Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMaster Storm Drain Hydrology Fee StudyMASTER STORM DRAINAGE FEE STUDY CITY OF FONTANA AND "SPHERE OF INFLUENCE" June, 1992 1 MASTER STORM DRAINAGE FEE STUDY CITY OF FONTANA AND "SPHERE OF INFLUENCE" Prepared By: Flory, Olson & Van Osdel, Inc. Riverside, California and NBS/Lowry Engineers & Planners San Bernardino, California June, 1992 MASTER STORM DRAINAGE FEE STUDY REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION Table 1 - Fee Program Summary Figure A - Benefit Areas Map • PAGE 1 3 4 II APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY 2 III DRAINAGE BENEFIT AREA ANALYSIS 8 1-15 North (Table 2) 9 1-10 North (Table 3) 10 Hawker Crawford (Table 4) 10 1-10 South (Table 5) 11 Declez North (Table 6) 11 Declez South (Table 7) 12 Declez Channel and Basin (Table 8) 12 Upper Etiwanda (Table 9) 13 Middle Etiwanda (Table 10) 13 Lower Etiwanda (Table 11) 13 Fontana East (Table 12) 14 Project 3-4 (Table 13) 14 IV RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Tables 2 through 13 following 15 APPENDICES A. Engineer's Report - NBS/Lowry 8. Engineer's Report - Project 3-4: San Bernardino County Flood Control District C. Net Acreage Estimates D. Bibliography MAP EXHIBIT Master Storm Drainage Plan Exhibit Map Master Storm Drainage Benefit Area Fees MASTER STORM DRAINAGE FEE STUDY REPORT SECTION I - INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background This Master Storm Drainage Fee Study was initiated by the City of Fontana and the San Bernardino County Flood Control District to address the following problems: a. Existing master storm drainage facilities are inadequate to handle the increase in storm water run-off resulting from the planned growth and development within the City and its sphere of influence. As a result, additional drainage facilities are required to protect persons and property from potential flooding hazards. b. The City's existing drainage fee of $4,500 per gross acre appeared, in most cases, to be well below the level needed to cover drainage costs; and the County has not adopted drainage fees for the unincorporated sphere areas to pay for facilities required to accommodate new development and to prevent potential flooding hazards to existing and proposed developments. 1.2 Purpose The purposes of this Master Storm Drainage Fee Study Report are to: 1) delineate and describe drainage benefit areas within the City and its sphere of influence; 2) provide cost estimates of master storm drainage facilities and methodologies for making fair share allocations of these costs to new development; and 3) allocate costs to benefitted property to provide a basis for establishing drainage fees consistent with the requirements of Government Code Section 66000. 1.3 Scope The scope of the Study includes all existing and planned drainage facilities, which together constitute the Master Storm Drainage Plan for the City and the unincorporated County area within the City's sphere of influence. The facilities included within this category include master interceptor drains and the following major facilities: Hawker Crawford Flood Control Drainage Facilities West Fontana Flood Control Drainage Facilities East Fontana Flood Control Drainage Facilities (Rialto Study Area) 1-10 Channel Declez Channel and Basin 1 The scope of the Study does not include those local serving drainage facilities which are too small and detailed for a master storm drainage plan, e.g. those serving an area less than 40 acres. Also excluded are the San Sevaine and Etiwanda Flood Control channels which were the subject of a separate fee study in 1989 and for which a separate fee has been adopted by the City of Fontana and the County of San Bemardino. In general, the area encompassed by the Study is the City of Fontana and the unincorporated County area within the City's "Sphere of Influence". However, where the fee calculation requires the consideration of facilities and properties outside this area, e.g. a small portion of Riverside County in the case of the Declez Channel and Basin, the Study considers such areas as welt. It should also be noted that the Project 3-4 benefit area fee is based on the Engineer's Report prepared by the County of San Bernardino Transportation/Flood Control Department dated June, 1992. City staff has directed that this information be incorporated into this Report to enable presentation of a comprehensive master storm drainage fee program within the Fontana city limits and the County area within the City's "Sphere of Influence Fees have been calculated and are proposed for adoption for some areas where all planned facilities have been built and/or where little new development is anticipated. This approach has been taken to provide a consistent basis charging new development for "buying in" to such facilities and enabling reimbursement to the party constructing the facilities beyond their fair share. An "executive summary" of the Study results is provided on the following pages by Table 1: Master Storm Drainage Fee Program Summary and Figure A: a Master Storm Drainage Benefit Areas map. The Study does not allocate costs and propose a benefit area fee for the Hunter's Ridge benefit area. This is because an existing development agreement and CFD provide for the funding of this area's fair share of total system costs. Similarly, no fee is proposed for the Mt. Jurupa benefit area since it has little or no development potential, and no drainage facilities are planned to serve the area. SECTION II - APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY In accordance with Government Code 66001(a) and (b), the following methodology was followed in calculating a proposed drainage fee for the City of Fontana and the County area within the City's "Sphere of Influence" (hereinafter referred to as City's Sphere): 2 6 1 1 1 1 TABLE 1 MASTER STORM DRAINAGE FEE PROGRAM SUMMARY FEE PER NET DEVELOPABLE ACRE Benefit Area No. Neme Estimated Total P • Costs Estimated Net Acre 1 Hunter's Ridge 2 1-15 North 3 I-10 North Hawker Cnavford Flood Control Nat included $5,953,539 $178,748,364 345 405 11243 Developable Acre Fes Per Net Not included $14,896 $15,721 Drainage Facilities $10,139,161 11889 $887 (a) 9 I-10 South $1,949,871 506 $3,851 7 Decks North $60,947,909 3390 $17,980 8 Cedes South $10,224,798 - 479 $21,351 Cedes Channel 8 Basin 4 Upper Ettwends 5 Middle EtJwands 10 Lower Eliwands 8 Fontw East 11 Project 34 12 Mt: Junipa Total All Arms $30,635,2e3 $854,807 $1,757,499 $3,089,958 U7,923,839 $3,377.825 Not included $292.828,009 3869 123 328 481 2861 282 7 Not Included $7,919 (b) 58,967 $5,353 $6,419 $10,944 $12,892 Coot eirisdlr included in fee for I.15N and WON; not an addronsl fee. Cost Included In tees for Dods North and Bouts not en addrorrsl fee. 3 Revised 7/31/92 L Q 4000' e000' AT t ST all • 4 • A • • • • ■ 1188/1ii.•..... • • `,.. .... ..... .... ... AVE 1 •................. 4 A Ya /. • . • • • • .............. Olga. • .. it LEGEND mom • min • ••m SPHERE OF INNFUJO*CE BENEFIT AREA Oi HUNTERS RIOOE I-15 NORTH O I-10 NOUN 0 UPPER ETIMfANOA O 1N00LE E11mAIOA © rCNTANA EAST 0 =AZ mom O ma SOUTH O I -to 90U1M 10 until E11WAN0A It PRO.E.CT 3-4 12 10UNT .**'.PA HAMRR-CRMWORO CHANNEL SETMCE AREA OEakn CHANNEL SERNCE AREA are Or 00NMMA ENGINEER'S REPORT MASTER STORM DRAINAGE BENEFIT AREAS RAM GM I1MI 1.R .MAwn a f10UREt A 4 2.1 Identify Drainage Facilities Needed to Serve Development Various engineering studies and master storm documents were reviewed to identify the drainage facilities that are needed to serve the City and the City's Sphere at ultimate buildout. Please refer to the Engineer's Report by NBS/Lowry dated June 12, 1992, Table 2 for a list of existing and proposed master storm drainage facilities. The Engineer's Report is attached as Appendix A. A Master Storm Drainage Plan exhibit map foldout which shows the existing and proposed drainage facilities is also enclosed in the map pocket following Appendix D. 2.2 Determine Drainage Benefit Areas Facilities were analyzed in relation to hydrology to determine the properties which will benefit from the facilities as discussed on pages 11-6 through 11-11 of the Engineer's Report. Based on this analysis, it was determined that the City and the County area within the City's Sphere has twelve distinct drainage benefit areas. A narrative description of each of the twelve benefit areas as well as the rationale for each can be found in the Engineer's Report. A Master Storm Drainage Benefit Areas map is included herein as Figure A (page 4); and a foldout map of the benefit areas is also included in the map pocket following Appendix D. As indicated in the introduction, two of the twelve benefit areas, Hunter's Ridge and Mt. Jurupa, were excluded from the fee calculation and are not discussed further in this report. The map also illustrates two additional areas of benefit for specific facilities which consist of a combination of benefit areas. These are the Hawker Crawford Flood Control Drainage Facilities and the Declez Channel and Basin as discussed further in paragraph 2.5 below. 2.3 Estimate Net Developed and Developable Acreage per Drainage Benefit Area Estimates of the net acreage to be developed at buildout within the City limits and the County area within the City's Sphere were prepared as follows: 1. Assessor parcel data were obtained and a database developed using Foxbase database management software. 2. Parcels were assigned to Fontana General Plan land use categories since the general plan includes all parcels within the City's Sphere. 3. Non -developable parcels were then excluded. Such parcels include those designated for permanent open space and other public facilities. 5 4. Existing developed parcels were estimated and excluded for purposes of further analysis of future developable parcels. Parcels with an improvement to land value ratio of 1.0 or greater were assumed to be developed. [Note: because the fee allocation formula uses the combined total of developed and developable acreage, the primary reason for distinguishing the two is for purposes of projecting fee revenue.] 5. The remaining developable acreage was then adjusted for public improve- ments incidental to the development process. A 25% reduction factor was applied for this purpose except that a 35% factor was applied to the R-PC designated property in North Fontana most of which is in relatively large, vacant parcels. 6. Parcels were assigned to the drainage benefit areas and the net acreage at ultimate buildout was calculated for each area. The term "net acres" as used herein refers to the estimate of both existing developed and future developable acres exclusive of all publicly dedicated streets, open space and other dedications incidental to the subdivision process. Total net acres were used to calculate the benefit area fee. The term "net developable acres" refers to estimated future developable acreage and is used in connection with the discussion of fees, e.g. fee per net developable acre, to make it dear that the proposed fees would be charged only to future development or substantial redevelopment. The net developable acre estimate is presented for the purpose of enabling a forecast of fee revenue. Adjustments were made between "developed" and "developable" acreage in certain instances where the general methodology would otherwise result in an overly optimistic revenue projection. For example, development agreements related to the Southridge Village and Village of Heritage developments govern the extent to which remaining developable property will pay drainage fees. Therefore, developable acreage subject to such agreements has been allocated to the "developed" category for purposes of forecasting fee revenues. 2.4 Estimate Drainage System Costs Master storm drainage facility project costs were estimated by NBS/Lowry as explained in Chapter III of the Engineer's Report. These costs are summarized herein in Table 1. Estimated costs of proposed future facilities were obtained from the Master Storm Drainage Plan dated June 1992, prepared by Hall and Foreman for the City. These estimates include construction costs, a 15% construction cost contingency, a 20% estimate for engineering, surveying, inspection and administration, and a 3% allowance for right-of-way and utility relocation costs. 6 41.14 1110.. Costs of existing facilities were estimated using the best available information. Where complete project cost data were available, they were used. In other cases, the replacement cost of existing facilities was estimated applying the same assumptions as those used to estimate the costs of future facilities. All costs were adjusted to current dollars using the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for the Los Angeles Area. The current index for this area (ENRLA) is 6287. Table 2 in Appendix A lists all facility costs for each benefit area except the Project 3-4 area. Costs for this benefit area are included in Appendix B. 2.5 Calculate Benefit Area Fees • Proposed fees for each benefit area were calculated by dividing the estimated costs of all master storm drainage plan facilities by the estimated total net developed and developable acreage within the benefit area. Even though current developed property is included in the calculation of the fee amount, the fee will be applied only upon the issuance of development approvals such as building permits or final subdivsion and parcel map approvals related to construction and redevelopment. The fee calculation methodology used provides assurance that the cost of 'existing deficiencies" is not allocated to new development in conflict with the provisions of the Government Code. Indeed there is no need to estimate such deficiencies and deduct their costs before calculating the fee because existing development is included in the fee formula. Existing deficiencies are roughly estimated under the "Unfunded Costs" item in the Fee Analysis Summary tables following page 14. This amount (if any) was calculated by subtracting maximum potential fee revenue from total proposed facility costs, where fee revenue is the product of estimated net developable acres times the cost per net acre. The unfunded cost amount shown is a rough approximation of a potential funding gap. It does not take into consideration improvements which may be in progress which would reduce the cost of proposed facilities relative to revenue. Nor does it consider the amount of unexpended fee revenue collected pursuant to the City's current $4,500 per gross acre drainage fee. The item has been included to highlight the need to seek additional sources of funding to complete the master storm drain facilities after the Benefit Area Fees have been adopted. There are two instances in which facilities were determined to serve more than one benefit area. Rather than formally establish a separate fee and benefit areas for these facilities, their costs were allocatedon a proportional basis to the affected benefit areas based on their share of benefitted property; and these costs were then included in the fee calculation for each benefit area. The two facilities referenced above are: 7 PO Olso 1. Hawker Crawford Flood Control Drainage facilities were determined to serve a combination of the 1-15 North and the 1-10 North benefit areas as well as approximately 41 net developable acres within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The costs of these facilities were allocated to all benefitted property so that each benefit area pays its fair share of the facilities. 