and some surround-
specialty subcontractor. ing tracts were annexed to
that erected forms for the.~..:the..c~y; !lnci placed in an
construction. 'M "concrete (agriCultural zoning distriCt.
floors. The citation was for' ~'Thit:,1iermitted residential
exposing employees to ,the. "~s.e>b\1t restricted to a single
hazards of unguarded open' . family, residence on at least
sides of the floors with a!,-.:. ne ~cre. uter, the city
drop of approximately 12'ft'adopted an ordinance
and 24 ft. The Commission . amending the zoning of the
upheld the penalty as to the Lukas tract to allow for
12ft drop. The company }Ilultiple family units. Oth-
had two previou3 cirations :er landowners sued to have
for unguarded open sides. !the amending ordinance
On appeal, the company declared invalid as Spot
argued that the Commis- zoning. The trial court
sion erroneously found a ruled against Lukas.. .
violation because as a sub- The appellate court
conrractor, it neither agreed that the amendatory
created nor controlled the ordinance tingled out a
hazard to which its em- small six-acre tract for treat-
p!oyees were allegedly ex-' ment ditferent from that ac-
posed. But, the court said corded similar surrounding
the company had the pri- land without proof of
mary responsibility for its changes in cORditions. The
employees. Whilerecogniz- 'court rejected Lukas' con-
ing that the company did tencion that this tract
not take down or destruct should not be considered a
existing guardrails, the small tract because it was ai-
court said the company par- most six acres. According to
ticipated in the erection of the court, when the six-acre
the open-sided floor while Lukas tract was compared
leaving its edges un- with the neighboring lands
guarded. it was a relatively small tract.
Dun-Par Engineered Form Cit1 ofTexarkana v. How-
Co. v. OSHRC, U.S. Court ard, Court of Appeals of
of Appeals for the Tenrh Texas, Mar. 30, 1982,rehear-
Circuit, Apr. 21,1982 (CEI ing denied Apr. 27, 1982
02/M.-$5) (CE/03/M.-$5) .
"
,.
'"
.r,!
:~.,
--
-.
'V
.- .
J,
22 CIVIL ENGINEERING I ASCE
"'JIio~
INTERCITY
LI CENSE,
UNCONSTI-
TUTIONAL
IMPLIED
WARRANTY,
USED HOME
The second owner of a
used home had no action
\ for breach of implied war-
Does a relatively small rancies, according to a Tex.
yearly business tax on engi- as appellate court.
neers unapportioned on Vijae Gupta purchased a
the one hand as to business home for investmenc pur-
activity entirely within the poses from James Wobig,
taxing city, and on the oth- the original owner. Wobig
er, as to occasional intercity had purchased the home
business transactions new three months earlier
therein, meet constitution- from the bUilder-vendor,
al requirements? Ritter Homes; Inc. Shortly
No, according to a Cali- after his pu-rehase, Gupta
fornia appellate court. noticed cracij,3J'pearingin
The City of San Jose the wall,driveway and ga:-
passed an.. ordina.nce pro.. .' rage: sf.a!1:~:~~',,:piade m,~-f:.
. viding.foran:annual" mini' nor repau:a/T1:jereafter the .
mum license taK of $30 for . ctacks..inc::re~in severitv_
businesses of a Cerci.in si'Ze'but"Ritter,~'f\1rth~r
whether or not the bysiness tepair. Gup~~~ .sued . Ritter
. had a fixed place 11');. the ."Claiming a btellch of anim.:'
city. . ",. plied warranty and neglF
An e~glnee~lng ~rm 11-,. ,~'n'ce.The trlalcourt ruled,
censed In Califorma and-." 'R' f-,.. . ,....
. b' I' or mer. ..
paym~ uSlness Icense . ,The appellate. court
taxes In Los Angeles, Oak:. ,.iigree~ that n~iIl?:pliedw~r. :
land and Newport, .was enianties. 'flowed .to' Guprit..
gaged by a~ architect t? . since he "khof.llingly.p~.'
per~orm services on a proJ- .s:hased a \1se,*ho~e."Ho~;"
ect 10 San Jose. ':ever the court did believe,
Only 12 hours were that'Oupta dId 'not have c9'
spet;t In San Jose by the establish a contractual rela-;
~rm s emp.loyee. San Jose tion with Ritter inorder:rb',
Imposed a hcense ~ax on the recover on. the _neglige1'\~"
fir~. The firm objected but theory. A neW trial'waso,t;
a trial COUrt upheld the tax. dered to decide. whether
The apP,ellate, court Ritter was negligent "in t~~i
found the City, ordman~e construction.
was unconstitutionally dls- Gupta v Ritter Homes
c.riminatory in this situa- Inc., Court' of Appeals of'
t1oTnh. 'd h h Texas, Apr. IS, 1982 (CE/,
ellcourt sal t at suc Ol/M..$5)
taxes tend to encourage
unconstitutional multiple
burdens of taxation on
those engaged in intercity
business within the state's
man local 'urisdictions."