2. Declez Channel and Basin is a master flood control system serving both the Declez North and Declez South benefit areas as well as an estimated 139 net acres in Riverside County. The allocation divides the combined net acreage for the benefitted property into total system costs to determine the fair share of this system: The combined "benefit area" for these facilities is depicted on the benefit areas map (Figure A). The Fee Analysis Summary tables in Section III show the cost per net acre attributable to these "shared" facilities." These costs are incorporated into the proposed fee per net developable acre and are not proposed as separate fees. However, revenues attributable to these facilities should be earmarked to facilitate the administration of cost sharing and reimbursement agreements. It is noted that the net acreage cost allocation method used in this study is identical to that used in the case of the San Sevaine/Etiwanda Creek Flood Control regional fee program except that in that instance a determination was made that there were no existing deficiencies and that the cost of proposed system improvements were appropriately allocated to new development only. SECTION III - DRAINAGE BENEFIT AREA ANALYSIS This section describes each benefit area identified as a result of the fee program analysis, provides a rationale for why it was considered to be a separate benefit area, and summarizes the net acreage, drainage facilities and estimated costs and the cost per net acre of the facilities. A Fee Analysis Summary table is provided for each drainage benefit area which includes estimated facility costs, net acreage, cost per net acre and the portion of such cost attributable to facilities with a shared benefit and a comparison of projected fee revenue to the cost of proposed facilities. Government Code Section 66000 Requirements The adoption of fee programs by local jurisdictions is govemed by the positions of Government Code Section 66000. The following paragraphs summarize the purpose and use of the fees and their relationship to development on which the fee is to be levied: Purpose of Fee: To provide master storm drainage facilities needed to protect property from flooding. Use of Fee: Fee revenue will be used to fund the construction of drainage facilities required for each benefit area as described in the Master Storm Drainage Plan Study and the attached Engineer's Reports. Relationship Between: Use of the fee and the type of development on which it will be imposed: All land uses on which the fee will be imposed will require the planned drainage facilities to handle the increased runoff generated by their development and to protect such property from runoff generated from other developed and undeveloped property. Need for the facilities and type of development on which the fee will be imposed: The need for the planned drainage facilities was based on hydrology calculations using the County Hydrology Manual which considers runoff from both developed and undeveloped land. The need for drainage protection is generated by the development of property for residential, commercial, industrial and other uses. Amount of the fee and its relationship to the cost of facilities: The fee for each benefit area is calculated by estimating the costs of all master storm drainage facilities serving that area and dividing by the total of estimated net developed and developable acreage. The above discussion of Government Code requirements is applicable to each of the benefit area fees proposed in this Report and is not repeated in the discussion of each area. Benefit Area Discussion Each of the benefit areas is discussed in the following pages. This narrative is intentionally brief as it serves only to supplement a) the foregoing discussion in Sections 1 and II, b) the Fee Analysis Summary tables which follow this page, and c) the Engineer's Reports enclosed as Appendices A and B. 1-15 North This area was determined to be a separate benefit area since its runoff is constrained by the 1-15 Freeway and its proposed master storm drainage facilities do not provide protection to other areas. This area also shares a benefit in the Hawker Crawford flood control drainage facilities as discussed under that heading below. Eight hundred sixty- 9 seven dollars ($867) of the proposed fee of 514,698 per net developable acre reflects the allocation for this facility. There is a potential shortfall in revenues of 10% in this area. Approximately 9296 of this area is County area within the City's Sphere. 1-10 North This is by far the largest benefit area constituting approximately 57% of the total net . acreage of all the benefit areas. The terrain within this benefit area falls from the northeast tip of the City's sphere southerly. Runoff generated in the northem portions of the benefit area could potentially impact development as far south as the 1-10 Freeway which acts as a barrier to further flows to the south. Development in the southerly sections of the benefit area are dependent upon the presence of adequate facilities constructed in the north. The existing and future master planned facilities within the area, therefore, work in combination to provide protection for the entire benefit area. Master storm drainage facilities constructed within this area benefit no other areas. This benefit area shares a common benefit from the Hawker -Crawford Channel with the 1-15 North benefit area and a small portion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This is because flows from the 1-10 North area are conveyed to the Hawker Crawford Flood Control Drainage Facilities via the Duncan Canyon and Summit Avenue drains. Remaining developable property within the Village of Heritage is subject to a development agreement as it relates to payment of drainage fees. Such property has been reallocated from net developable to net developed acreage for purposes of this analysis. Eight hundred sixty-seven dollars ($867) of the proposed fee of $15,721 per net developable acre represents an allocation for the Hawker Crawford Flood Control Drainage Facilities. There is a potential shortfall of approximately $58.7 million or 39% of the proposed master drainage facilities to serve the area. It would be appropriate to undertake a cooperative study with the County regarding a plan to fund this shortfall. Approximately 38% of this area is County area within the City's Sphere. Hawker Crawford Flood Control Drainage Facilities These facilities serve property in both the 1-15 North and 1-10 North benefit areas as well an estimated 50 net acres in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. A share of the costs of the Hawker Crawford facilities was allocated to these three areas by determining the percent of the total net acreage served in each area and adding these costs to those for the master storm which exclusively served each benefit area. Thus, the net developable acre fee for each area includes $867 for the Hawker Crawford facilities. A separate summary table has been prepared for the Hawker Crawford facilities to document the allocation methodology. Calculation of the net acreage allocation for these 10 7/31/92 facilities will enable the City to determine the portion of fee revenues attributable to this facility without establishing a separate benefit area fee for it. Approximately 4096 of this area is County area within the City's Sphere. 1-10 South This area includes all property within the City's .Sphere which is directly tributary to and east of San Sevaine Creek lying south of the 1-10 Freeway. It is bounded on the east by the Declez North drainage area which is tributary to the Declez Channel and Basin. Master storm drainage facilities are required to convey the flows from this area a relatively short distance into the San Sevaine Channel or Jurupa Basin. Accordingly, the facilities costs are significantly less than those for most other portions of the study area. No unfunded costs are projected for this area. The projected surplus of fee revenue will be used to reimburse property which has provided facilities in excess of fair share. Approximately 20% of this area is County area within the City's Sphere. Declez North This area includes all property within the City's Sphere which is to the north or east of, and tributary to, the Declez Channel and Basin. The benefit area is bounded on the north by the 1-10 Freeway and by Tamarind Avenue to the east. The terrain within this benefit area falls south and westerly. A rise in the elevations south of the Declez Channel prevents runoff generated within the benefit area from impacting adjacent areas. Master storm drainage facilities constructed within this benefit area benefit no other areas. The benefit area does, however, share in a common benefit from the Declez Channel and Basin with the Declez South benefit area and some abutting property within the County of Riverside as identified on the benefit area map. Seven thousand nine hundred and nineteen dollars ($7,919) of the proposed $17,980 net developable acre fee for this benefit area is attributable to the area's share of the Declez Channel and Basin. Some of the property in this benefit area is subject to a Development Agreement between Ten -Ninety and the Fontana Redevelopment Agency whereby drainage facilities for those properties are to be constructed and no drainage fee charged to those properties. Therefore, developable .net acreage governed by this development agreement was reallocated to the developed category to enable a more accurate estimate of potential revenue. An analysis of projected fee revenue for this area indicates that no proposed facilities will be unfunded. Any revenues in excess of those required to fund proposed facilities will 11 be used to reimburse property for facilities provided beyond their fair share as calculated herein. Approximately 34% of this area is San Bernardino County area within the City's Sphere and 1% is within the County of Riverside. Declez South This area includes all property within the City which is to the south of and tributary to the Declez Channel. The terrain within this area falls generally north and westerly. A rise in the elevations north of the Declez Channel prevents runoff generated within the benefit area from impacting adjacent areas. Master storm drainage facilities constructed within this benefit area benefit no other areas. This area shares a common benefit from the Declez Channel and Basin with the Declez North benefit area and some abutting property within the County of Riverside as identified on the benefit area map. Seven thousand nine hundred and nineteen dollars ($7,919) of the proposed $25,499 net developable acre fee for this benefit area is attributable to the area's share of the Declez Channel and Basin. Most of the property in this area is subject to a Development Agreement between Ten -Ninety and the Fontana Redevelopment Agency whereby drainage facilities for those properties are to be constructed and no drainage fee charged to those properties. Therefore, Thus, developable net acreage governed by this development agreement was reallocated to the developed category to enable a more accurate estimate of potential revenue. All required master storm drain facilities have already been constructed. The purpose for calculating a fee for this area is so that potential future development of any property not subject to the development agreement will pay its fair share of the master storm facilities. Approximately 24% of this area is within the County of Riverside. Declez Channel and Basin As discussed above, the Declez Channel and Basin benefit property in the Declez North and South benefit areas as well as abutting property in Riverside County. The actual project cost of these facilities was determined based on available cost data and updated to current dollars. These costs were then allocated to the respective benefitted areas in the same manner described for the Hawker Crawford Flood Control Drainage facilities. The benefitted property is shown on the benefit area map. 12 A separate fee summary table has been prepared for this facility to document the calculation of that portion of the net developable acre fee for Declez North and South attributable to this facility and to permit the City and County to track fee revenue attributable thereto. Since the facility is already constructed, the portion of the proposed net developable acre fee attributable to this facility will be used to reimburse property which advanced the costs of the facility. Approximately 30% of this area is San Bernardino County area within the City's Sphere and 4% is within Riverside County. Upper Etiwanda This area includes all property within the City tributary to the Etiwanda Creek north of Foothill Boulevard. All required master storm drainage facilities have been constructed. The purpose of establishing a fee for this area is to ensure fair share participation by future developable property. Fees collected will be used for reimbursement to property which has provided more than its fair share of the facilities. Middle Etiwanda This area includes all property tributary to and west of the San Sevaine Creek north of the 1-10 Freeway and south of Foothill Boulevard. The benefit area extends only to the City's Sphere. While the City of Rancho Cucamonga's master storm drainage facilities designated as System XVI extend southerly through the benefit area, their costs are not included in the fee calculation as explained in the Engineer's Report. Runoff from this benefit area is tributary directly to the San Sevaine Creek. The area is isolated from other benefit areas by the San Sevaine Creek to the east and the 1-10 Freeway to the south. Facilities constructed within this benefit area do not benefit property in any other benefit area. A funding shortfall of approximately 21% of the required future master storm facilities is anticipated for the area. One hundred percent (100%) of this area is County area within the City's Sphere. Lower Etiwanda This area includes all property within the City's Sphere which is directly tributary to and west of the San Sevaine Channel and southerly of the 1-10 Freeway and the Middle Etiwanda benefit area. This benefit area is isolated from any other area within the City sphere by the San Sevaine Creek. Facilities constructed within this area will not benefit other areas. 13 A funding shortfall is anticipated in that the area is approximately 60% developed but no master storm drainage facilities have been constructed. Approximately 5% of this area is County area within the City's Sphere. Fontana East This area includes all property within the City's Sphere which is tributary to the Rialto Channel system and north of the 1-10 Freeway. The benefit area extends from Baseline Avenue on the north to the 1-10 Freeway to the south. Runoff from this benefit area flows southerly and to the east, ultimately reaching the Santa Ana River via the Rialto Channel. Potential impact to the development to the south of this benefit area is blocked by the 1-10 Freeway. Facilities constructed within this benefit area benefit no other areas within the City sphere. Three thousand eight hundred and sixty-seven dollars ($3867) of the $10,944* net developable acre fee for this area is based on a calculation of the costs of the proposed Rialto Channel Flood Control Drainage facilities attributable to this benefit area. This calculation was made by NBS Lowry based on the portion of the benefit area's flows to the channel relative to all flows to the facility. It is estimated that this area is 88% developed, but no facilities have been constructed. Unfunded costs are estimated at $22.6 million of a total of $27.9 million in facilities costs. It is recommended that the City and County explore the feasibility of forming a benefit assessment district to fund needed facilities in this area. Approximately 30% of this area is County area within the City's Sphere. Project 3-4 This area includes all property within the City's Sphere which is directly tributary to, and served by drainage facilities of the San Bemardino County Flood Control District's Project 3-4 Study Area. The latter area, which is depicted on Plate 7 in Appendix B, includes the City Project 3-4 benefit area but extends far beyond it. In fact, Fontana comprises less than 10% of the estimated developable acreage of the overall Project 3-4 Study Area. The City Project 3-4 benefit area includes all property south of the 1-10 Freeway and east of the Declez North area extending to the easterly City boundary. The proposed Project 3-4 area fee per net developable acre is based on the Draft Engineer's Report in Appendix B prepared by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District dated June, 1992. This report is still under review and this recommendation is based on the assumption that there will be no changes in that report which would affect the fee calculation. 14 The County Report calculated a fee using adjusted gross acreage for the benefitted property within the Project 3-4 Study Area. (Note: adjusted gross acreage excludes certain hillside property which is unlikely to develop, but does not exclude dedications for streets and other public improvements which occur during the subdivision process.) That portion of Fontana which is within the Study Area is in Subarea "A" for which the County has estimated a total of 375 adjusted gross acres and calculated a fee of $9,007 per adjusted gross acre. The $12,892 fee per net developable acre recommended herein was derived from the County Project 3-4 Engineer's Report by 1) Multiplying $9,007 times 375 to calculate the share of Subarea "A" storm drainage facilities costs allocable to the City of Fontana (approximately $3.4 million), and 2) dividing that amount by the estimated 262 net acres within the Project 3-4 benefit area. SECTION IV - RECOMMENDATIONS it 1. Approve the fee study report. 2. Approve the recommended fees per net developable acre calculated for each drainage benefit area as shown on Table 1, page 3. It is noted that the fees adopted by the City will only apply to the property within the City of Fontana area within each of the benefit areas. It is anticipated that the County of San Bernardino will adopt identical fees for its area within each of the benefit areas. Even where the City currently has Tittle or no property within a benefit area, e.g. 1-15 North and Middle Etiwanda, adoption of a fee is recommended in anticipation of possible future annexation of County property. 3. Explore supplemental funding sources in cooperation with the County of San Bernardino for those benefit areas which show unfunded master drainage facility costs. Possible additional funding sources include tax increment (City only unless County agrees to be included in redevelopment project area) and benefit assessments financing. Projected unfunded costs are significant in the case of the 1-10 North and Fontana East benefit areas. 4. Adopt a program and schedule for adjusting the fees to reflect inflation, interest costs on debt financing, and other changes which would affect fee amounts. 5. Establish a separate capital facilities account for each fee pursuant to Govemment Code Section 66006. dmpfN3.rpt\dfr.dsk 15 { . i xrrYr .wx rr ..:f. fx.luF.?:{?:} l.: {• :i}FSii i:vry •• ,n.'..:<v. i�}Fa`�ya4wa�i'urib{,w.•.'�:};�Sr:�:S3iz%::{•}},r:;�'*.rr.{?;i£if�aisea"Sfa�St,�iF::.F: :• F:ze}uv<i'S}S%9fa4'. Facility Costs Existing Proposed Total Facility Costs Table 2 1-15 North Benefit Area Fee Analysis Summary Amount Percent $111,353 2% $5,842,186 98% $5,953,539 100% Estimated Net Acreage Developed 49 12% Developable 356 88% Total Developed & Developable 405 100% Cost per Net Acre ( Hawker -Crawford Share in Total $14,696 $867 ) Proposed Facilities' Costs $5,842,186 100% Maximum Potential Revenue $5,234,881 90% Unfunded Costs $607,305 10% Net Acreage Estimate Developed Developable Total % of Total ;rrrr ..{ y, i..i.,.,Yn. }. ...::: ....... y4y;{.}: iYh:n.,vey,.}};n;{.;r;{r?.•x{.:.:{{{.,w lA'rryy.:F.r {{::K{SM:•:{{M{Y{jf{.Yr.:{{$i}'i"4ti•-r,"n;.;:{{n:may.;?.{{{.r{.. :;•:a.{`�S':,<{i!St +ii} � i� < Total Fontana County 49 -0 49 356 33 323 405 33 372 100% 8% 92% 1-10 North Benefit Area Fee Analysis Summary Facility Costs Amount Existing $52,324,043 Proposed $150,683,814 Total Facility Costs $203,007,857 Estimated Net Acreage Developed Developable Total Developed & Developable Total Cost per Net Acre ( Hawker -Crawford Share in Total Proposed Facilities' Costs Maximum Potential Revenue Unfunded Costs Net Acreage Estimate Developed Developable Total % of Total {v: }f"}}}}:ii:{?}}}YC},y:ir: y:?-:v"j'},1:'j•}:i zri: 2{f ��:}!ti?}; iJ.; Lv'}yi+�f�'+''•.:+.:. .,vlv..,., �yv�,i Table 4 Hawker -Crawford Flood/Drainage Benefit Area Fee Analysis Summary Facility Costs Amount Percent Existing $3,215,400 32% Proposed $6,923,761 68% Total Facility Costs $10,139,161 100% Estimated Net Acreage Developed 5440 47% Developable 6249 53% Total Developed & Developable 11689 100% Cost per Net Acre $867 (a) Proposed Facilities' Costs $6,923,761 100% Maximum Potential Revenue $5,420,275 78% Unfunded Costs $1,503,486 22% (a) Included in fees for 1-15 North and 1-10 North Rancho Net Acreage Estimate Total Fontana County Cucamonga Developed 5440 3173 2267 0 Developable 6249 3846 2361 41 Total 11689 7019 4628 41 % of Total 100.0 60.1% 39.6% 0.4% :n}y-v-::?i':t�+i }i}i}i;: }ii}>::?.}}:.}T.+• iiil fi�.y :$ }:yr . Yr Q �Y\ ;J ' :?.}'. ' ' LUYir??•Y'v::t? -Yt-.4 ' v4:i' ..}i... S}'l.?•T .rf.WY....F.. :: �lvr:}. .j ^.�� ?}",<j;{: x }:;{.}}}} `�v:?f} pr:}??:?:}}...:... r.:?:::h r: r:.: •:.v:: ri3:::::...... r. yr .r .v w.v::.v....:lv?{.:'::.:.:.::::::.: �::.. r::. r: rT}t :v.......... n..:t'`+: r.:.....:...i-+%.:v�t'v .vv.Nxf �.vv.. '{:.i:{??{?-: i}:{v�'�.+.•.{ .. i{:^..i:?i:?C{ :�.L�:?::.:;:::�i''i: 'i::i'v v. �: Facility Costs Existing Proposed Total Facility Costs Estimated Net Acreage Developed Developable Total Developed & Developable Proposed Facilities' Costs Maximum Potential Revenue Unfunded Costs Net Acreage Estimate Developed Developable Total % of Total Declez North Benefit Area Fee Analysis Summary Facility Costs Amount Existing $47,156,016 Proposed $13,791,893 Total Facility Costs $60,947,909 Developed Developable Total Developed & Developable Cost per Net Acre ( Declez Channel Share in Total Proposed Facilities' Costs $13,791,893 Maximum Potential Revenue $28,221,529 Declez Reimbursement ($12,429,467) Balance for Proposed Facilities $15,792,062 Unfunded Costs $0 Net Acreage Estimate Developed Developable Total % of Total Table 7 Declez South Benefit Area Fee Analysis Summary Facility Costs Amount Percent Existing $10,224,798 100% Proposed $0 0% Total Facility Costs $10,224,798 100% Estimated Net Acreage Developed 372 78% Developable 107 22% Total Developed & Developable 479 100% Cost per Net Acre $21,351 ( Declez Channel Share in Total $7,919 ) Proposed Facilities' Costs $0 Maximum Potential Revenue $2,284,513 Unfunded Costs $0 San Bern Riverside Net Acreage Estimate Total Fontana County County Developed 372 366 0 6 Developable 107 0 0 107 Total 479 366 0 113 % of Total 100% 76% 0% 24% Declez Channel & Basin Benefit Area Fee Analysis Summary Facility Costs Existing Proposed Total Facility Costs Estimated Net Acreage Developed Developable Total Developed & Developable Proposed Facilities' Costs Maximum Potential Revenue Unfunded Costs Net Acreage Estimate Developed Developable Total % of Total Cost per Net Acre Proposed Facilities' Costs Maximum Potential Revenue Unfunded Costs Table 9 Upper Etiwanda Benefit Area Fee Analysis Summary Facility Costs Amount Percent Existing $854,807 100% Proposed $0 0% Total Facility Costs $854,807 100% Estimated Net Acreage Developed 23 19% Developable 100 81% Total Developed & Developable 123 100% $6,967 $0 $694,574 $0 Net Acreage Estimate Developed Developable Total % of Total Total 23 100 123 100% Fontana 23 100 123 100% County 0 0 0 0% Middle Etiwanda Benefit Area Fee Analysis Summary Facility Costs Existing Proposed Total Facility Costs Estimated Net Acreage Developed Developable Total Developed & Developable Proposed Facilities' Costs Maximum Potential Revenue Unfunded Costs Net Acreage Estimate Developed Developable Total % of Total #� -• •�••} r ' } ..'}'$' v;>tk(2^" vi'.@2. }.,; :.:<i:.v.}Y.i2L t {) • t; Facility Costs Existing Proposed Total Facility Costs Table 11 Lower Etiwanda Benefit Area Fee Analysis Summary Amount Percent $0 0% $3,089,958 100% $3,089,958 100% Estimated Net Acreage Developed 275 57% Developable 207 43% Total Developed & Developable 481 100% Cost per Net Acre $6,419 Proposed Facilities' Costs $3,089,958 100% Maximum Potential Revenue $1,326,743 43% Unfunded Costs $1,763,215 57% x. Net Acreage Estimate Total Fontana County Developed 275 259 15 Developable 207 200 7 Total 481 459 22 % of Total 100% 95% 5% •�: :}�,}2 S;axo ��.t:L. ,�«G.M :'�.Ci`' � t} �' F'� t '' a�k't'a.'�+c�L:, ;fit: ..{;t'd'ct�;tt :.cc::•}.✓.•.y!c''t3:., .:uat:n. ?�;?t•.��'tt..•. ���na.4'}`�t+:,,.,"tyntttat?•:;F{`t fie Table 12 Fontana East Benefit Area Fee Analysis Summary Facility Costs Amount Percent Existing $1,847,507 7% Proposed $26,076,132 93% Total Facility Costs $27,923,639 100% Estimated Net Acreage Developed 2236 88% Developable 315 12% Total Developed & Developable 2551 100% Cost per Net Acre ( Rialto Channel Share in Total $1 0,944 $3,867 ) (a) Proposed Facilities' Costs $26,076,132 100% Maximum Potential Revenue $3,449,552 13% Unfunded Costs $22,626,580 87% a) Based on calculation of benefit area fair share of Rialto Channel Net Acreage Estimate Total Fontana County Developed 2236 1601 636 Developable 315 190 125 Total 2551 1791 761 % of Total 100% 70% 30% Table 13 Project 3-4 Benefit Area Fee Analysis Summary Facility Costs Existing Proposed Total Facility Costs (a) Estimated Net Acreage Developed Developable Total Developed & Developable Cost per Net Acre Proposed Facilities' Costs Maximum Potential Revenue Unfunded Costs (a) Total = C' Amount Percent $0 0% $3,377,625 100% $3,377,625 100% 26 10% 236 90% 262 100% $12,892 $3,377,625 100% $3,037,284 90% $340,341 10% fair share of total costs for benefit area which extends outside City Net Acreage Estimate Developed Developable Total % of Total Total 26 236 262 100% Fontana County 26 0 236 0 262 0 100% 0% APPENDIX A ENGINEER'S REPORT NBS/Lowry June, 1992 c i c CITY OF FONTANA ENGINEER'S REPORT MASTER STORM DRAINAGE FEE STUDY JUNE 23, 1992 JOB NO: S90-002.001 Prepared for: FLORY, OLSON & VAN OSDEL Pa ail TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION Purpose ,10 Scope of Work is ,.. II. DEFINITION OF BENEFIT AREAS as Methodology Facilities Benefit Areas W III. PROJECT COSTS Construction Cost Index Cost Estimates IV. CONCLUSIONS Summary of Costs Future Issues APPENDIX A - RIALTO CHANNEL COSTS REFERENCES to al CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Purpose The purpose of this engineer's report is to (1) analyze the function of existing and proposed drainage facilities in order to determine areas of common benefit and (2) compile project costs for those facilities based on records of construction costs and estimates from the Master Storm Drainage Plan Studies. Scope of Work The scope of this report includes all master storm drainage and flood control facilities necessary to serve areas within the City of Fontana's current sphere of influence not otherwise addressed in the existing Regional Flood Control impact fee for construction of the San Sevaine System (Ref. 7) and the County of San Bemardino's Project 3-4 Report (Ref. 5). Definitions of master storm drainage facilities were adopted from existing master storm drainage plan documents addressing the study area. I-1 A•1 ON CHAPTER II DEFINITION OF BENEFIT AREAS Methodolggy Benefit areas were defined such that the following criteria were satisfied within their boundaries: • A benefit area must be contained within one major drainage basin. • Facilities within a benefit area must provide a common level of service. • Facilities within a benefit area must not serve or provide protection to properties outside the benefit area. • The cost of protection must be similar throughout the benefit area. The first criteria addresses major drainage basins. The study area contains portions of three major basins (1) the Etiwanda Creek watershed, (2) the San Sevaine Creek watershed and (3) the Santa Ma River watershed. The drainage divide between the last two basins runs generally north -south and is located east of Sierra Avenue for much of the study area. The Etiwanda Creek watershed is limited to a relatively small area just north of Foote Boulevard on the west side of the study area. The benefit areas defined in this report are located entirely within one of these three watersheds. The second criteria addresses the need for the same level of service to be provided throughout a benefit area. As development within a benefit area is to be assessed a uniform cost allocation, the service provided should also be uniform Level of service is established by the set of criteria used in the design of the facilities provided. The criteria specified in the planning documents referenced, therefore, define the level of PA r *"'M IW '`VII mow' 010. IP service used. The benefit areas defined in this report contain facilities designed under similar criteria and thus provide a common level of service within a benefit area. The third criteria addresses the service area of the facilities contained within a benefit area. As the cost of these facilities should reasonably be allocated to all properties benefitted, it is important that the boundaries of the benefit area encompass the full service area of those facilities. Benefit areas defined in this report, therefore, include all developed and developable property served or protected by the facilities within that benefit area. The last criteria addresses the fact that the cost of drainage systems can vary throughout the study area. For example, developments located at or near the mouth of one of the many canyons at the northern border of the study area require different and more expensive facilities than developments located on flatter ground and farther removed from these canyons. The benefit areas defined in this report, therefore, contain areas of similar facility requirements. Facilities The master storm drainage facilities addressed in this report are shown in Figure 1, reproduced from the City of Fontana's Master Storm Drainage Plan Study (Ref. 1). In addition to these facilities, capacity in downstream facilities within the City of Rialto will be required. These facilities are listed in the Development Impact Fee Report for the City of Rialto (Ref. 3) which references the Comprehensive Storm Drain Plan Project 3-3 Rialto Channel Drainage Area (Ref. 6). Facilities within the Project 3-4 area are not addressed in this report The San Sevaine Regional Flood Control Drainage Facilities and a small portion of the Etiwanda Regional Flood Control Drainage Facilities are also shown in Figure 1. These facilities are located at the westerly side of the study area and run in a north - south direction. The portion of the Etiwanda Regional Flood Control Facilities shown 11-2 itr Ir P` in this figure is limited to an existing reach between the 1-15 freeway and Foothill Boulevard. Through this reach, the Etiwanda and San Sevaine Channels are aligned side by side, the