Ity 0 an ose v, ut TO
& Englekirk, California
Court of Appeals, May 3,
1982 (CE/05/M.-$5)
Collies o( the entire decllion. de.
scribed in this column may be ob-
tained (or one year afeer publica-
tion by writini Cases Unlimited,
Inc., 2650 Hurd Ave. Evansron,lL
6020 1. who prcpucd these .um-
marics, Please cQ,clote your check
(or S~ per case and specify the cod. .
number indicarod.t abltracr's end ,"
(c.g., CE/OI/M.;$S),
,~
""
-
-
-m\'_-~:W""~,, 4~ ~
e
e
e
CitjT of
CALIFOH~I.\
,--, ,
~ 0 11 r d l~' . ,
~ -,
September 30, 1935
James L. Dotson
22737 Barton Rd. #7
Grand Terrace, Ca 92324
Re:
PO 4735
Engineerin~ Service for Beech Ave.
It has come to our attention that you are carrying on a business within
the City of Fontana. In accordance with Chapter 13 of the Fontana City
Code, it is necessary that you obtain a business license. However, if
for some reason our records are in error, please let us know. This will
enable us to update our records.
We are enclosing the proper forms for you to complete and return to this
office with the proper tax fee. The amount of the tax fee due is deter-
mined by the amount of your estimated gross receipts derived from within
Fontana for one year from the date that your business firstcorrnnenced.
Please refer to the tax rate schedule at th~ bottom of the application
to determine the amount of tax to remit.
Your prompt cooperation will be appreciated. If you have any questions,
please feel free to contact our office here at City Hall, 8353 Sierra
Avenue or call (714) 350-7675.
Respectfully,
ctQ/J~~b~
Jane Harris
Business License Inspector
JH:mar
enc:
33::3 SJERRAAVENUE (PO, BOX 518). FONTANA,CAliFORNIA 92335. (714) 350-7600
.
...
8353 SIERRA AVE,
'URCHASING DIVISION
FONTANA. CALIFORNIA 92335
CITY OF FONTAt~A
x~~K~~~xx(714) 350-7677
4135
. . '-'''~:;'':''+~'''~ ~~.:;< _ ~"';'i ;.:.,-':;t'J:":f","~....,
PLEASE St9N THIS NUMBER ..".
ON ALL PACKAGES AND PAPERS
RELATIVE TO THIS ORDER. :.: .
James L. Dotson
22737 Barton Rd. #7
Grand Terrace, CA 92324
DELIVER TO:
Public Works Dept.
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
o F.O.B. DESTINATION
DATE TERMS
9-27-85
P.w.
ngineerin
AMOUNT
REOUISITION NO.
5-84
o F.O.B. SHIPPING POINT, PREPAY AND CHARGE:"
DEPARTMENT DIVISION PROMISED DELIVERY
~;;r: ~;.'",: ~'1-
'.r:,~it."_~
TRACE
QUANTITY UNIT DESCRIPTION
1 a CONTRACT: engineering services for Beech
Avenue sewer improvement project, Phase
A engineering services
$ 7,000.00
Revise alignment of proposed sewer &
topographic work
$ 8,100.00
t tal $ 5,100.00
)
I CERTIFY THAT THERE ARE SUFFICIENT FUNDS
AVAILABLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS ORDER
ANY OUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS ORDER, CONTACT'
i
i
I
'--
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
PURCHASING AGENT
VENDOR NO.
AMOUNT ACCT. NO. BUDGET APPROP. STATUS
$55,100.00 71-7218-29 87,000.00 3\~-
.<1CCOUNTING
70025
pierce
ENCUMBERED BY
CITY OF FONTANA
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Neil Stone, Director, Development Agency
"-Bob Schoenborn, Director, Public Works
FROM:
Reed Flory, Consultant
SUBJECT:
North Fontana Sewer Program
DATE:
October 18, 1985
The following proposal responds to the need for an area wide sewer improve-
ment program in the North Fontana area.
Initial impetus for this program came from impending development of the
Rancho Fontana Specific Plan. Recently, the newly adopted West End Specific
Plan and several other current or proposed Specific Plan developers have
added pressure for the development of a North Fontana Sewer System. The
initial concept of city funds plus developer guarantees under a
"Certif icates of Participation" program to resul t in sewer improvements
generally located in Beach Street south to the Marley interceptor has been
abandoned for a number of reasons. These reasons include the inability of
a limited number of developers to guarantee sufficient sewer hookup fees,
the City's inability to use city sewer funds for such a development, the
limited capacity of the line when constructed and the realization that sewer
hookup reimbursement in the unincorporated county area (through which most
of the Beach Street line passes) would be problematical at best.