Etiwanda Channel to the west and the San Sevaine Channel to the east. The channels separate south of Foothill Boulevard. Numerous master storm drainage facilities connect to the San Sevaine Channel. These include the facilities within Hunter's Ridge, the Hawker -Crawford Flood Control Drainage Facility, Systems A, B, C, D & H, the West Fontana Flood Control Drainage Facility, the 1-10 Channel west of Sierra Avenue, Jurupa Basin and lines SS-2 through SS-11. The only master plan facility tributary to the Etiwanda Channel is an existing line located in Village of Heritage designated H9 in Figure 1. It should be noted that the San Sevaine System improvements and the regional fee associated with it, end at the county line as shown in Figure 2, reproduced from the Upper Etiwanda Creek And San Sevaine Creek Area Drainage Plans (Ref. 7). The Dedez Flood Control Drainage Facilities and master storm drain lines tributary to it, do not connect to the San Sevaine System north of the county line and are, therefore, not within the benefit area of these improvements. The master storm drainage facilities located east of Sierra Avenue between Baseline Avenue and the 1-10 Freeway are tributary to the Rialto Channel (located outside the study area). These master storm drainage facilities include Systems E, F, G and H as well as portions of the East Fontana Channel and 1-10 Channel east of Sierra Avenue. The Rialto Channel connects directly to the Santa Ana River. FIGURE 1 ary PROVO cowry i MONO . COUNTY ,,...., AAY aY0agO w>iVw �OOUO� mum ram oififs Atesim.r. sie OTT OF INALTO _aa UNNOOPP. I CITY NIAL TO OTT OF COIMITY MAIM STOW MAIM= KAN EXHIBIT MAP 6•13-11 J. M. 4042 11-4 t ••• CITY OF RANCHO: CUCAMONC •• • • • arm SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT UPPER ETIWANDA CREEK AND SAN SEVAINE CREEK CITY OF FONTANA i 1 1 1 1. s•/ 1 1 SO eww•e. . I�uV, j ss `,NsWUHN >w M QMt 1 I ��‘``' yIIIE' `\`` l''' IJUFZUPA MTNS. a s. ,,wy ,, eJr�ay 1 i DRAINAGE PLANS • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • PIJW BOUNDARY MAIERSHED BOUNDARY UPPER E1IMANDA RAMMED SAN SOAK WARMED - cc:3 Delined D MotwnMd Bounderx adudlny lloper elm* Motanhed • m e• • PROPOSED CHANNEL IEROW NTS PROPOSED BASIN NON-PRO%ECT FAQJ1iS �.../' NA1URAL DRAINAGE COURSE ZONE aTY UNITS FIGURE 2 .AJLY 19, 1989 11-5 Benefit Areas Applying the methodology previously described, the area within the City of Fontana limits and the County area within the City's "Sphere of Influence" was divided into 12 distinct benefit areas. In two cases, major facilities were identified which served more than one benefit area. The seniice area of the Hawker -Crawford Flood Control Drainage Facilities were determined to include Benefit Area Nos. 2 and 3 plus a small area south of Summit Avenue outside the City's sphere of influence. Secondly, the service area of the Declez Flood Control Drainage Facility was determined to include Benefit Area Nos. 7 and 8. All 14 of these benefit and service areas are delineated in Figure 3. The specific rationale for each of the 12 benefit areas is described in Table 1. 11-6 LEGEND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE BENEFIT AREA HUNTERS RIDGE 0 1-15 NORTH 1-10 NORTH UPPER ETIWANDA 0 MIDDLE ETIWANDA 0 PROJECT 3-4 O FONTANA EAST ® MOUNT JURUPA O DECLEZ NORTH HAWKER-CRAWFORD CHANNEL SERVICE O DECLEZ SOUTH AREA 0 1-10 SOUTH ///A DECLEZ CHANNEL O LOWER ETIWANDA SERVICE AREA CRY OF FONTANA ENGINEER'S REPORT MASTER STORM DRAINAGE BENEFIT AREAS R.Y. OL.131. VA/I C6DEL POI/L0111r1 OK. FIGURE: 3 11-7 TABLE 1 DESCRIPTION OF MASTER STORM DRAINAGE BENEFIT AREAS No. Name Description Rationale 1. Hunter's Ridge Area in northwest corner of the City limits containing a rectangular parcel on the westerly City limit plus Hunter's Ridge development. That portion of the Hunter's Ridge development tributary to the Hawker - Crawford Flood Control Drainage Facilities was excluded from this benefit area and included with the 1-15 North benefit area. Runoff from this benefit area is tributary directly to the San Sevaine Creek facilities and will not impact adjacent areas in the 1-15 North or 1-10 North benefit areas. Drainage facilities constructed within this benefit area do not provide protection to any other areas within the City's sphere nor receive water from any other area. 2. 1-15 North Area within the City's sphere north of 1-15 tributary to the Hawker -Crawford Flood Control Drainage Facilities and west of the I- 10 North benefit area. Runoff from this benefit area is constrained from impacting areas to the south by the 1-15 Freeway. Master storm drainage facilities constructed in this benefit area do not provide protection to any other areas within the City sphere. 1-15 North, however, shares a common benefit of the Hawker -Crawford Flood Control Drainage Facilities with 1-10 North and a small portion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. No. Name Description Rationale 3. 1-10 North Area within the City's sphere tributary to and east of San Sevaine Creek and north of the I- 10 Freeway, excluding areas within the Hunter's Ridge and 1-15 North benefit areas. The terrain within this benefit area falls from the northeast tip of the City's sphere southerly. Runoff generated in the northern portions of the benefit area could potentially impact development as far south as the 1-10 Freeway. The freeway, however, acts as an effective barrier constraining further impacts to the south. Development in the southerly sections of the benefit area are dependent upon the presence of adequate facilities constructed to the north. The existing and future master storm drainage planned facilities within the area, therefore, work in combination to provide protection for the entire benefit area. Master storm drainage facilities constructed within this area benefit no other areas. This benefit area does, however, share a common benefit of the Hawker -Crawford Flood Control Drainage Facilities with 1-15 North benefit area and a small portion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 4. Upper Etiwanda Area within the City's sphere tributary to the Etiwanda Creek. The area is located north of Foothill Boulevard and west of the Creek. The benefit area is tributary directly to the Etiwanda Creek. As such, its runoff is isolated from all other areas within the City's sphere. Facilities constructed within this benefit area do not benefit other lands. No. Name Description Rationale 5. Middle Etiwanda This area encompasses that portion of San Sevaine Creek tributary area Tying north of the 1-10 Freeway, west of the creek, and south of Upper Etiwanda benefit area. The benefit area is extends only to the City's sphere of influence boundary. While the City of Rancho Cucamonga's master storm drainage facilities, designated as System XVI, extend through this benefit area, they are not included nor their costs. This benefit area is tributary directly to the San Sevaine Creek. It's runoff is isolated from other areas of the City's sphere by San Sevaine Creek to the east and the 1-10 Freeway to the south. Facilities constructed within this benefit area do not benefit any other areas within the City's sphere. 6. Fontana East Area within the City's sphere tributary to the Rialto Channel. The benefit area extends from Baseline Avenue on the north to the 1-10 Freeway to the south. Runoff from this benefit area flows southerly and to the east, ultimately reaching the Santa Ana River via the Rialto Channel. Potential impact to development to the south of this benefit area is blocked by the 1-10 Freeway. Facilities constructed within this benefit area benefit no other areas with the City's sphere. 7. Dedez North This benefit area encompasses all tributary areas north and east of Dedez Channel. The benefit area is bounded on the north by the I- 10 Freeway and Tamarind Avenue to the east. The terrain within this benefit area falls south and westerly. A rise in the elevations south of Declez Channel prevents runoff generated within the benefit area from impacting adjacent areas. Master plan facilities constructed within this benefit area benefit no other areas. Declez North, however, does share a common benefit of the Dedez Flood Control Drainage Facilities with Declez South. No. Name Description Rationale Dedez South Area within the City's sphere south of and tributary to the Declez Flood Control Drainage Facilities. The terrain within this benefit area falls generally north and westerly. A rise in the elevations north of Declez Channel prevents runoff generated within the benefit area from impacting adjacent areas. Master Storm Drainage facilities constructed within this benefit area benefit no other areas. Declez South, however, does share a common benefit of the Declez Flood Control Drainage Facilities with Declez North. 9. I-10 South Area within the City's sphere directly tributary to, and east of, San Sevaine Creek lying south of the 1-10 Freeway. The terrain within this area falls to the south and westerly. Facilities constructed within this benefit area benefit no other areas within the City's sphere. 10. Lower Etiwanda Area within the City's sphere directly tributary to, and west of, the San Sevaine Creek lying south of the 1-10 Freeway and Middle Etiwanda. This benefit area is isolated from any other area within the City's sphere by the San Sevaine Creek. Facilities constructed within this benefit area will benefit no other areas within the City's sphere. 11. Project 3-4 This benefit area includes all areas within the City's sphere tributary to the San Bernardino County Flood Control District's (SBCFCD) Project No. 3-4. The benefit area is bounded on the west by Tamarind Avenue, Jurupa Avenue to the north and the crest of the Jurupa Mountain on the southwest. The terrain within this benefit area falls generally to the south and easterly. Facilities constructed within this benefit area will benefit no other areas within the City's sphere. 12. Mount Jurupa This is a hillside area within the Jurupa Mountains located within the City's sphere of influence but south of the drainage divide created by Mount Jurupa and west of SBCFCD's Project No. 3-4 tributary area. Runoff from this benefit area exits the City's sphere across its southeasterly boundary. No other benefit areas within the City's sphere are impacted. CHAPTER III PROJECT COSTS Construction Cost Index Project costs were compiled for existing and future projects from a number of different sources. These costs were all adjusted to current dollars. This was accomplished using Construction Cost Indexes published monthly in the ENR magazine (Engineering News Record). The current index for the Los Angeles area (ENRLA) is 6287. This is based on a 1913 U.S. 20 cities average index value of 100. To escalate old project costs to current dollars, the ratio of 6287 divided by the ENRLA index for the year of construction was multiplied times the old project costs. For projects constructed before 1967, the U.S. 20 cities average index (ENR20) was used instead as they are more readily available back to the year 1906. The current ENR20 is 4965. Cost Estimates Project costs were identified for both existing and proposed master plan drainage facilities. These costs include hard construction engineering, inspection, administration, right-of-way and utility relocations. For existing facilities, records of actual costs were used where available. Where not already induded, engineering, inspection and administration was estimated at 20%. The cost of construction of future facilities within the study area (excluding Project 3-4 area) was taken from the City's Master Storm Drainage Plan (Ref. 1) and supplementary estimates provided by Hall and Foreman for the Rialto system (Ref. 2). These project cost estimates include a 15% construction contingency plus 20% for engineering, surveying, inspection and administration. Also, a 3% contingency was added to cover right-of-way and utility relocation costs. A summary of the project costs identified is provided in Table 2. No project costs were identified for Benefit Area No. 1 - Hunter's Ridge. Drainage facilities within this benefit area are to be constructed in accordance with an existing development agreement which does not permit imposition of an additional drainage fee. This benefit area is, therefore, not addressed any further in this report. TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF MASTER STORM DRAINAGE PROJECT COSTS BY BENEFIT AREA ENRLA 6287 FACILITY SOURCE COSTS CURRENT COSTS Description Benefit Area(s) Served Status Ref. No. Construction Coat Project Cost Reference Date Construction Coet Index Estimated Additional Costs Total Project Cost Hawker -Crawford Channel - Rich Basin to Summit Avenue • 2,3 & R.C. Existing 1,4 & 8 $2,330,000 (3) 1.38 $3,215,400 Hawker -Crawford Channel - Below Summk Avenue & Abate Rich Basin 2,3 & R.C. Future 1 & 4 $5,017,218 (3) 1.38 $6,923,761 Total for Hawker -Crawford Benefit Area $10,139,161 Master Storrs Drainage Facilities Tributary to the Hawker -Crawford Flood Control Drainage Faclikies. 2 Future 1 & 4 $4,059,717 (3) 1.38 $5,602,409 Total for Benefit Area No. 2 $5,602,409 System A - Duncan Canyon Road to 1-15 Freeway 3 Future _ 1 $8 029,150 (3) 1.38 $8,320,227 Notes: 'rr U.S. 20 Cities average (ENR20) used for projects constructed before 1067; cumuli ENR20 Is 4066. tar Expressed as a multiplier applied to source cost to add construction contingencies (16%), engineering, inspection and administration ( ) and a contingency tot right-of-way or utility relocations (3%). a Cost bawd on totals and/or unit prices from draft maew plan; Hall and Foreman anticipate costs presented will not change through pubiloation of final draft. "' Estimated as ehowm in Table 3. a' Yrotudas a portion of $8,370,886 misc. development costs; allocated to Storm Drains, Bridges, Dean Basin & Channel and Railroad Gongs construction totaling $25,504,092; calculated at a rate of $328,217.37 per $1,000,000 of hard oorstructlon cost. ai Overhead and Management reimbursement rate sit by Amendment No. 1 to the Fontana Redevelopment Owner Participation Agreement (17%) per Ref. 14. 14 Project Date include misc. development cost par footnote (6) plus a portion of $1,871,112 land ousts allocated at a rate of $114,026.75 Per $1.000,000 of hard construction cost; the total amount added is then $442,244.12 per $1,000,000. TABLE 2 (CONTINUED) FACILITY _ SOURCE COSTS CURRENT COSTS Description Benefit Area(s) Served Status Ref. No. Construction Cost Project Cost . Reference Date Construction Cost Index(') Estimated Additional Costs(2) Total Project Cost System B - Summit Avenue to Duncan Canyon Road 3 Future 1 $6,985,795 _ (3) 1.38 $9,640,397 System C - Highland Avenue to Summit Avenue 3 Future 1 $8,743,005 (3) 1.38 $12,065,347 System 0 - Baseline Avenue to Highland Avenue 3 Future 1 $17,881,780 (3) 1.38 $24,676,856 System H - Heritage Village (excluding H9) plus potion of RCB In Baseline Avenue 3 Existing 1 & 11 $14,916,095 (3) • 1.38 $20,584,211 System T (North) - AT&SF to Baseline east of Village of Heritage 3 Future 1 $11,569,130 (3) 1.38 $15,965,399 Portion of Une T1 In Juniper Avenue 3 Existing (4) S49,800 (3) 1.38 $68,724 System T (South) - AT&SF to Foothill south of Village of Heritage 3 Future 1 $5,889,350 _ - (3) - 1.38 $8,127,303 Nods: ru U.S. 20 Cities average (ENR20) used for projects constructed before 1987; current ENR20 is 4965. " Expressed as a rrwltiptier applied to source cost to add construction contingencies (1614, engineering, inspection and administration (201%) and a contingency for right-of-way or utility relocations (37l). no Cost basal on totals and/or unit prices from draft master plan; HaU and Foreman anticipate cods presented will not change through publication of final draft. on Estimated as shown in Table 3. on Motets a pardon of $8,370,886 misc. development costs; allocated to Storm grains, Bridges, Moles Basin & Channel and Railroad Crossings construction totaling $25,504,092; calculated at a rate of 8326,217.37 per $1,000,000 of hard construction oost. on Oierhead and Management reimbursement rate set by Amendment No. 1 to the Fontana Redevelopment Owner Participation Agreement (17S) per Ref. 14. on Project on include misc. development cod per footnote (6) plus a portion of $1,871,112 land costs allocated at a rate of $114,026.75 rest S1.000,000 of hard construction cost the total amount added is then $442,244.12 per $1,000,000. II : TABLE 2 (CONTINUED) REVISED: 7/31 /f FACILJTY SOURCE COSTS CURRENT COSTS Benda Area(s) Served Status Ref. No. Construction Cast ProtectDescription Cost Reference Dete Conetnu Uon Cost Index Estimated I Total Atidklonel Protect Costs° Cost West Forearm Chanel - along AT&SF (Proposed) 3 Future 1 $9,803,440 (3) 1.38 $13,262,747 System M -1-10 Freeway to AT&SF Met of Cherry Avenue 3 Future 1 $21,145,876 (3) 1.38 $29,181,388 Una M-0 In Sierra Avenue 3 Existing (4) $243,800 (3) 1.38 :336,444 $208.2421 of Portion Line M-1 In Jun1p.r Avenue 3 Existing (4) $150,900 (3) • 1.38 Lines SS-2A` 28 & 2C In Randall Avenue, San Bernardino Amur and Valley Blvd., respectively 3 Future 1 • :4,882,550 (3) 1.38 $6,875,919 1-10 Channel (Proposed) west of Siena Ave. 3 Future 1 $11,538,074 (3) 1.38 $15,023,922 NOTU: re U.B. 26 Guise sasses IENR701 used for pops* oonabuoled before /067; current ENR20 M 4066. O Expressed as a multiplier applied to source oat to add oonetruoeon ooMh lM it (l61<), engkna.dng. knepsa6on and adminimation 420% aid a oontlnpengr for rhgidofisay or Pithy relocations DS). a Coat based an tors and/or unit pdoss from dolt awbr plan; Hot and Foreman Walpole oosa presented rave nut lunge through publication of final draft. w Estimard r siren in Table 3. •► thirds* s pagan of 11114170.1166 misc. devdopment onto eroded o ded to Storm Mahs, adder. Dada gosh l Monona and ReWoad Crossings epdey{wpn busing $26$04,001% calculated at a rats of $326,217.37 per $1,000,000 of hard ooneruolon cop. "r Omnrlrad and Msna4aaarmt reimbursement rats set by Amendment No. 1 to the Frans Rsdawiopment Garr P+redpadon Agreement ue (17111 per AN.114 Ymalyde mho. development oaths oast per loopmols $1) plus a portion of $1.671,112 tend MO elbowed at a tale of $114,026.76 per $1.000.000 of hand oonabuoran oast; the told amo mi added is them $442,244.12 per $1.000,000. t TABLE 2 (CONTINUED) REVISED: 7/31, FACIUTY SOURCE COSTS CURRENT COSTS ,Desaiption Bens* (•) Served Status Ref. No. Construction Cost Project Cost Reference Date Constriction Cost index") _ Additional Cade Taal x Cost 1-10 Charnel (Currant) west a Siena Avenue east a Hernlocic 3 Existing 10 $401,274re AprN 197t , 1704 t.20 �t,778.625 Total for Benefit Ares No. 3 $187,003,671 Line 119 in Wogs a Heritage tweet al Edmond' d' Channel 4 Existing 11 $619 425 (3) 1.38 $854,807 Total for Benefit Ares No. 4 $854,807 Unto SS-2 & 20 located south a Randall Ave, and in San Bwnadka Ave. respect sty west of San Swains Channel. 5 Future 1 $1,273,550 (3) 1.38 $1,757,499 Total for Benefit Area No. 5 $1,757,499 System E - Foothill Bid. to Baseline Ave. 6 Futter 12 $3,003.980 (3) 1.38 $4,145,465 System F - (Proposed) AT&SF to Foothill Bled. 6 Future _ 12 $3,283,060 - (3) 1.38 $4,531,851 NOTE$: U.$. Z1 Oat average 1 used lot' projects oomsruobd Wore 1e07. ourmnt ENA20 b 4086. Expensed as a mulliptlw applied to munse oast to add oorrwuofoa contingent* (104 engineering, lnspaotlon and administration f2e%) and a aaWngtnoy far tigiddrnwry as Wily Matadors pm. ra Cost booed on lotdt and/or unit plots *an dart maaltr pier; Ha and Foreman andailote comb pratsnnd wit not charge through putrtiodian of led dad. Estimated as sham in Table 3. 'r Mobdas a portion of $$ 3 0,N0 mite. development ousts; allocated to Worm Drains, Bridges. Dadra gain & hate and Railroad 000011100 auaort /mudina $25$O4 ob % catsuiated at a rate at 132e.217.87 per $1,000,e00 at red c minuation son. w Onstined and Management reimbursement pie sat by Mnandrnent No.1 to the Fontana radnwtopmstd Craw =emotion Agreement (17l1) per rid. 14. ra Payed swell include misc. development ant per ton n * d6} pki a portion 414;1,e71.11z land noels alaoeted at a rate at $i 14.02&7b pw �swited la a 33.as al fowl propel ream a8«raine Channel germ hams 01.1l7� TABLE 2 (CONTINUED) FACIUTY SOURCE COSTS CURRENT COSTS Description Benefit Area(s) Served Status Ref. No. Construction Cost Project Cost Reference Date Construction Cost Index") Estimated Addlionai Costs(2) Total Project Cost System F - (Current) Tamarind & Arrow - Kaiser Drains 6 Existing (4) $653,548 (3) 1.38 $901,896 System G - Randall Ave. to AT&SF 6 Future 12 $3,615,020 (3) 1.38 $4,988,728 System H - 1-10 Freeway to Randall Ave. 6 Future 12 $1,842,595 (3) 1.38 $2,542,781 1-10 Channel - east of Palmetto Ave. 6 Existing (4) $594,000 5450 1.38 $945,611 Portion of System A (Rialto Channel) 6 Future 3 & 6 $6,198,300 5450 1.38 $9,867,307 Total for Benefit Area No. 6 $27,923,639 System D2 (Proposed) - north and east of Deciea Channel 7 Future 1 $9,994,125 (3) 1.38 $13,791,893 System P - east of Sierra Ave. in Jurupa Ave. and south (South Park) 7 Existing 1 - $1,408,000 (3) - 1.38 $1,943,040 Now: r" U.S. 20 Odes average (ENR20) used for projects constructed before 1967; current ENR20 is 4965. os Expressed as a multiplier applied to source cost to add construction contingencies (15%), engineering, inspection and administration (20%) and a contingency for right-of-way or utility relocations (3%). a Cost based on totals and/or unit prices from draft master plan; Heil and Foreman anticipate costs presented will not change through publication of final draft. Estimated as shown in Table 3. w includes a portion of $8,370,886 misc. development costs; allocated to Storm Drains, Bridges, O.d.z Basin & Channel and Railroad Crossings construction totaling $►25,504,092; calculated at a rate of $328,217.37 per $1,000,000 of hard coOwner Participation nstruction cost. Agreement Overhead and M.nag.m.nt reimbursement rale set by Amendment No. 1 to the Fontana Redevelopment (17%) per Ref. 14. I* Project costs include misc. development cost Per footnote (6) plus at portion of $1,871,112 land costs allocated at a rate of $114,026.75 nwr 11 000.000 of hard construction cost; the total amount added is then $ 42,244.12 per $1,000,000. TABLE 2 (CONTINUED) FACILITY SOURCE COSTS CURRENT COSTS Description Benefit Area(s) Served Status Ref. No. Construction Cost Project Cost Reference Date Construction Cost Index(1) Estimated Additional Costs(2) Total Project Cost Portion of System DZ (Current) - east of Oleander Avenue and west of Sierra Avenue 7 Existing (4) $4,629,100 (3) 1.38 $6,388,158 Portion of System DZ (current) west of Oleander Avenue and north of Jurupa 7 Existing (4) $1,903,100 (3) 1.38 $2,626,278 Southrldge Storm Drains north of the Dedez Channel 7 Existing 14 $2,534,209 $3,365,980 1985 5447 (6) 1.17 $4,545,519 $337,599 448,405 (5) 1986 5452 (6) 1.17 $604,984 0 0 1987 5474 (6) 1.17 0 $1,124,805 $1,493,985 (5) 1988 5771 (6) 1.17 $1,904,252 $801,072 $1,063,998 (5) 1989 5790 (6) 1.17 $1,351,735 $222,328 $295,300 (5) 1990 5995 (6) 1.17 $362,329 $53,247 $70,724 (5) 1991 6090 (6) 1.17 $85,424 $322,593 $428,474 (5) 1992 6287 (6) 1.17 $501,315 Notes: iv U.S. 20 Cities average (ENR20) used for projects constructed before 1967; currant ENR20 is 4965. u' Expressed as a multiplier applied to source cost to add construction contingencies (15%), engineering, inspection and administration (20%) and a contingency for right-of-way or utility relocations (3%). Q' Cost based on totals and/or unit prices from draft master plan; Hail and Foreman anticipate costs presented witi not change through publication of final draft. "' Estimated as shown in Table 3. "r Includes a portion of $8,370,886 misc. development costs; allocated to Storm Drains, fridges, Osdez Basin & Channel and Railroad Crossings construction totaling $25,504,092; calculated at a rate of 5326,217.37 per $1,000,000 of hard construction cost. a Overhead and Management reimbursement rate set by Amendment No. 1 to the Fontana Redevelopment Owner Participation Agreement (17%) per Ref. 14. iv Project posts Include misc. development cost per footnote (6) plus a portion of 51,871,112 land costs allocated at a rant of $114,026.75 per $1,000,000 of hard construction oast; the total amount added is then $442,244.12 per $1,000,000. TABLE 2 (CONTINUED) FACILITY SOURCE COSTS CURRENT COSTS Description Benefit Area(s) Served Status Ref. No. Construction Cost Project Cost Reference Date Construction Cost Index(1) Estimated Additional Costs(2) Total Project Cost Subtotal Southridge Storm Drain N/O Declez $5,395,853 $7,166,866 (5) $9,355,558 Total Benefit Area 7 $34,104,927 Southridge Storm Drains south of Declez. Channel 8 Existing 14 $1,790,793 $2,378,562 (5) 1985 5447 (6) 1.17 $3,212,081 $70,880 $94,144 (5) 1986 5452 (6) 1.17 $127,018 $57,500 $76,373 (5) 1987 5474 (6) 1.17 $102,628 $1,115,978 $1,482,261 (5) 1988 5771 (6) 1.17 $1,889,309 $344,274 $457,271 (5) 1989 5790 (6) 1.17 $580,931 $319,401 $424,234 (5) 1990 5995 (6) 1.17 $520,530 0 0 1991 6090 (6) 1.17 0 0 0 1992 6287 (6) 1.17 0 Subtotal Southridge Storm Drain S/O Declez $3,698,826 $4,912,845 (5) $6,432,497 Total Benefit Area 8 $6,432,497 Declez Channel, Basin, Bridges and Railroad Crossings 7 & 8 Existing 14 $6,508,086 $9,386,249 (7) 1985 5447 (6) 1.17 $12,675,468 Notes: "' U.S. 20 Cities average (ENR20) used for projects constructed before 1967; current ENR20 is 4965. in Expressed as a multiplier applied to source cost to add construction contingencies (15%), engineering, Inspection and administration (20%) and a contingency for right-of-way or utility relocations (3%). a) Cost based on totals and/or unit prices from draft master plan; Hall and Foreman anticipate costs presented will not change through publication of final draft. in Estimated as shown in Table 3. w Includes a portion of $8,370,886 misc. development costs; allocated to Storm Drains, Bridges, Dedez Basin & Channel and Railroad Crossings construction totaling $25,504,092; calculated at a rate of $328,217.37 per $1,000,000 of hard construction cost. 1n Overhead and Management reimbursement rate set by Amendment No. 1 to the Fontana Redevelopment Owner Participation Agreement (17%) per Ref. 14. in Project costs include misc. development cost per footnote (6) plus a portion of $1,871,112 land costs allocated at a rate of $114,026.75 per $1,000,000 of hard construction cost; the total amount added is then $442,244.12 per $1,000,000. TABLE 2 (CONTINUED) FACIUTY SOURCE COSTS CURRENT COSTS Description Benefit Area(s) Served Status Ref. No. Constriction Cost Project Cost Reference Date Construction Cost Index(1) Estimated Additional Costs° Total Project Cost $103,322 $149,015 (7) 1986 5452 (6) 1.17 $201,050 $64,252 $92,667 (7) 1987 5474 (6) 1.17 $124,523 $90,613 $130,686 (7) 1988 5771 (6) 1.17 $166,574 1 $6,446,625 $9,297,607 (7) 1989 5790 (6) 1.17 $11,811,959 $3,164,218 $4,563,575 (7) 1990 5996 (6) 1.17 $5,599,449 $32,296 $46,579 (7) 1991 6090 (6) 1.17 $56,260 0 0 1992 6287 (6) 1.17 0 Subtotal Dedez Channel System $16,409,412 $23,666,378 $30,635,283 Total for Dedez Channel Benefit Area $30,635,283 Une SS-8 located on Marley east ci San Sevaine Channel 9 Future 1 $282,250 (3) 1.38 $389,505 Unes tributary to Jurupa Basin 9 Existing (4) $1,130,700 (3) 1.38 $1,560,366 Total Benefit Area 9 $1,949,871 Notes: I" U.S. 20 Cities average (ENR20) used for projects constructed before 1967; current ENR20 is 4966. ra Expressed as a multiplier applied to source cost to add construction contingencies (15%), engineering, inspection and administration (20%) and a contingency for right-of-way or utility relocations (3%). w Cost based on totals and/or unit prices from draft masts plan; Nell and Foreman anticipate Does presented will not charge through publication of final draft. w Estimated as shown in Table 3. pr includes a portion of $8,370,888 misc. development costs; allocated to Storm Drains, Bridges, Molex Basin & Channel and Reikoad Crossings constructlon totaling $25,504,092; calculated at a rate of $328,217.37 per $1,000,000 of (and construction cost. r Overhead and Management v*nburssm.M rate set by Armendm•nt No. 1 to the Fontana Rsd.velopnent Owner Participation Agreement (17%) per Ref. 14. I" Project Doses Indud. misc. development cost per footrest. (6) plus • portion of $1,871,112 land oats allocated at a rate of 6114,026.75 ow $1,000,000 of hard construction cost; the tow amount added is then $442,244.12 per $1.000,000. TABLE 2 (CONTINUED) FACIUTY SOURCE COSTSo CURRENT COSTS Description Benefit Area(s) Served Status Ref. No. Construction Cost Project Cost Reference Date Construction Cost Index(1) Estimated Additional Costs(2) Total Project Cost Unes SS-5A, 5B, 6, 7, 10 and 11 located south of the 1-10 freeway and west of San Sevaine Channel 10 . Future 1 $2,239,100 (3) 1.38 $3,089,958 Total Benefit Area 10 $3,089,958 Nobs: nr V.S. 20 Cities average (ENR20) used for projects constructed before 1967; current ENR20 is 4966. ra Expressed as a multiplier applied to source cost to add construction contingencies (16S), engl(nsdng, inspection and administration (20%) and a contingency for tight -of -way or utility relocations (3%). P1 Cost based on totals and/or unit priors from draft masts( plan; Hail and Foreman anticipate costs presented wits not change through publication of final draft. "' Estimated as shown in Tabf. 3. "' Includes a portion of $8,370,886 misc. development costs; allocated to Storm Drains, &idgea, Dade: Basin & Channel and Railroad Crossings construction totaling $26 504,092; calculated at a rats of $328,217.37 per $1,000,000 of hard construction cost. w Overhead and Management reimbursement rats set by Amendment No. 1 to the Fontana Redevelopment Owner Participation Agreement (17%) per Ref. 14. in Project costs Include misc. development ooet per footnote (6) plus • portion of $1,871,112 land costs allocated at • rats of $114,026.75 .,-. *. nr,n mn of herd oonstrudion cost; the total amount added is then $442,244.12 per $1,000,000. TABLE 3 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES OF EXISTING MASTER STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES ENRLA 6287 FACIUTY Description Benefit Area Ref. Served No. Portion of Une T1 in Juniper Avenue 3 Une M-0 In Sierra Ave. North of 3 1-10 Freeway Portion of Une M-1 in Juniper Ave. 3 COSTS Unit Type Size Ouarhtty Fria" TOTAL 1 RCP CB MH 1 RCP RCP RCP CB MH 1 RCP CB MH 516 300 LF L=9' 2 EA STD 1 EA 135 3,400 2,500 Subtotal for T-1 30' 660 LF 38' 700 LF 42' 860 LF L-9' 8 EA STD 6 EA 48' L-9' STD $40,500 6,800 2,500 $49,800 72 $48,800 90 63,000 108 91,800 3,400 27,200 2,500 15,000 Subtotal for M-0 $243,800 1,050 LF 4 EA 2 EA 126 3,400 2,500 Subtotal for M-1 System F (Current) - Tamarind & 6 13 RCP 36' 1,440 LF Arrow -Kaiser Drains RCP 39r 884 LF RCP 42' 1,287 LF RCP 45' 1,060 LF RCP 48' 530 LF ELL RCP 68N43' 146 LF Unit prices are based on the Draft Storm Drain Master Plan Upstream reach is 36', therefore, this reach was considered As -Built dimensions unknown; ssymatsd based on facilities Based on manufacturer estimate that.Aiptipi pipe is twos Unit price from Ref. 6. 