As an alternative, Bond Counsel, Tim Sabo; Financial Consultant, Don Owen;
Underwriter, Miller and Schroeder; and Consultant, Reed Flory recommend
the following components to result in an overall sewer improvement and
financing program.
1. Certain options involving either a 1913 Assessment Act lien or a
private covenant or an acceptable letter of credit (the exact
alternative(s) not yet selected) are to serve as security for the
timely payment of sewer hookup fees necessary under a "Certifi-
cates of Participation" program (COP). Options will be offered
to all land owners in the North Fontana area (generally described
as the Redeve I opment Proj ect Area plus incorpo ra ted area
northerly of 1-15). These options under the 1913/COP program will
include the following:
A. If a developer chooses not to obtain any other guarantees in
support of the timely payment of sewer hookup fees in addi-
tion to the 1913 Assessment Act or a private covenant, then
an overall project letter of credit may be obtained.
B. Rather than guarantee by way of the 1913 Assessment Act
process or private covenant, the developer may choose to
obtain a letter of credit from an "AA" rated institution.
The letter of credit shall be in an amount equal to a
predetermined dollar amount times Dwelling Unit Equivalent
(DUE) plus an annual escalator.
C. Additionally, developers will be offered the choice of
making cash deposits equivalent to the sewer hookup fee
minus a discount in lieu of any liens or letters of credit.
2. The Agency will be responsible for the issuance of the Certificate
of Participation.
3. City will be required to establish a new sewer hookup fee for the
North Fontana area estimated to be equal to the current $600 per
DUE but with the addition of an annual escalator based upon the
financing costs to the Agency computed on a simple interest
basis.
4. The lien procedures will follow either the actual 1913 Assessment
Act procedures (requiring an assessment engineer's report, a pub-
lic hearing, etc.) or a private covenant involving a contract.
If a major land owner objects under the 1913 Assessment Act, the
City may elect to institute "majority protest proceedings."
5. User capacity (line size) southerly of RP4 will be limited to ac-
commodate only those land owners choosing to participate. All
pipe running south of RP4 would not be necessary to accommodate
sewer usage in North Fontana at such time as RP4 is developed.
6. Provisions will be made for developers using an "early start"
including:
A. Approval of an acquisition agreement whereby the developer
will initially advance its own funds for the initial stages
of the contract.
B. Public bid procedures must be followed by the developer and
project must be identified consistent with requirements of
an "acquisition project."
C. As the developer constructs facilities, the Agency under the
terms of the acquisition agreement will acquire the
facilities.
D. With the proceeds of the bond issue, the first draw will be
used to payoff agency indebtedness to "early starters"
and the Agency will assume responsibility under the
remainder of the contract as previously approved by the
Agency.
E. Agency to select contract administrator who may be affil-
iated with the developer. There may be more than one
contract administrator matching with the different develop-
ment segment s.
7. City responsibilities
A. Set criteria for the improvements
B. Review all plans and specifications (plan check)
C. Review and approve all "Change Orders," "Time Extensions,"
etc.
D. Conduct ongoing construction inspection
E. Conduct final inspection and accept facility.
8. Agency responsibilities
A. Agency is to cause the project to be constructed and to conduct
bond proceedings.
B. Agency to implement public bid and to contract
direct ly with contractors (no city approval required).
If there is an "early start," agency is to authorize
bids, set bid date, open bids, then developer to enter into
contract with contractors. Agency is then to approve
contract(s). The Agency would assume performance responsibi-
lities under the prior contract of the developer with a
successful bidder and replace the developer.
The following tasks and/or responsibilities describe the actions required
to move the bond issue along:
1. Tim Sabo and Reed Flory to speak informally to large developers
explaining the "proposa1."
2. Don Owen to run performa.
3. Tim Sabo to redraft Certificate of Participation documents and to
incorporate 1913 Assessment Act language.
4. Public meetings:
November 5
COP/Ordinance first reading, 1913 Act
authorization, authorize noticing of property
owners
November 6
Notices sent to all property owners
inviting participation in the "voluntary"
North Fontana Sewer Improvement Program.
November 19
Second reading of the ordinance.
Mid January
Assessments made on property
End of January
Thirty day cash payment period during
which bond issue is sized.
February 18
Agency and City approve final issuance
of Certificate of Participation
End of February
Funds released
AGREEMENT
FOR PROVIDING ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR
BEECH/FOOTHILL SANITARY SEWER PROJECT
THIS AGREEMENT dated September 20 , 1985, is made and entered
into by and between the CITY OF FONTANA, a municipal corporation
hereinafter called "City" and JAMES L. DOTSON, Civil Engineer,
hereinafter called "Engineer".
IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
A. In accordance with conditions set forth in PROPOSAL FOR ENGINEERING
SERVICES dated May 28, 1985 attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; and
further in accordance with conditions set forth in letter from
Engineer to City re: ALTERNATE PROPOSAL dated August 5, 1985
attached hereto as Exhibit "B"; Engineer shall perform and carry
out to the satisfaction of the City Engineer the professional
civil engineering services for the installation of sanitary
sewer facilities in Beech Avenue from a point above Highland
Avenue to Foothill Boulevard and in Foothill Boulevard from
Beech Avenue to the intersection of Ilex Avenue in two phases;
Phase A: Preliminary Engineering and Design
1. Provide all necessary surveys and aerial topographic
control as required for design of project.
2. Design and prepare plans with horizontal scale of one
inch equals 40 feet. Plans to be drawn in ink on standard
24" x 42" linen or mylar. Profile with vertical scale
of one inch equals 4 feet also to be shown.
3. Locate existing utilities and determine the necessity of
relocating or modification. Coordination with utility
companies required.
4. Location of existing trees and determination of the
necessity for removal.
5. Prepare project specifications and documents according to
City standards in final form. Prepare and furnish for
each project, 20 sets of bid documents including
improvement plans.
6. Determine right-of-way procurement needs and prepare
necessary ownership lists and easement deeds on City
forms.
Phase B: Bid Opening and Construction Inspection
1. Upon opening of bids, assist the City in analyzing bids
and determining low bidders for the project. Assist
the City in preparation and execution of construction
contract.
2. Attend preconstruct ion conference as the City's
representative design engineer.
3. Provide construction surveys which will include
construction staking of each element of the project
and resetting of survey monuments after work is
completed.
4. Prepare As-Built plans following completion of the
contract work and file plans with the City.
5. Analyze bids for award of contract.
6. Provide construction supervision, inspection and handle
progress pay estimates.
B. City will provide the following:
1. Staff liaison.
2. All available maps, survey information, bench mark data,
improvement plans, etc.
3. Standard City 24" x 42" mylar plan and profile sheets.
4. Prompt review of material submitted by the Engineer for
comment.
5. Property owner contacts for right-of-way procurement.
6. Advertising for bids.
c. Engineer shall commence work on the project within fifteen
(15) days of the execution of this agreement and Phase A shall
be completed within ninety (90) calendar days; and Phase B shall
be completed within fifty (50) calendar days after completion
of construction work by the Contractor.
D. Fee and payment for Engineering services will be on a time
and materials basis, with a "not to exceed" amount for Phase A
of $54,600, and a "not to exceed" amount of $31,000 for Phase B.
Payment will be made by the City based on the PROPOSED SCHEDULE
OF FEES as set forth on Page Six of the aforementioned Exhibit "A"
attached hereto. Not more frequently than monthly, Engineer
may submit an invoice for payment based upon the approved rates.
Upon approval by the City Engineer, the City shall make payment
within thirty (30) days.
E. Miscellaneous terms and conditions of this Agreement are
as follows:
1. In the event that the City elects to revise the original
scope of work, the additional work shall be paid for
by the City as extra work at the same rates and in the
same manner as provided in Section D above. All extra
work shall be authorized in writing by the City.
2. Phase B of this contract will be activated at the
option of the City. Until the Engineer receives written
notice of such activation from the City, all Phase B
obligations in this Agreement do not apply.
F. This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon written
notice to the other party in the event of breech by such other
partYior, if before the professional services herein described
have been rendered, City deems it necessary to abandon the
project. In event of such termination or any suspension of
work at the written direction of the City, City shall pay the
Engineer for work actually performed.
G. The herein shall constitute the entire Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have accepted, made and
executed this Agreement upon the terms, conditions, and provisions
above stated, the day and year first above written.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~~
~
y At torney .
EXHIBIT "A"1
PROPOSAL FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES
TO
CITY OF FONTANA, CALIFORNIA
FOR
BEECH AVENUE -'SEWER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
offered by
JAMES L. DOTSON
Civil Engineer
22737 Barton Road, Suite
Grand Terrace, California
(714) 824-9510
May 28, 1985
May 28, 1985
CITY OF FONTANA
PROPOSAL FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES
SEWER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - BEECH AVENUE
INTRODUCTION
This proposal is presented in 2-parts and its contents are:
PROPOSAL TEXT
PROPOSED PROJECT
- General
- Aerial Survey/Mapping
- Soils Investigation/Testing
- Service Connections
- Construction Inspection
- Schedule of Completion
SCOPE OF WORK/PROPOSED ENGINEERING FEES
PROPOSED FEES FOR OPTIONAL SERVICES
SERVICES EXCLUDED FROM PROPOSAL
PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF FEES
COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS OF PROPOSAL
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
PROPOSAL APPENDIX
EXHIBIT "A" - ENGINEERING SERVICES ESTIMATE
EXHIBIT "B" - PROJECT.MAP
PROJECT PERSONNEL/CONSULTANTS
RUSUME OF PRINCIPAL ENGINEER
REFERENCES
PROPOSED PROJECT
GENERAL - This proposed Project appears to be rather straight forward
and should not require any particular ingenuity from either
Engineer or Contractor. However, there is an obvious need for concern
with certain details and with coordination.