90 99 108 117 126 (4) 216 Study (Ref. 1) except as noted. to qualify as a master plan facility. serving a sknilw size area. the poet of the hydraulic equivalent In standard RCP, In this case S4'. III-12 $132,300 13,600 5,000 $150,900 $129,600 87,516 138,996 124,020 66,780 31,536 TABLE3/RPT OSK TABLE 3 (CONTINUED) FACIUTY Description Benefit Area Ref. Served No. COSTS Unit Type Size Quantity Price(') TOTAL 1-10 Channel - East of Palmetto Ave. 6 Portion of System DZ (Current) - 7 East of Oleander Ave. Portion of System DZ (current) West 7 of Oleander and north of Jurupe Avenue CB L=T 3 EA 3,200 CB L=4' 11 EA 3,000 MH STD 13 EA 2,500 (3) 9,600 33,000 32,500 Subtotal System F (Current) $653,548 6 TCC 2,640 LF (5)225 $594,000 1 RCP RCP RCP RCP RCP RCB JS JS CB MH 39' 42° 54• 90* 108' 14'4' Channel Entry L=9' STD Subtotal 1-10 Channel $594,000 400 LF 99 $39,600 2,500 LF 108 270,000 1,650 LF 144 237,600 1,950 LF 252 491,400 1,750 LF 306 535,500 7,040 CY 400 2,816,000 1 EA 15,000 15,000 2 EA 40 EA 32 EA 4,000 3,400 2,500 8,000 136,000 80,000 Subtotal Portion of System DZ (Current) $4,629,100 1 RCP 36° 1,550 LF Unit prices are based on the Draft Storm Crain Master plan Upstream reach is 36', therefore, this reach was considered As -Built dimensions unknown; estimated based on facilities Based on manufacturer estimate that elliptical pipe Is twice Unit price from Ref. 6. RCP 39' 1,950 LF RCP 45' 350 LF RCP 51' 1,450 LF RCP 60' 950 LF 90 99 117 135 162 Study (Ref. t) except as noted. to qualify as a master plan facility. serving a similar size area. the cost of the hydraulic equivalent In standard RCP, In this case Sr. III-13 139,500 193,050 40,950 195,750 153,900 TA$IE3/PeT OSK TABLE 3 (CONTINUED) FACILITY Description Benefit Area Ref. Served No. COSTS Unit Type Size Quantity Price) TOTAL Lines tributary to Jurupa Basin in (a rn IN iw 9 1 Unit prices are based on the Draft Storm Drain Master Plan Upstream reach is 36', therefore, this reach was considered As -Built dimensions unknown; estimated based on facilities Based on manufacturer estimate that elliptical pipe is twice Unit price from Ref. 6. RCP RCP RCP CB MH 63' 66" 78' L=9' STD 550 LF 3,450 LF 1,250 LF 36 EA 29 EA 171 180 216 3,400 2,500 94,050 621,000 270,000 122,400 72,500 RCP RCP RCP CB MH Subtotal Portion of System DZ $1,903,190 36' 42" 48' L=9' STD 1,200 LF 2,950 LF 4,450 LF 26 EA 22 EA 90 108 126 3,400 2,500 108,000 318,600 560,700 88,400 55,000 Subtotal Unes to Jurupa Basin - $1,130,700 Study (Ref. 1) except as noted. to qualify as a master plan facility. serving a similar size area. the cost of the hydraulic equivalent in standard RCP, in this case 54'. III-14 TABLE3/RPT DSK REVISED: 7/31/92 CHAPTER N CONCLUSIONS Summary of Costs The total project costs for existing and proposed drainage facilities, in today's dollars (ENRLA 6287) are summarized below by benefit area. PROJECT COSTS Benefit Area Existing Facilities Future Facilities Total 1 < NOT ADDRESSED > Hawker -Crawford Channel $3,215,400 $6,923,761 $10,139,161 2 0 5,602,409 5,602,409 3 22,974,248. 144,029,425 167,003,671 4 854,807 0 854,807 5 0 1,757,499 1,757,499 8 1,847,507 28,078,132 27,923,639 7 20,313,034 13,791,893 34,104,927 8 8,432,497 0 6,432,497 Declez Flood Control Drainage Facilitles 30,635,283 0 30,635,283 9 1,560,366 389,505 1,949,871 10 0 3,089,958 3,089,958 11 < NOT ADDRESSED > 12 0 0 0 IV-1 Future Issues Cost allocations based on the project costs provided in this report will reflect current costs. As construction costs are likely to increase significantly in the future, the costs allocations should be updated on a regular basis perhaps as often as once a year if costs are changing rapidly. This can be accomplished through increasing the project costs by the ratio of the future ENRLA construction index value to the current value of 6287. On a Tess frequent basis, the master storm drainage plan studies and cost estimates, referenced by this report, should be reviewed and/or updated. In particular, the buy - in cost to the City of Rialto's System A (Rialto Channel) should be updated as this facility nears construction. A copy of the reference materials used in this report for Rialto Channel costs is provided in Appendix A. IV-2 APPENDIX A APPENDIX A RIALTO CHANNEL COSTS Master Storm Drainage Facilities in the Fontana East Benefit Area, when constructed, will discharge into the Rialto Channel. The cost of participating in the construction of this flood control drainage facility is identified in the Development Impact Fee Report for the City of Rialto (Ref. 3) with supporting cost estimates listed in the Comprehensive Storm Drain Plan Project 3-3 Rialto Channel Drainage Area (Ref. 6). The schedules and figures referenced by this Engineer's Report for the Rialto Channel have been included in this appendix. A detail of the master storm drainage and flood control drainage facilities to be constructed by the City of Rialto is presented in Schedule 8.2 (taken from Ref. 3). The Rialto Channel is listed in Line #16 and 17. Line #16 is 100% financed by the City of Rialto. Line #17, however, is substantially Tess than the full cost of the Rialto Channel south of the 1-10 Freeway. Based on the supporting cost estimates and drawings provided for Project No. 3-3A series (Ref.6), the maximum construction cost to be provided by the City of Fontana for the Rialto Channel will be $8,198,300 (ENRLA 5450). j� SCHEDULE ..2 CRY OF NPLTO DEVELOPER FEES OEM STORM ORASMSE MOWED M.e./n..M OnMo..1..0.nN. Ape HMO USEAR FEET PPE SIZE ESTIMATED COST UIE 0 OEBCRr•TRDN ZONE I 1 Al YMO CACTUS, NISH ANDISIO MN .NIT; REMAINING °EM OTION SARNO - CACTUS DAMN 0.N0 TOC PASOA00 2 SI MANGO. S1O RIVERSIDEIOASA NO ME •.N0 3040 07S2,ON 0 M LOCUST. NO INERS2EICASAAIWbE 1.300 •S 1200.100 4 BS SUMMIT. LAUR ULOCUST 1,320 A 0216,100 6 C CASMALIA. MAN00ISPRUCE 12.1100 TOO 06,N6.960 0 CI MANGO, BOHIERT/CASOIMM 2.000 40 N61.N0 7 C2 PALMETTO. BOHERT/CAOMPLN 2,000 10 0N1,0N • C3 TAMARIND. SOHERT ASMALN 1.0110 42 00M7,020 0 C. SUIMIR, MANOOIALOE/t ALDER SUMMIT/CASOIKN O,ON 61-76 112.101.0110 10 C6 LAUREL. SOIOIERT/CASMAUA E000 a N37,020 I I CS MAPLE, M0 RIVERSIDENASMALM S,••0 20-61 SIMIAN 12 C7 LSIOEN.OUMMITICANIALM 4,640 21-411 S710.100 12 CS CEDAR. BOIMERT/CASMALM 1,200 N S200,ON 14 CS AYMA. SIO 1,920 S►J6 0220,N0 16 CIO SPRUCE. WOSOHNEAUCAS IALM 1,000 N 11.0,460 SUBTOTAL 017,0/17,060 ZONE S 10 [ A 11SALTO CHANNEL. ETMMNDNI-10 FREEWAY ( 11,7.21 TOC I M.20D A0 SCHEDULE 8.2 PAGE 1 OF 4 PERCENT APPORTIONED DOLLAR 0011T 0.0011 00 0.00+1 N 0.00% N 0.00N S S LOON N N N N N LOON S 0.0011 N LOOM N 0.00% S0 0.00N S0 0.00% SO 0.00111 SO APPORTIONED DOLLAR OM 100.0041 60,000,•00 0.0041 0• 100.00% 0200.•00 100.001i SWOON 1.6.0o+r •a•6aN0 LOON SO 100.0041 S361,N0 I00.00% 0017.0N 100.0041 02,134.000 100.0044 sumo 100.0041 01.121,400 100.00M 0700,100 100.0041 •N0.0.0 100.0041 •uo,••o 100A01i 11160,4110 m011 S16,013.640 1001"11 00,300,11110 100.0014 APPORTIONED OCUAROOST N 07.0.660 0.0o4 SO •.ee11 •0 0.0041 S0 100.00+1 •061,6N 0.00% SO 0.0011 SO SO 0.0o* SO 0.0041 SO 0.0041 SO LOOM SO 0.00% •0 0.00% SO 6.7011 01,111,110 SO SCHEDULE 02 CITY OF RIALTO DEYI3OPER FEES OETAL STORM DRAINAGE FACULTIES Mr3M SMM000 04401414, 0�a A0101000 LINEAR FEET PIPE IS ESTIMATED COST UNE 0 DESCRIPTION 17 A RIALTO aIMN1El,1-10 FWYJ6ANTA NN RIVER (CITY OF RYALTO'N SHARE OF 0000 0,7114 TCC 01,640,000 1S D IMMUNE. PALMETTOICACTUS 12,020 72-120 04,667.1170 10 01 PALMETTO, MNLNUTIMSELNE 2.0M0 30 64114.610 20 D2 TAMARIND, WAUGJHIMSEL/ E 2.M0 20 6404.560 21 00 ALDER WALNUT MA0ELNIE 2.640 00 1141142110 22 D4 L A URE. VIALNUTINAOELNIE 2,640 20 11610.760 23 06 LOCUST, MIALNUTINASB.INE 2.010 211 66/0.700 34 D0 UNDER WALNUTIM/ELIE; WALNUT. MAPLFJLN10EN 6,M0 411-117 6622.670 26 07 1NALNIJT,110 UINEWAYALA 1,320 40 6250,000 20 E NUO FOOTIEL. MA?LEICACTUS 0,N0 100-126 44.0/3,600 27 H MAPLE. ETIMMIDMY0 FOOTFALL 2.100 0 6412.210 20 E7 U1001. ETIMANDNFOOTHLL 2,300 20 6426.200 20 ES CEDAR ETIMMIONFOOTIM.L 2,300 N 6460.010 30 E0 LARCH. ETPAPHONFOOTHLL 2.300 15 4460.010 31 E10 SPRUCE, 2.300 46 6462.060 32 F ATM RR, MAPLE/MALT° CRANIAL 0.206 ROC 112.626.321 33 F6 MAPLE, RIALTO/ATM RR 1,300 46 0276,XM 34 F0 LINDEN, RIALTO/ATM RI 1.260 46 0247.620 26 F7 CEDAR RIALTO/ATM RI 1,100 42 0227.200 30 FS LARCH, RIALTO/ATM R1 1,100 36 6210.000 S7 F0 SPRUCE. RIALTO/ATM RR 1,100 30 11216220 SCHEDULE 8.2 PAGE 2 OF 4 CONSTRICTION NEEDS RESULTING FROM EMOTING POPULATION PERCENT NEB' APPORTIONEED DOLLAR COST 0.0014 00 0.00111 0.00% 60 60 0.00% 60 60 0.00% N 10.00% 6261.300 60.00N 1 I11,216 60 63,476,120 60 10.0041 642.620 100J1O% 6460,010 100AOM 11/00,010 I00 0041 662.060 000% 60 R00+1 60 0.0091 00 0.0001 60 0.00M SO 0.004 00 CONSTRUCTION NEEDS RESUMING FROM NEW DEVELOPMENT PERCENT NEED APPORTIONED 100.0091 61,640,000 100.00% 00,167.070 0.00% 60 100.0044 6464,650 100.0011 6404.660 100.00% 6010,700 0.00% 6260,300 40.0041 1141111,2411 I00.004F 11211111. 11 20.0011 6M0,7S0 0.0041 60 00.00% 6302,734 0.00% N o 00% 60 0.00% 60 100.0041 112.621,3211 0.004 60 00.004 100.0% 1207,620 I/227,200 100.0091 11210,000 100.0091 4216.020 CONSTRUCTION NEEDS RESULTING FROM OUTSIDE CRY SORDONI PERCENT NEED APPORTIONED DOLLAR COST 0001F 30 *0011 00 100.0011 6444,460 0.0041 00 0.00+1 00 0.001y SO 0.0019 0.0011 00 00 60 0.0011 S0 100A041 S412.210 0.0041 00 0.004F 30 0.00% SO 0.0011 30 0.0011 100.00 30 1270,300 0.0011 S0 0.0011 00 O.00M S0 N SCHEDULE 11.2 CITY OF RIALTO DEVELOPER FEES OETALL WORM OOAIWIE FAC<11B MMrmumt SMNsw Y rr, Y14. Pod HMSO LIVEN FEET PPE 012E E0TIMATEO OOST lN1E 0 DESCRIPTION TION 00 F10 LINDEN. ATOSF IaME10 .I4 DIVERSION STRUCTURE-UNDERISERRILL 1,400 72 0070,010 s 0 RANDALL, MAPLWUNDEPt LINDEN, RANDALL/SAN SERNARUSIOC SAN SETMINOIO. LINDEN/RIALTO CHANNEL 10,490 00-120 M.700.aa 40 07 MAPLE. WO MERIEUTMtOALL 1.400 0/ 6267,040 41 1111 SPRUCE. VALLEY/INTERSTATE 10 $60 0/ SUSAN 42 NO CACTUS, VALLEYISITERSTATE 10 760 30 S/57,720 43 1110 LSAC. V/LLLEYISREIMTATE 10 760 01 0/57.720 44 Hi WILLOW. VALLEYANTERSTATE 10 7.0 40 61111,1110 46 11 LIAO. FOOTHILU OALTO CHANNEL 0.000 3044 01,624.710 40 12 V ILLOW. WO 2ND STJSLOOMI NOTON 0.170 6bM S1.040,000 47 IS ACACIA. WO IE .URANDALL; RANDALL. ACACINRVERSME: RIVERSIDE. M1oALUSAN BERNARDINO; SAN SERNARDINO. WILLOYIIRVEASIOE: WRLOW. SAN SERARDINOIIOALTO CHANNEL 0.170 I N-M4 02,701,770 40 14 SYCAMORE. MERRILURANDAIL 2,630 St WI2,000 40 16 FVEf/31E. ALR MANDALL 1.200 20 11234,410 N M SYCAMORE. WO SAN BERNARDI NO/COLTON ORNN 730 SO S143,110 6t J1 !LOVER RVERSOER (ALTO CHANNEL 1,200 61 0240.360 62 J3 RIVERSIDE. WO'LOVER/SANTAAAA: SANTA / A. RVERSDEROALTO CHANNEL 6.126 30-07 01,147.000 SCHEDULE 8.2 PAGE 3 OF 4 CONSTRUCTION NEEDS RESULTING FROM EXISTING POPULATION PERCENT NEB. APPORTIONED DOLLAR COST 0.0041 00 0.0041 S0 0.0041 00 100.0041 SIMIAN 60.0041 W2.0S2 00 0.00111 00 00.0041 01.210,7M 100.001, $1,040.060 02,476.WO O 0.0001 0434,610 110.0041 0210,010 N .001r 70.0041 0120,7N $173,6116 40.0041 11469.1114 CONSTRUCTION NEEDS RESULTING FROM NEW DEVELOPMENT PERCENT NEED APPORTIONED DOLLAR C00T 100.001H 6630.010 0.0041 00 0.00R N 0.0041 SO 40.0041 0M0.0N 100.0041 $137.720 100.0041 $141.150 20.0041 0004.1112 0.0041 W.0011 S0 0270,077 S46,2M0 10.0041 $23.441 10.000 614,311 S0.0O% 074,614 00.00M 0M0M.770 PERcL•11T 01, APPORTIONED DOLLAR COST 00 06,700.004 100.0041 S267,640 0.0011 00 0.0011 00 0.0041 00 0.0041 00 0.0041 00 so' 00 00 0.0011` OAONi •:0.0011 00 00 00 0.0011 00 SO SCHEDULE 6.2 CITY OF RIALTO DEVELOPER FEES DETAIL STORM DRAINAGE FACURES MrreOenans Oen 0n00b, bra. Apra 1M0 LINEAR FAT PIPE SRE ESTIMATED OOST LINE 0 DESCRIPTION 63 JS WO SANTA AAA, SYCAMORE/AQUA MAMA 6,276 2410 11106,010 64 — WO BASELINE. LtACRMI D1AN 0,400 07 M662.100 66 — CASMAUA. ULACIAPPLE 1.126 46 $210.376 M — CAOUALIA, NVERSIDSLYTLE CREEK 3400 48-10 6700,600 67 — 1ASELINE. LRUIOILYTLE CREEK 10,000 67-120 06.776,000 SUBTOTAL 888,102,767 ZONE IS 6. UJIC, JURUMISANTA NN RIVER 12,000 TOO S4,042,800 M SKI JUNWA, LARCIII AO 4.000 TOO $1,347,800 M BLOOMINGTON AREA STORM DRAINS & CHANNEL SUBTOTAL HOUND OFF 42.000 TOC 022.30.000 627.010,000 00 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS $100.10.737 OONSTIIRCTION NEEDS RESULTING FROM EXISTING POPULATION PERCENT NEED APPORTIONED DOLLAR OOST 20.6040 S106.122 100.00% M.662,4M 100.0011 0210475 100.0011 S7M,0M 1010041 S6,176,000 50.0011 522.473.0M 0.00% M M O.00 M 0.00% M M RE27MI 522.47S.0M OCHSTRUCTION NEEDS RESULTING FROM NEW DEVELOPMENT PR3iCElIi HEED > APPORTION DOLLAR COST 110.0091 06S2,4M 0.00% M 0.0011 M 0.00% 60 0.00% M 47.20M 626,620,714 0100% 0 .426.600 0.00111 0. M M 8.7944 S2,426,400 p11 44.404 0/4490,064 CONSTRUCTION NEEDS RESULTING FROM OUTSIDE CITY BOA PERCENT APPORTIONED DOLLAR COST 0.00% SO 0.00% SO 11.0041 SO 0.0011 M 0.0041 S0 12.81% 07,106,074 40. 81,017,000 100.0041 100.00% 111,347.600 022.220.000 111.22% S26,144,600 M 332304 4133.627.684 NOTE& 1. Seined 1wn.w p... IIq L.dloUee I rs Sri Bwnrdlno county Flood (onWd 0 *Isl prided dalgn.ron. MdIllond prgeele 64-40) veto YonI NI by City Engineering ea& 2. TOC • Trapezoidal Commie Cloned S. RCO . Redrprlr Cono n% atralol SCHEDULE 8.2 PAGE 4 OF 4 1 . 4 1'W1 > le • V. • • .. „• • • • . • • • • I . • • . • • • • .• • •I s _ , , ro •••• 10•64� fZ= 1.76! w ..•... • ,v '.'• :::: • • • •• • • • • • • per= 6708 0 II a _ __ 31.=12' - �d= 10.5 ce ' _Z = 1.75 W.� ' s 0 ,f • •- a 1 - ' 4-e..)-11 1 VALLeti- - 19., 'ft _- • r► • I •;�_ 1' ' ICHANIkE imossamasamo 1-----�- :-SPRR - - - 7 LEGEND PROPOSED UNDERGROUND DRAIN • PROPOSED CHANNEL . • immumus 33 PROPOSED BASIN EXISTING GRAIN DRAIN SHOWN ELSEWHERE BASIN SHOWN ELSEWHERE III E;r. ,, AVE. i . 1 i i I,4 : . •r .), • N • iiiiB>fB>u-_-- I. 1�10- -.t_ � ^ _ • ► 111.011.1119513 - - 1 - - -- - - -- -T - • - - -f --- b =•13 -- , ----- 4 d'= 13' , Z= 1.75 .• • •• • .1111.11111.111111111 • ■ • • • ► • sLo v • �R AVE. 16.11 • / • •-5 • -a �1 San Bernardino County FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT JAMES M. MONTGOMERY. CONSULTING ENGINEERS. INC. PO 90x 7009 250 N MADISON AvE. PASAOENA CA. 9V109-7009 COMPREHENSIVE STORM DRAIN PLAN PROJECT NO. 3-3 A SERIES DATE 12-86 1'1.1000• DRAWING NO. 4 of 5 a • 1611 ■ ■ • a ••.11;1 • • Lul �• • ■ cc' ♦• • • •• 4• • 44 • • ' 4 . • • • i/;= > Q Q■ a� a■ rirmus > ■ • - ••• •• • • • • ••• 1••• !• • • • 1 Ara'i? LEGEND • PROPOSED UNDERGROUND DRAIN PROPOSED CHANNEL PROPOSED BASIN • • • U R EXISTING DRAIN 1U....■ DRAIN SHOWN ELSEWHERE BASIN SHOWN ELSEWHERE D. Q ■ 425 11111 161111111161111111111111111111111111111611 • `'•/ ,/ JAMES M. MONTGOMERY, CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. PO. 80X 7009 2S0 K MADISON AVE.. PASADENA. CA. 9„09 7009 VI 0100 =10406 b 20' d at 12.6' Z = 1.76 • 0100 = 10466 • b=20 d= 14' % Z = 1.73 - } •_ San Bernardino County FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT t t 1 COMPREHENSIVE STORM DRAIN PLAN PROJECT NO. 3-3 A SERIES DATE 12-86 1's 1000' DRAWING NO, 5 of 5 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST LINE A 2 - 8' X 7.5' R.C.B. Transition 12' X 6.5' T.C.C. 13' X 8' R.C.B. Transition 12' X 6.5' T.C.C. 13' X 8' R.C.B. Transition 12' X 8" T.C.C. 2 - 8.5' X 8' R.C.B. Transition 12' X 8' T.C.C. 2 - 9' X 8' R.C.B. Transition 12' X 8.5' T.C.C. 2 - 9' X 8' R.C.B. Transition 12' X 9' T.C.C. 2 - 12' X 8' R.C.B. Transition 12' X 10' T.C.C. 2 - 8.5' X 8' R.C.B. Transition 12' X 9' T.C.C. 2 - 11' X 8' R.C.B. Transition 12' X 9' T.C.C. 2 - 11' X 8' R.C.B. Transition 12' X 10.5' T.C.C. 150 L.F. $ 520.00 30 L.F. 460.00 1,194 G.F. 230.00 80 L.F. 529.00 55 L.F. 460.00 1,151 . L.F. 230.00 110 L.F. 529.00 75 L.F. 460.00 1,422 L.F. 270.00 75 L.F. 750.00 50 L.F. 540.00 238 L.F. 270.00 50 L.F. 800.00 50 L.F. 580.00 443 L.F. 290.00 360 L.F. 800.00 60 L.F. 600.00 552 L.F. 300.00 110 L.F. 910.00 50 L.F. 770.00 255 L.F. 340.00 170 60 1,467 80 40 2,521 L.F. 750.00 L.F. 600.00 L.F. 300.00 L.F. 860.00 L.F. 60.00 L.F. 300.00 90 L.F. 860.00 60 L.F. 760.00 487 L.F. 380.00 $ 78,000 13,800 274,600 42,300 25,300 264,700 58,200 34,500 383,900 56,300 27,000 64,300 40,000 29,000 128,500 288,000 36,000 165,600 100,100 38,500 86,700 127,500 36,000 440,100 68,800 24,000 756,300 77,400 45,600 185,100 Subtotal Line A Sheet 1 $ 4,102,600 San Barnardino County FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT JAMES M. MONTGOMERY,lila CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. P•0. BOX 7009. 