Please refer to a map entitled Exhibit liB" of the appendix.
The proposed alignment, average slope, native soil material, lateral
crossfall and pipe depth requirements all appear to be unusually uniform.
Interfering utilities appear to be few and required disturbance of existing
Proposal - Fontar- Page T~o
roadway improvements by sewer construction appears to be limited.
Two~railroads and two State roadways apparently will have to be crossed
by means of bored tubes, and no overhead obstructions are evident.
Protection from floods and accommodation of drainage during construction
poses no particular concern.
There are concerns, however, for those portions of the alignment north
of Foothill Blvd. with regard to 3-aspects:
(1) Design to accommodate future development plans.
(2) Protection of completed facilities from construction loads
and operations.
(3) Placement of sewers to accommodate existing trees.
It has been presumed by this Proposal that development plans in this area
already exist and that these plans will be made available to the Engineers
in a timely manner in order that sewer lines and manholes can be appropriately
placed to accommodate these developments. Such elements as roadway widths,
location and intersections; approximate elevation of final grade relative
to existing grade; and required location of sewersrelativeto other utilities
must. be provided to the Engineers prior to start of design efforts.
It has also been presumed by this Proposal that hydraulic analyses necessary
to determine sewage flows all all reaches of the Project has already been
performed by the City and tha~ the Engineers will not be required to do
more than determine appropriate pipe diameters required for particular
slopes.
It has been presumed by this Proposal that the material for all sewer
pipe will be VCP to correspond with the same materials in the remainder
of the City's sewerage; and that all sewer pipes placed in future roadway
alignments must be designed to accommodate loading from future presence of
heavy construction equipment. Also it has been presumed that all manholes
in such future roadways must be designed for considerable and inevitable
vertical adjustment; and further, such manhole covers must be marked for
location and protection.
It has been presumed by this Proposal that all existing trees along the
proposed alignment can be removed by construction of sewers; and that the
oost of tree removal, potential damage to new sewer pipes/manholes, and
construction access cost shall be the only criteria for determining
alternate locations for sewer facilities.
AERIAL SURVEYYMAPPING - In accordance with instructions within the
Request for Proposals (RFP), this Proposal
does not include any expense for surveying to establish aerial mapping
targets, plotting of topo/contour maps, or imprinting of photo maps onto
mylar plan sheets.
· However, and primarily because the aerial mapping work is an absolutely
critical part of the Projects' design effort, we would prefer that the
City allow our firm to be assigned this portion of the Project also. We
Proposal - Fontax~ ~s~ Page Three
must in any case verify and augment the aerial maps and prefer that
the final mapping not be placed on mylar plan sheets until a considerable
amount of pro-design study has been accomplished.
Contrary to some engineering firms, we prefer that our sewer plans be
,,cleanI' in the sense that nothing appear on final drawings that is useless
to the Contractor and is useful only to the design engineer. We find that
placing certain normal mapping details on construction drawings tends to
confuse designers, inspectors and contractors, and instead of creating an
intended savings, actually leads to greater expense. This is particularly
evident with the use of photo-strip imprints because of its dark and
obscuring effect upon details of a plan.
The cost to do the aerial mapping will be the same whether accomplished
by the City or by our firm, both parties .being required to utilize special
consultants. Accordingly, we request to be assigned the work, although
no expense for necessary coordination has been included in this Proposal.
SOILS INVESTIGATION/TE~-~NG. - The native material along the proposed
alignment appears to be almost perfectly
uniform and consists of alluvial deposits of silts, sands and gravels.
Such materials are ideal for backfill compaction by water densifioation
and offer considerable costs savings thereby. However, such materials
are less ideal during excavation for trenches as the trench will not
"stand" vertically. Accordingly, care must be used during design to create
sufficient clearance from existing underground utilities to avoid collapse
of the utility into the sewer pipe trench.
The existing soil material being predictable, we see no need for the
expense of providing preliminary soils investigation. Accordingly, this
item has been o~itted from this Proposal.
This Proposal presumes that the City will provide the services of a So~]~
Engineer to prepare backfill compaction testing reports; OR that the
Contractor will be required to provide same as part of his contract. In
either case, providing of such services has been omitted from this Proposal.
SERVICE CONNECTIONS - In appears that &long that portion of the proposed
aligr~nent south of Foothill Blvd. there are over
lO0.-existing dwellings, commercial and/or industrial structures that
presently dispose of sewage via underground septic systems. It also appears
that although most of these structures are outside the present City limits
of Fontana, the possibility of future inclusion within the City and
abandonment of the individual septic systems in favor of connection to the
new public sewer may become desirable. To save considerable extra expense
in ~he future and avoid repeated disturbance to paved roadways, it might
be advisable to construct service connections to each of the structure-
occupied properties as part of this Project.