250 N. MADISON AVE., PASADENA. CA 91109-7009 COMPREHENSIVE STORM DRAIN PLAN PROJECT NO. 3-3 A SERIES DATE DEC 1986 COST ESTIMATE DRAWING NO. 1 of 4 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST F I, LINE A Continued Subtotal Line A Sheet 1 $ 4,102,600 2 - 12' X 9' R.C.B. (exist.) 180 L.F. 0.00 0 Transition 50 L.F. 640.00 32,000 12' X 10.5' T.C.C. 1,990 L.F. 380.00 756,200 2 - 12' X 9' R.C.B. (exist.) 140 L.F. 0.00 0 Transition 40 L.F. 640.00 25,600 12' X 10.5' T.C.C. 1,721 L.F. 380.00 654,000 2 - 12' X 9' R.C.B. (exist.) 110 L.F. 0.00 0 6' X 9' R.C.B. 110 L.F. 370.00 40,700 Transition 20 L.F. 760.00 15,200 12' X 10.5' T.C.C. 1,341 L.F. 380.00 509,600 2 - 14' X 10' R.C.B. (exist.) 120 L.F. 0.00 0 Transition 110 L.F. 950.00 104,500 12' X 13' T.C.C. 197 L.F. 475.00 93,600 2 - 14' X 14' R.C.B. 300 L.F. 1,300.00 390,000 Transition 30 L.F. 900.00 27,000 12' X 13' T.C.C. 183 L.F. 475.00 87,000 2 - 15' X 14.5' R.C.B. (ext.) 520 L.F. 0.00 - 0 Transition 80 L.F. 900.00 72,000 12' X 13' T.C.C. 592 L.F. 475.00 281,200 15' X 13.5' R.C.B. (exist.) 260 L.F. 0.00 0 12' X 13.5' R.C.B. 260 L.F. 660.00 171,600 Transition 100 L.F. 900.00 90,000 12' X 13' T.C.C. 486 L.F. 475.00 230,900 3' X 12' X 11' R.C.B. 90 L.F. 1,500.00 135,000 Transition 50 L.F. 1,300.00 65,000 20' X 12.5' T.C.C. 6,695 L.F. 530.00 3,548,400 3' X 14' X 11' R.C.B. 50 L.F. 1,660.00 83,000 Transition 50 L.F. 1,050.00 52,500 20' X 14' T.C.C. 1,635 L.F. 590.00 964,700 Subtotal Line A 512,537,300 San B•rnardlno County FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT JAMES M. MONTGOMERY, CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.tIzaz P.O. BOX 7009. 250 N. MAOISON AVL. PASAOENA. CA 91109-7009 COMPREHENSIVE STORM DRAIN PLAN PROJECT NO. 3-3 A SERIES DATE DEC 1986 COST ESTIMATE DRAWING NO. 2 of 4 REFERENCES REFERENCES (1) Master Stomp Drainage Plan Study Volume I and Volume IA, Hall and Foreman and Bill Mann & Associates, May 1992. (2) Cost Estimates for Individual Unes E through H (Rialto Study Areal, Hall and Foreman, May 18, 1992. (3) Development Impact Fee Report for the City of Rialto, MSI, April 1990. (4) Hawker -Crawford Channel and Rich Basin Drainage Analysis, Bill Mann & Associates, Inc., in association with Hall and Foreman, Inc., August 1991. (5) Local Area Drainage Plan Project 3-4 Engineer's Report Volume #1, San Bemardino County Flood Control District Planning Division, June 1991, (Revised February 1992). (6) San Bernardino County Flood Control District Comprehensive Storm Drain Plan Project 3-3 Rialto Channel Drainage Area Volume I, JMM in association with Bill Mann & Associates, April 1988. (7) Upper Etiwanda Creek and San Sevaine Creek Area Drainage Plans, City of Fontana and San Bemardino County Department of Transportation/Flood Control, September 1989. (8) Construction Bid for portion of Hawker -Crawford Channel within Hunter's Ridge, Riverside Construction, July 12, 1990. (9) San Bernardino County Flood Control District Water Resources Division - Phone Contact with Adrea © 387-2515, October 1990. (10) Caftans Hydraulics Section - Phone Contact with Tim Griffin Q 383-4142, November 28, 1990. (11) Cost Estimate for Line H9 (Construction Cosa, Hall and Foreman, June 4, 1992. (12) Cost Estimate for Line E (Rialto Study Area), Hall and Foreman, June 2, 1992. (13) As -Built Construction Plans for the Tamarind Drain and Arrow -Kaiser Drain, City of Fontana. (14) Financial Schedules of Infrastructure Costs for Southridge Village Constructed by Ten -Ninety, Mary Slawson dated March 12, 1992. APPENDIX B PROJECT 3-4 ENGINEER'S REPORT San Bernardino County Flood Control District June, 1992 LOCAL AREA DRAINAGE PLAN PROJECT 3-4 ENGINEERS R VOLUI4 y °£ n O ►«c►vno Osiw e(RRon+o REal ros PROJECT LOCATION MAP PREPARED BY SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT PLANNING DIVISION I. Bl1CJ D: San Bernardino O nty's existing Ca4rehensive Storm Drain Plan #3, Project 3-4 depicts a means of interceptirg storm flows generated in the area generally bcird d by Interstate 10, Riverside Avenue, Riverside County Line and Palmetto Avenue, and conducting them to the Santa Ana River. The hydrology method used in developing the storm drain plan pre- dates the County's current met1x dology. The San Bernardino County Flood Control District and Cities of Rialto and Fontana recognized the need to update the hydrology, facility sizes and cost estimates for this storm drain project, in order to develop a funding mechanism. A steering com- mittee consisting of major property owners and representatives of the City of Rialto and Fontana and the County net periodically to discuss study results and make recommendations. II. PURPOSE MD : This study (1) updates the hydrology, drainage facility sizes and oast estimates for the existing Project 3-4 facility alignments (Model #1), (2) evaluates alternate alignments for conducting storm flows generated within the Project 3-4 boundaries to the Santa Ana River Models #2 & #3) , (3) evaluates the use of detention basins to reduce total project costs, and (4) determines an equitable developer fee for the recommended alternate. III. ot+B: The recommended plan (Model #1) for regional and local storm drains is shown on Plate #1. A summary of reocamernded project costs, developer fees and funding follows. Facility costs Fair Share Costs 'Dotal Tributary Area Adjusted Tributary Area*** Proposed sed Fee Developable Area Fee Revenue Unfunded Costs $30,700,000 $30,700,000 4,423 ac. 4,017 ac. 1,069 ac. $12,800,000 $17,900,000 Subarea "A" Subarea "B" $15,400,000 $18,500,000** 2,423 ac. 2,054 ac. $9,007/ac. 776 ac. $7,000,000 $11,500,000 $15,300,000 $12,200,000* 2,000 ac. 1,963 ac. $6,215/ac. 933 ac. $5,800,000 $6,400,000 *Assumes area is only responsible for flows generated within subarea ()Wel #2) **Includes $3.1 million increased facility costs throlighSkerea "B" ***Areas not subject to fees deleted. Includes steep hillsides, parks, schools, and cemeteries. CCICPIREHEt43IVE EflO K CRA IN PLAN Pawner 3-4 EN3INEER18 RESORT Table of Contents Volume #1 I. Background 2 II. Purpose and Alternatives 2 III. Hydrology and Facility Sizing 3 IV. Detention Basins 4 V. Cost Estimates 5 VI. Recommended Local Area Drainage Plan 5 VII. Vacant/Developable Lands 6 VIII. Financing 7 IX. Recommendations J 9 X. Plates 11 Plate #1 - Project 3-4 Model #1 12 Plate #2 - Project 3-4 Model #2 13 Plate #3 - Project 3-4 Model #3 14 Plate #4 - Project 3-4 Model #1 with Basin 15 Plate #5 - Project 3-4 Model #2 with Basin 16 Plate #6 - Project 3-4 Model #3 with Basin 17 Plate #7 - Project 3-4, Development Distribution 18 Plate #8 - Project 3-4, City Influence 19 Plate #9 - Project 3-4, Subarea "B" Facilities Comparison 20 XI. Appendix 'A' - Plan Cost Estimate 21 1 LOCAL AREA PL N PsoYOC.T 3-4 ' 8 REPORT Revised May 30, 1991 Revised February 12, 1992 .Revised June 1992 I. BAQJND San Bernardino Caanty's existing Chive Storm Drain Plan #3, Project 3-4, depicts a means of intercepting storm flows generated in the area generally, bounded by Interstate 10, Riverside Avenue, Riverside County Line and Palmetto Avenue, and conducting them to the Santa Ana River. The hydrology method used in developing the storm drain plan predates the County, s current methodology. At the February 3, 1988 Zane 2 Advisory Committee budget hearing, representatives of the City of Rialto and developers in the project area requested that funds be budgeted to update Project 3-4 and evaluate alternatives for conducting storm flows to the Santa Ana River. The Zone Advisory Committee recommended $25,000 be budgeted for F. Y. 1988/89 for the requested. A steering committee consisting of major property miners and representatives of the Cities of Rialto and Fontana and the County met periodically to di its study results and make recommendations. Riverside Canty Flood Control and Water Conservation District was also contacted for their comments and recommendations. The study results and recommendations were also presented to the Aqua ManLsa Industrial Growth Association. ZI. PURPOSE AND ALTERNATIVES This study 1) updates the hydrology, drainage facility sizes and cost estimate for the existing Project 3-4 facility alignments (Model #1), 2) evaluates alternate alignments for adducting storm flows generated within the Project 3-4 boundaries to the Santa Ana River (Models #2 & #3), 3) evaluates the use of detention basins to reduce total project costs, and 4) determines an equitable developer fee for the reccamended alternate. 2 1fl existing Project 3-4 (Model #1) assumes all storm flows generated within its boundary will not enter Riverside County, but will be intercepted at the County Line (E1 Rivino .Road) and be conducted easterly then south along Riverside Avenue to the Santa Ana River (ref. Plate #1). This required the storm drain in El Rivino Road to be placed 48 feet below the road surface in the vicinity of Cactus Avenue. Based on 1966 contour mapping and 1986 aerial photography, the Project 3-4 area consists of two distinct drainage areas. Storm flows generated within the project area westerly of Cedar Avenue (subarea "A" depicted an Plates #2 and #3) have historically continued south through Riverside County easterly of Rubidcux Blvd. and Market Street to the Santa Ana River. Presently, during more frequent storms, these flows enter a borrow pit located en the north side of El Rivino Road and 300 feet easterly of Rubidaux Blvd. During a major storm, a portion of the flow could continue south borough a cement plant directly south of the pit, circumventing the basin and the remaining flow would enter the pit and may overtop El Rivino Road then traverse the cement plant. Model #2 (Plate #2) Stiubsysten"A" investigates intercepting these flows at the borrow pit and conducting them easterly to the cement plant's east boundary then south to the Santa Ana River. Model #3 (Plate #3) investigates conducting these flows through the cement plant to the Santa Ana River. Subsystem "B" of Models #2 and #3 intercepts the flows generated east of Cedar (a natural divide) along the power line corridor and conducts them south easterly to the Santa Ana River at Riverside Avenue. IIZ . HYEACLOGY AND FACILITY SIZING Zhe County 's 1986 rational and hydregraph methods were used to update the peak flaw rates. The rational method was used for Models #1, #2 and #3 without detention basins. The hydrograOh method was used for the detention basin analyses. Precipitation amounts and intesezities were determined from the isohytals and charts in the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual, dated August 1986. Drainage subarea acreage, flow path length and elevation difference, soil type, land use and routing were taken from the existing Project 3-4 cxlculatians except thrcugh the Owl Rock praperties where a City 3 of Colton approved grading plan exists. Within Riverside County, aerial photography and Riverside county Flood Control and Water Co nervation District 1985 topography maps were used to develop this information. The AES Rational Method computer software version 4.5F and the Flood Routing computer software version 2.7C were used for the rational and hydxograph method routing. Pipe sizes and flaw velocities were determined by the oamputer assuming a friction slope which was 90% of the natural grade to account for friction and manhole losses. When channels were known to be required, an assumed base width was input into the program to determine flow depths and flow velocities. The pipe and charnel sizes determined by the AES Hydrology programs were reviewed to determine if sizes were reasonable. Where pipe sizes or channel flow depths were excessive, reasonable channel base widths and flow depths were determined using Marming's formula. ReconmerdedchanndhedgtIts in this study include freeboard based on flow velocity in accordance with the "Los Angeles County Flood Control District Hydraulics Manual". Roll waves and super -elevation were not considered. All charnels were assumed to be trape- zoidal except where existing right of way was a constraint. At these loca- tions, a rectangular channel was analyzed. Hydrology and hydraulic calculations for all alternatives are on file in the San Bernardino County Flood Control District Flood Control Planning and Water Resources Divisions. IV. DETENTIONBASINS Detention basins were analyzed along the mainstream of each model. For 241xlel #1 a 35 acre flow -through basin was analyzed at the oonfluerme of Lines D and E. The basin was assumed to be 15 feet deep. The outlet was designed such that 100-year storm flows parried to a depth of 13 feet (2 feet freeboard) . The basin location is shown oh Plate #4 and the reduced downstream facilities are shown cn Plate #4. 4 For Models #2 and #3 an existing 15 acre quarry pit was analyzed as both a flow -by and flow -through basin. As a flow -by basin, 750 c.f.s. were assumed not to enter the basin. In each case the basin drain was sized to pond 100- year storm flows to a depth of 14 feet (2 feet freeboard). Plates #5 and #6 show the reduced dowrstream facility sizes for Models #2 and #3 respectively. V. MIST ESTIMATES Ccostruction casts for storm drains include the pipe, manholes and excavation. The costs for concrete channels are based on the cubic yards of concrete and excavation and right of way acre. The unit construction costs for both facility types include 20% engineering, inspection and aciinistraticn ousts. Unit construction cost tables from Montgomery Engineer's 1987 "Rialto Charnel Master Plan of Drainage" were updated to May 1988 based on the "Engineering News Record" oorstniction cost index for toe Angeles. Fee right of way costs were estimated at 890.000/ac, except for the borrow pit used in the detention basin analysis as recamended by the steering com<aittee. Since the pit would need to be filled for any other use, the lard value was assured to be $25, 000. Where underground culverts were recommended and were not within public rights of way, it was assumed easement could be purchased at $25, 000/ac. Updated unit cost tables and itemized cost estimates for each storm drain and channel are on file in the San Bernardino County Flood Control District, Flood Control Planning and Water Resources Divisions (Volume V & VI). In order to account for utility relocations and other construction uncertainties, the total estimated cost was increased by 15%. Cost amn+res for each model are given in Table #1. The detailed cost estimate for the recommended plan is provided in the Appendix 'A'. VI. RECCIIMENCED IOCAL AREA DRAINAGE PLAN The use of detention basins is not economically feasible as can be discerned from Table #1. 