" Proposal - Font~ ~ Page Four
Also, along that reach of the proposed alignment north of Foothill Blvd.,
it seems probable that development plans may exist and that it may be
possible to construct service connections to future properties as a part
of this Project. Such effort and expense now may save considerable
future costs and preclude the undesirable requirement of field-tapping
a VCP sewer main.
These items of engineering service and expense were not contemplated in
the RFP and accordingly have not been included as part of the Proposal.
However, a proposed fee for doing such work has been included in a later
section heroin as an Option, should the City wish to include the work.
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION - It is estimated that the approximately 25,000
lineal feet of proposed pipeline will be
completely constructed by a contraC~0.r in 5G-working days, including testing
and paving. For that 50-day duration it has been presumed by this Proposal
that one Non-Professional Inspector will be at the job-site continuously; and,
that a Senior Engineer will be in frequent daily contact with the Inspector
and also visit the job-site on a regular basis for brief periods.
With regard to the amount of time that will be required of the Engineer
to properly control the work, the most critical aspect of construction
insI~ection and contract administration will be ~ahich contractor is selected
to do the work. If a contractor of dubious ability and/or history of
poo~ perfo,~uace is selected to do the work, we may elect to assign a more
experienced and senior en~eer to oversee the construction operations for
as often as necessary to properly control such a contractor.
There will be no additional enst to the City for such extra attention
however, as our Proposal stipulates that all fees are based on hourly rates
and function. A senior engineer will be charged the same as a Non-
Professional Inspector while performing. the lesser duties. It is our hope
of course that the City afford us the opportunity to help select a capable
and reputable contractor.
SCI{EDULE OF COMPLETION - Please refer to Exhibit "A" of the Appendix,
~'which sets forth several and various elements
of engineering work required by the Project, and an estimate of the number
of hours required of various engineering personnel. To maintain proper
coordination of the design effort and to complete plans and specifications
in a reasonable time and ready for bidding procedures, this Proposal
presumes that 2-Engineers and 2-Draftsmen be assigned to the Project,
more-or-less full-time. It is estimated that 75-calendar days will be
required from the Pro-Design Conference to the start of the bidding process.
The bidding and construction processes are of course outside the control
of an Engineer. However, it is estimated that the bidding and contract
award procedure will consume 60-calendar days; and that the construction
period will last 90-calendar days. The total estimate of time to complete
the Project after an. Engineer is notified to begin will be about 8 to 9-
Proposal - Fonta, ~ Page Five
SCOPE OF WORK/PROPOSED ENGINEERING FEES
Please refer again to Exhibit "A" of the Appendix.
The several and various items of engineering work presumed by this Proposal
to bc provided are set forth on Exhibit "B", as are the total estimated and
Not to Exceed Costs therefor. Items that have been excluded from the
Proposal have been previously discussed heroin and/or will be set forth
hereafter. To reiterate. and to clarify,the-estimates of cost are set
forth here:
Engineering Service Estimated Cost Not to Exceed Cost
PHASE A
Preliminary $ ~1,608.00 $ 12,000.00
Des ign 19,500.00 21,000. O0
Bidding 3,936.00 4,000.00
PHASE A TOTALS $ 35,034.00 $ 37,000.00
PHASE B
Construction $ 29,7~.00 $ 31,000.00
:PROJECT TOTAL $ 64,778.00 $ 68,000.00
PROPOSED FEES FOR OPTIONAL SERVICES
EXISTING STRUCTURES
Field Determine Proper Position
for Service Connection
Place and Locate on Plans
Prepare Spec. for Svc. Connection
Estimate Quantities
Inspect & Field Locate for AS-BUILT Plans
NOT TO EX{.:~:K,, COST $50.00/SERVICE::
FUTURE STRUCTURES
Review Development Plans to
Determine Sva. Conn. Location
Place & Locate on Plans
Prepare Spec. for Svc. Connection
Estimate Quantities
Inspect & Field Locate for AS-BUILT Plans
NOT TO EX~:KK,~ COST $30.00/SERVICE
Proposal - Fortran. ~.~ Page Six
SERVICES EXCLUDED FROM PROPOSAL
Specifically not included in the afore-mentioned engineering services and
estimated costs therefor are:
(a) Soils investigations and compaction testing
(b) Aerial surveys and mapping
(c) Preparation of doc~nents or materials For environmental proceedings
(d) Application for/or obtainmerit of permits to construct facilities
(e) Replacement of survey monuments
(f) Design of conflicting utilities relocation or installation
(g) Payment of fees for plans checking, permits, mailings, recording, etc.
(h) Attendance at council meetings, public hearings, etc.
(i) Negotiations for right-of-way acquisition
(j) Preparation of contract change orders except those initiated or
caused by the Engineers.
PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF FEES
The hourly rates listed hereafter are limited to those categories of work
which are anticipated as being normally required for a project of this type
and extent. The fees charged for the various items of engineering services
performed shall in no ease exceed the amounts listed hereinabaove; and in
all cases the aetuat fee shall be determined by applying the appropriate
hourly rate from the following schedule to the time involved in performing
various tasks; provided however, that the scope of work shall remain
substantially as defined herein. Fees charged to the City shall be
determined by function and not by person; e.g. an Associate Engineer
performing work normally done by a Draftsman will be charged at the
lesser rate. It is stipulated that the fee to be charged for any other
category not listed shall be 2°5 times the hourly rate paid to the person
in said category.
CATEGORY/ITEM OF EXPENSE RATE
1. Senior Consulting Engineer ......... $ 60.O0/hour
2. Assoc. Engineer, Design Engineer,Spec ....
Writer, Professional Inspector, etc~ .... $ 50.00
3- Land Surveyor, Design Draftsman, Non-
Professional Inspector, Plans Reviewer, etc. $ 40.00
4. Copy Draftsman ......... $ 30.00
5. Office Asst., Engr. Aide .... $ 20.00
6. Word Processor, Secretarial, etc.. $ 16.00
7. Messenger, Productions, etc. . . $ 16.00
8. Survey Crew (2-Man) ....... $ 90.00
9. Survey Crew (3-Man) ....... $120.00
10. Special Consultants ...... Direct Cost per invoice
11. Materials ............ Direct Cost per Invoice
12. Miscellaneous (Mileage, travel,
lodging, etc. ) .......... N/C w/in 50-mi of job site
Proposal - Fontar~ V Page Seven
COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS OF PROPOSAL
The proponents stipulate to the requirements contained within the Request
for Proposal and to those normally implied as a condition of providing
professional services to public agencies, to wit:
(a) Proposal Validity. This proposal is valid to a minimum of
sixty (60) days from date of receipt.
(b) Fee Schedule. All hourly rates include wages, benefits,
profit, overhead and other usual costs of business.
(e) Work Schedule. if required, prior to beginning any engineering
work, a schedule of events and date of completion shall be
prepared and submitted to the City for approval.
(d) Records Retention. Proponents will maintain project records
for a specified period of time and provide copies to the City
upon request.
(e) Equal Opportunity. Proponents will adhere to all requirements
ensuring equal opportt~tty for all employees.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
It is recognized by the Engineers ~hat because we frequently represent
certain local contractors, material suppliers and others involved with
sewer pipeline construction contracts with public agencies, it is possible
that the appearance of a conflict of interest may occur should any one
of our affected current or former clients desire to submit proposals for
doing the work. Should such an apparent conflict occur, and should the
City desire or require, we stipulate that we will make a full disclosure
regarding any present or previous relations that may exist or have
existed between our firm and the other affected party(s).
We further stipulate that if we are not awarded a contract to provide
engineering services for this Project and another firm receives such
contract award, our firm will refrain from further involvement in this
Project on behalf of any client, except the City of Fontana.
o0o
,. ', .. ' ~ ~ [ EXHIBIT "B"]
August 5, 1985 22737 BARTON ROAD, SU{TE 7
POST OFFICE BOX 885
GRAND TERRACE, CA 92324
(714) 824-9510
Robert Sc]~oenborn
Public Works Director
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, California 92335
Attention: Robert Porter
Re: Beech Avenue Sewer Improvement
ALTERNATE PROPOSAL/ENGINEERING SERVICES
Gentlemen:
As you requested we have completed our review of a revised alignment
for referenced project as shown color-marked on an enclosed map
entitled Exhibit "A". The colored area thereon is that which we
anticipate to have plotted from aerial photos. The purposeof
our review, of course, was to determine any effects upon our
estimate of engineering costs; and, the results are both positite
and negative, good and bad, cheaper and more costly.
At this point this letter wilt present discussions, comments and
suggestions. At its end, we will summarize t~e Alternate Proposal
based upon the alignment as shown on Exhibit I'A".
Please refer to a series of enclosed photos showing the North side
of Foothill Boulevard from Sultana to East Avenue. It appears
that in the reach from Beech Pc Cherry, the only practical position
for a 21-inch sewer main is within the most northerly traffic
lane of Foothill. The southerly side of Foothill is 'literally
loaded with water, gas and irrigation mains; and the northerly
side is occupied by eucalypPus trees, sign structures, gas and
water mains and a few other and sundried items. Placing the
main in one of Cal Trans' traffic lanes of course invites a
possible horrendous cost of resurfacing at least one lane and
maybe the entire north half of FooPhill.
Placing the main north of the eucalyptus trees will probably
invite even more cost, particularly for engineering, in order
to determine and prepare plans for' items to be removed, relocated~
repaired, avoided, negotiated and abandoned. Our major concern
for this corridor is potential liability arising from possible
damage to the root systems of the eucalyptus trees and eventual
felling of the trees by high-winds.
It is our recommendation then, that the chosen alignment be
the north traffic lane, at least in that first 1-mile reach.
West of Cherry, the main could be placed north of the pavement,
at least until we approach East Avenue where drainage structures
Robert Schoenborn
Beech Avenue Sewer Improvement
Alternate proposal/Engineering Services
August 5, 1985
Page Two
become a problem. Please note Photos 18, 1'9, and 20 which show
a roadside drainage flume. If we place the main north of the
flume, somewhere downstream we may have to cross this. We
must also reckon with Etiwanda Creek and its RCB crossing
Foothill. If it is planned that a sewer main coming down East
Avenue will Join our sewer main, it is our recommendation that
our maih. angleeast of Etiwanda Creek, turn southwest and cross
Foothill, and allow the East Avenue sewer to cross Etiwanda
Creek and join our main. Otherwise, the sewers will cross the
Etiwanda RCB twice.
In summary, it is our recommendation that the entire Foothill main
be located in the northerly traffic lane. With further consideration
~we prefer that you consider yet another route: Arrow Route. This
would involve extending the Beech main to Arrow, turn west and
~follow Arrow to East Avenue, which would involve constructing
another 1/2-mile of main. However, such an alterpate route may
actually create a savings by avoiding Cal Trans' sacrosanct Foothill
Boulevard. The Arrow Route does pose one question however, that
concerning the existence of old concrete pavement below asphalt,
a typical occurrence for the Freeways of the 1920's. Most of
these old concrete roadways were only 22-feet wide however, probably
leaving plenty of room to squeeze in a 21" 30" sewer main.
Notwithstanding any of the discussion and recommendations above,
should you direct us to proceed with the Foothill alignment,
specifically within the northerly traffic lane thereof, our
original Proposal should be modified as follows:
Preparation of Aerial Topo
Fees to Pictorial Science $ 9,000.00
Survey Research (40 hours at $~O.O0/hr) 1,600.00
Aerial Targeting/Control (60 hours at $90.O0/hr) 5,400.00
*Preparation of Blank Plan Sheets 500.00
Sub-Total $ 16,500.00
Preliminary Services
Alternate Proposal Research/Review $ 1,100.00
Additional Conferences/Cal Trans 500.00
Sub-Total $ 1,600.00
TOTAL INCREASE $ 18,100.00
*Delete if City provides us with 20 - 24" x 42" pre-bordered
mylar plan/profile sheets with City Title Blocks preprinted
Robert Schoenborn
Beech Avenue Sewer Improvement
Alternate proposal/Engineering Services
August 5, 1985
Page Three
thereon. Otherwise, we will prepare a single master for
reproduction by Pictorial Sciences at cost of $500.00.
Nothing else in our original Proposal is to be changed, including
stipulations in the text thereof~ EXCEPT that because of delays
in starting this Project and anticipated intransigent of Cal
Trans, we wish to extend the time-to-complete as measured from
Pre-Design conference to start of Bidding Process from 75-calendar
days to 90-calendar days. Both our firm and our aerial photo
firm (Pictorial Sciences) were ready to begin work on this
Project a month ago and have now filled the void with other
committments, which we now must fulfill before we can start°
Originally Pictorial Science was to produce. tHe~aerial maps
in 5-days. Now they want 3-weeks for all sheets but we have
asked them to "dole" out the sheets as completed in order to
speed the process.
In summary, our original Proposal shall be modified as follows
to reflect the alternate alignment:
1) Sewer main to be placed within the most northerly
traffic lane of Foothill Boulevard between Beech
Avenue and East Avenue.
2) Sewer main to be terminated easterly of Etiwanda
Creek.
3) Time to complete engineering work'from IPre-Design
Conference to start of Bidding Process to be extended
to 90-calendar days.
(4) Original Proposal price of $68,000.00 will be increased
to $86,100.00 and shall include additional services
of providing aerial surveying/mapping; preparatiSn
of blank plan sheets (*); cost of preparing revised
Proposal; and, cost of dealing with Cal Trans.
(5) (*) If City provides pre-printed, pre-bordered
mylar plan/profile sheets, delete $500.00 from
Proposal.
We ask that you consider our revised Proposal very carefully,
particulary with regard to placing the sewer main within the
pavement of Foothill which could add $1OO,000 - $200~0OO in
overall expense for the Project; and with regard to considering
Arrow as another possible and better alternative.
Rpbert Sehoenborn
Beech Avenue Sewer Improvement
Alternate! Proposal/Engineering Services
August 5, 1985
Page Four.
If there are questions or instructions, please contact me
directly.
Respectively
ames L. Dotson, CE
JLD: Rena
Enclosures: Exhibit "A" (Map of Proposed Route)
~ Photos (4-Sheets)