5 TABLE #1 Cost Comparison of Alternatives (in millions of dollars) All Storm Mainline Alternative Drains Only Model-#1 without Detention Basin 30.7 23.2 Model-#1 Detention Basin w/ds Conduit 33.2 25.4 Model-#1 Detention Basin w/ds Channel 32.2 24.1 Model-#2 Without Detention Basin 37.1 28.6 Model-#2 Flowby Detention Basin 39.6 31.1 Model-#2 Florthrough Detention Basin 38.8 30.4 Model-#3 Without Detention Basin 34.4 26.2 Mode1-#3 Flowby Detention Basin 3S•3 26.8 Model-#3 Flowthrough Detention Basin 34.9 26.5 Since Model #1 has the lowest total construction cost of the three models it is recommended that Model #1, without basin, be adopted as the Local Area Drainage Plan for the Project 3-4 area. VII. VACANP/EE'VELAPABZE LANDS In the financial analysis that follows the number of developable acres is required to determine revenue derived from developer fees to construct new developments fair share of the required drainage infrastructure. Vacant acreage was estimated from February 1986 aerial photography and updated using September 1990 photography. Only minimal development could occur in the hillside areas in the sort portion of the study area, therefore, these areas were not considered vacant. Areas with 90% or more build -cut were assume nut to have any vacant area. The vacant/developable areas are shown on Plate #7 and summarized by jurisdiction and subarea for the reaammended plan in the following Tabies #2 and #3. 6 TABLE #2 DEVELOPMENT Model #1 - Subarea "API City of City of of Summary Farttana_ ' Rialto San Ban° Total Vacant Total ' Vacantfi Total Vacant Total Vacant Area Ac Area Az Area Az Area Ac Area Ac Area Ac Area Ac Area Ac <10$ Vacant 1101 -0- -0- -0- -0- 1017 -0- Hillside 217 -0- 26 -0- -0- -0- 71 -0- 50% Vacant 212 146 -0- -0- -0- -0- 222 146 70% Vacant 103 72 -0- -0- -0- -0- 103 72 80% Vacant -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- 100% Vacant 630 630 298 298 -0- -0- 332 332 TOTAL 2423 VA 608 266 -0- -0- 1815 478 Adjustment for Undewlopable Hillside 6 Public T.atiAr 1 _!ta _94! _19t REVISED Immo am Th TABLE #3 DEVELOPMENT DISTRIBUTION Model #1 - Subarea City of City of 1679 °minty of 1. Summary Fontana Rialto San &ono Total Area Ac Vacant Area Ac Total Area Arc Vacantf Area Ac Total Area Ac Vacant Area Ac Total Area Ac Vacant Area Ac <10% Vacant 50% Vacant 70$ Vacant 80% Vacant 100% Vacant 164 -0- 56 129 284 464 -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- 136 39 84 252 170 -0- 19 59 202 170 748 74 100 103 294 -0- 37 70 82 294 113 184 355 464 TOTAL Adjustment for 2000 222 -0- -0- 681 450 1319 662 .1963 7 L VIII. FINANCIM The project area actually consists of two separate distinct tributary areas (Project Subareas "A" and "B") as shown on Plates #2 and #3. Therefore, when considering Model #1 ( plan) properties within Subarea "B" should only be responsible for facilities and costs required to convey flows gener- ated within the Subarea "B" watershed. This amount is $124 million as deter- mined in Models #2 and #3. Since Model #1 requires Subarea "B" facility sizes to be increased to convey flows from Subarea "A", the properties within Subarea "A" should be responsible for the difference/increase in facility oasts ($33 million) through Subarea "B". Therefore, for Model #1, the recommended plan, the fair share cost apportioned to Subarea "B" is 812.2 million. The additional $34 million required for facilities in Subarea "B" would be the responsibility of Subarea "A". There are 1.963 acres within Subarea "B" over which the 812.2, million con- struction costs (fair share) can be spread, or 86.215 per acre. Unless it can be sign that new developer* has created the need for the required drainage facilities or that existing development has provided its fair share of the existing drainage facilities, a 14A2i8 per acre developer fee would be equitable for Subarea "B". Based an Septem t er 1990 aerial photography there are approximately 222 acres of vacant developable land within the subarea (Plate #7 and Table #3). A developer fee of 86.215 per acre over Subarea "B" would then generate approximately 85.8 million of the required 11.1.1 million to construct the reoi mended plan facilities within Subarea "B". The reoarmended plan (Model #1) costs 830.7 million. Therefore, Subarea "A" is responsible fob 818.5 million (830.7 - 812.4 million) of the project costs. This cost (818.5 million) spread over the subarea less undevelcpable hillside and public lands (3.054 acres) yields a cost of 89.007 per acre. As addressed above, this could be adopted as an equitable developer fee within Subarea "A". A fee in this amount would generate aver the /2¢ vacant acres (Table #2) another 87.0 million of the required project costs. 83.E million would go for improvements within Subarea "B". 8 Developer fees in the above amounts would generate $12.8 million of the recommended project costs. Table #4 summarizes the revenues derived by subsystem and jurisdiction for the recommended plan Model #1. TABIZ #4 DEVELOPER OPER PEN REVENUES BY JiRtISDICTICH City of City of County of Fontana Rialto San Bdno 31,1 Model #1 (total) 2,1 2$ 7.2 IRA Subarea "A" 2_7 -0- AA ,�D Subarea "B" -0- 2A$ lAg a If these developer fees were established by the Cities of Fontana and Rialto and the County of San Bernardino there would remain $17.9 million to be funded by another means. IX. RECCMMENDATIONS A. Model #1 without basin and this report be adopted as the Project 3-4 Local Area Drainage Plan and drainage fees in the amount of $9.007 within Subarea "A" and $6,215 within Subarea "B", be established within the unincorporated areas of the County for the oonstn=tion of the Model #1 storm drains B. This report be provided AMIGA, and the Cities of Fontana and Rialto with a request for their support of the Project 3-4 Local Area Drainage Plan and for than to establish the aforementioned drainage fees within the Project 3-4 boundaries and within their jurisdiction for the financing of this Plan's recommended storm drains C. The Cities of Rialto and Fontana, AiuIIGA, C unty and District evaluate funding sources for the remaining 517.9 million required to complete the project. 9 D. New develcpnerrt within the tributary area shauld continue to be designed to be protected from storm runoff and continue to mitigate any incre- mental increase in runoff generated by the develapxnt until adequate drainage facilities are omstructed. 10 X. PLATES 11 imma VON 31d1d SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT Subarea A Subarea 8 1-10 FREEWAY 9 -I ,q925=299 g25=435� IT! RCP I'93 RCP -- RIVERSIDE COUMY if 4000 ft. 025=735 LEGEND Q2 MAINLINE STORM DRAIN 69 LOCAL STORM DRAINS - - - PROJECT DRAINAGE AREA Q25=610 O'x5.5' TCC , , , MODEL-1 Project Cost= $30,700,000 SUBAREA A Actual construction cost= 15,400,000 Fair share cost= 18,500,000 SUBAREA B Actual construction cost= 15,300,000 Fair share cost= 12,200,000 REV. SEP 91 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT COMPREHENSIVE STORM DRAIN PLAN PROJECT 3-4 MODEL-1 LOCAL AREA DRAINAGE PLAN BY JLD CAD FILE DATE JUL 88 PX1-21D PIANNINO FILE NO. P1A-DI-115_ Z'ON 31Vid SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT Subarea A Subarea B 1-10 FREEWAY J-- 400011. Q25=735 11( RCP L_ Sh. BERNAROINO COU EC RIVERSIDE COUNTY 39 p�1�tq29 LEGEND MAINLINE STORM DRAIN IMM SNOW LOCAL STORM DRAINS PROJECT DRAINAGE AREA SPRR L Q25=610 O'x5.5' TCC 0100=1780 10'x8' TCC 1 MODEL-2 Project Cost= 37,150,000 SUBAREA A Fair share cost= 24,950,000 SUBAREA B Fair share cost= 12,200,000 SAN 8ERN c0UN1Y �� RIVERSIDE REV. SEP 91 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT COMPREHENSIVE STORM DRAIN PLAN PROJECT 3-4 MODEL-2 LOCAL AREA DRAINAGE PLAN BY JLD DATE JUL 88 ACM FILE PXI-210 PUINNINC ME NO. PM—D1-115 £'0N 31Vld SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT Subarea A Subarea B - - sAN IERNMgM0,�0UNTY RNERSIDE COUNTY / r 4000 ft. 1-10 FREEWAY AN EMI star azwEgatti i rfr MIEN 11111110.110100=3I 10. 1:911m .t71 w LEGEND 02 MAINLINE STORM DRAIN 69 • LOCAL STORM DRAINS — PROJECT DRAINAGE AREA MODEL-3 Project Cost= 34,450,000 SUBAREA A Fair share cost= SUBAREA B Fair share cost= ♦/ ifie// RNEBS191"11"faarfOE COUNTY / 4T,/ / 5� i i • REV. JUN 91 22,250,000 12,200,000 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT COMPREHENSIVE STORM DRAIN PLAN PROJECT 3-4 MODEL-3 LOCAL AREA DRAINAGE PLAN BY JLD DATE SEP 88 ACAD FILE PX1-210 PLANNING FILE NO. PAT-01-115 025=75 I DETENTION BASIN 025=825 LINE E4 025=825 SAN BERNARD 0 COUNTY 1VERSIDE OU NTY LEGEND 025=490 FREQUENCY/PEAK FLOW RATE (c.f.s.) MAINLINE STORM DRAIN RCP DIAMETER OR TRAP CHANNEL WIDTH r DEPTH LOCAL SYSTEM DRAINS 72" - - - PROJECT DRAINAGE AREA 2000 ft. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT LOCAL AREA DRAINAGE PLAN PROJECT 3-4 MODEL-1 WITH BASIN BY JLD DATE JUL 88 PLANNING FILE NO. PM—D1-1 15/q PLATE NO. 4 5th 122 4th 3rd Q100=750 108' RCP 0100= 0 ION BASIN SAN . RNAR0 Ci NTY RIVERSIDE COUN 0 2000 ft. LEGEND 025=490 FLOWBY FREQUENCY/PEAK FLOW RATE (c.f.s.) 72" RCP DIAMETER OR TRAP CHANNEL WIDTH x DEPTH MAINLINE STORM DRAIN 025=490 72" Q100=1506 Bxd=10'x8' \........0"" 1 x ' ii o_ it FLOWTHROUGH FREQUENCY/PEAK FLOW RATE (c.f.s.) ' am RCP DIAMETER OR TRAP CHANNEL WIDTH x DEPTH PROJECT DRAINAGE AREA - SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT COMPREHENSIVE STORM DRAIN PLAN PROJECT 3-4 MODEL-2 WITH BASIN BY JLD DATE JUL 88 PLANNING FILE NO. PM-D1-115 L /4z.. 4.v ,/k\lpt c.3t, PLATE NO. 5 0 6th 5th 12• 2 0100=3175 'x105'RCB O 0100=2348 th 14x9.5 R 0100=3098 14'x9.5' RCB SAN BERNARDINO CO. RIVERSIDE 70. 2000 ft. LEGEND 025=490 FLOWBY 025=490 79' OMER 2nd TION BASIN 0100=750 102' RCP 0100=711 FREOUENCY/PEAK RAW RATE (e.t.a.) RCP DNYEIER OR TRAP CHANNEL WIDTH v DEPTH MAINLINE STORM DRAIN FLOWTHROUGH FREQUENCY/PEAK FLOW RATE (e.t.a.) RCP DIAMETER OR TRAP CHANNEL WIDTH x DEPTH PROJECT DRAINAGE AREA , 1 / I SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT COMPREHENSIVE STORM DRAIN PLAN PROJECT 3-4 MODEL-3 WITH BASIN BY JLD DATE SEP 88 PLANNING FILE NO. PM-D1-115 96' RCP 0100=1973 15'x10' RCB / 0100=0 RCP=O 0100=1542 10'x9.5' RCS 0100=2054 12'x9.5' RCS L 0100=1625 RCB 0100=2137 12'x9.5' RCB 0100=1682 10'x9.5' RCB 0100=2194 12'x10' RCB ')% EL RIVINO L WILSON ST. 0100=1682 10'x10' RCB 0100=2194 12'x10' RCB 0 W U 0100=16821 10'x7.5' IC VIA RICARDO 0100=2194 10'x8' TCC FLEEJWOOD ST. RIVERSIDE CO BROWN AVE O z cc z 0: W m z (n PLATE NO. 6 L'ON 31V1d SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT Subarea A Subarea B I-10 FREEWAY mina 8000 H. SNI BEANARDRFO RIVERSIDE coutaY i MEM LEGEND MAINLINE STORM DRAIN LOCAL STORM DRAINS PROJECT DRAINAGE AREA , kstsvi731 Fifty pIrj NOR -- -- as=.\<<< ...• . \:... �� ,.,.. ` .. �i007fNv o.� •��; \!x•? &NW; 111 ♦) DEVELOPMENT DISTRIBUTION REV. FEB 92 L 1 <10% VACANT HILLSIDE 50% VACANT 70% VACANT 80% VACANT 100% VACANT PUBLIC LANDS SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT COMPREHENSIVE STORM DRAIN PLAN PROJECT 3-4 MODEL-1 LOCAL AREA DRAINAGE PLAN BY JLD DATE JUL 8B ACM FILE PLANNING FILE NO PXI-21D P4-01-115 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT Subarea A Subarea B 4000 ft. 1-10 FREEWAY • . • • . • . • . • • • • • • • • • . • • . • • • • . • • . • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . • . . • • • • . • • • • . • • • • . • • . . • . • . • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • . . • . • • • • • • . • • • • . • • • • • • • • • . . • • • . • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ....................... OF FONTANA-.......• SV—IgarRiefOINUNTY RIVERSIDE COWRY LEGEND MAINLINE STORM DRAIN LOCAL STORM DRAINS — — — PROJECT DRAINAGE AREA I• . • • • I CITY LIMITS ALL UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF PROJECT LIE WITHIN CITY OF RIALTO SPHERE OF INFLUENCE .cir OF R Ado: FLEETWOOD / , , , lewiSPILGINUTY WASIK COUNT, /// SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT COMPREHENSIVE STORM DRAIN PLAN PROJECT 3-4 CITY INFLUENCE LOCAL AREA DRAINAGE PLAN REV. SEP 91 BY JLO ACAO FILE PLANNING FILE 140. DATE JUL Da I PX1-21D PU-D1-115 JURUPA SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 010.45 14t11 $ 13th SAN BERNARDINO C9UNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY r � � 8 t00.21.5 Ihd•1 01 10th Bth 025.730 0100.7215 ® 11.1.4055. o100.2480 Subarea B g 0 0100.2785 1G�'11L� 025425 120' a ®05- EL RMNO WILSON ST. VIA RICARDO 025.355 025.255 i 75. 0/ Is , • 12C Nto SUBAREA B ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION COST: MODEL 1 = $15.3 MILLION MODEL 2 = $12.2 MILLION DIFFERENCE = $ 3.1 MIWON SUBAREA A's FAIR SHARE COST OF SUBAREA B CONSTRUCTION MO J MOOD I 1 AINUINE STORMaI+DRAM AND SIZE 72 RCP DOMEIER OR 1RM C wI a NO171 . OEPIN MODEL 2 STORM DRAIN SIZE '"°OutNL"/PfAK F1D1' RUE (el..) RCP OWL OR CNWNEL NMD LOCAL STORM DRAMS SUBAREA B DRAINAGE DMDE I SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY 0 2000 ft. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT COMPREHENSIVE STORM DRAIN PLAN PROJECT 3-4 SUBAREA B FACILITIES COMPARISON (iv JLD I ACAD nu I PUNNING TILE NO. DATE JUN 91 I P115SUB8 I PM-DI-115 II. APP N= 'A' Recommended Plan Cost Estimat. 21 MIN 4014. 1 II r® 1 1 L 1 1 1 oc) 0 4000 ft. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT COMPREHENSIVE STORM DRAIN PLAN PROJECT 3-4 MODEL-1 EXISTING ALIGNMENT REVISED SEP 91 8Y JLD CAD FILE PLANNING FILE NO. DATE JUL 88 P115D12 PM—D1-115/e SBCFCD — PROJECT 3-4, MODEL-1 12—Sep-91 PAGE 1 MODEL-1 EXISTING ALIGNMENT,PROJECT 3-4 Estimates as of 9-17-88, file: Cost-1 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE ESTIMATED COST LINE A 72" RCP 1320.00 LF $214 $282,480 93" RCP 1320.00 LF $310 $409,200 114" RCP 2640.00 LF $393 $1,037,520 120" RCP 660.00 LF $414 $273,240 MANHOLE NO. 2 72" 1.00 Ea $3,201 $3,201 93" 1.00 Ea $4,293 $4,293 114" TO 120" 1.00 Ea $5,774 $5,774 114" 3.00 Ea $5,620 $16,860 120" 1.00 Ea $5,928 $5,928 MANHOLE NO.4 42" TO 72" & 45" 1.00 Ea $4,504 $4,504 45" TO 93" & 72' 1.00 Ea $5,388 $5,388 51" TO 114" & 93" 1.00 Ea $6,978 $6,978 120" TO 120" & 48" 1.00 Ea $6,325 $6,325 TOTAL LINE A $2,061,691 LINE A2 36" 1320.00 LF 42" 1320.00 LF MANHOLE NO.2 $112 $127 $147,840 $167,640 36" TO 42' 1.00 Ea $2,185 $2,185 36" 2.00 Ea $2,185 $4,370 42" 1.00 Ea $2,185 $2,185 TOTAL LINE A2 $324,220 SBCFCD — PROJECT 3-4, MODEL-1 12—Sep-91 PAGE 2 LINE A3 36" 1320.00 LF $112 $147,840 45" 1320.00 LF $131 $172,920 MANHOLE NO. 2 36" TO 45" 1.00 Ea $2,185 $2,185 36" 2.00 Ea $2,185 $4,370 45" 1.00 Ea $2,263 $2,263 TOTAL LINE A3 $8,818 LINE A4 30" 1000.00 LF $101 $101,000 51" 2640.00 LF $139 $366,960 MANHOLE NO. 2 30" TO 51" 1.00 Ea $2,225 $2,225 30" 1.00 Ea $2,185 $2,185 51" 3.00 Ea $2,416 $7,248 TOTAL LINE A4 $479,618 SUBTOTAL $2,874,347 **#************************:*** «*i************* :************************* ******************4 SBCFCD — PROJECT 3-4, MODEL-1 12—Sep-91 PAGE 3 LINE B 39" RCP 240.00 LF $123 $29,520 45" RCP 1320.00 LF $134 $176,880 48" RCP 1320.00 LF $140 $184,800 120" RCP 3820.00 LF $413 $1,577,660 MANHOLE NO. 2 45" TO 48" • 1.00 Ea $2,340 $2,340 36" 1.00 Ea $2,224 $2,224 39" 1.00 Ea $2,224 $2,224 45" 1.00 Ea $2,302 $2,302 48" 1.00 Ea $2,377 $2,377 54" 1.00 Ea $2,530 $2,530 120" 3.00 Ea $5,928 $17,784 MANHOLE NO. 4 54" TO 45" & 39" 1.00 Ea $4,313 $4,313 36" TO 120" & 120" 1.00 Ea $7.422 $7,422 TOTAL LINE B LINE B1 54" RCP MANHOLE NO. 2 54" $2,012,376 660.00 LF $148 $97,680 1.00 Ea $2,530 $2,530 TOTAL LINE B1 $100,210 LINE B2 36" RCP 660.00 LF $112 $73,920 MANHOLE NO. 2 36" 2.00 Ea $2,185 $4,370 TOTAL LINE B2 $78,290 SUBTOTAL $2,190,876 *****************************tt1**•************* ********** ►******* t*****ir******************i SBCFCD — PROJECT 3-4, MODEL-1 12—Sep-91 PAGE 4 LINE C 69" RCP 78" RCP 81" RCP 87" RCP MANHOLE NO. 2 1380.00 LF $209 $288,420 1380.00 LF $249 $343,620 1780.00 LF $255 $453,900 850.00 LF $286 $243,100 69" TO 78" 1.00 Ea $3,526 $3,526 78" TO 81" 1.00 Ea $3,622 $3,622 81" TO 87' 1.00 Ea $3,660 $3,660 87" 2.00 Ea $3,814 $7,628 81" 4.00 Ea $3,526 $14,104 78" 1.00 Ea $3,640 $3,640 69" 1.00 Ea $3,297 $3,297 63" 1.00 Ea $2,894 $2,894 48" 1.00 Ea $2,512 $2,512 TOTAL LINE C $1,373,923 SUBTOTAL $1,373,923 *******************************,****************************:**************T*******************. SBCFCD - PROJECT 3-4, MODEL-1 12-Sep-91 PAGE 5 LINE D T.C.C. B=10' d = 8.5' 3003.38 C.Y. $298 $895,006 RAN COST 6.92 ACRES $90,000 $622,800 B=10' d=11' 1820.91 C.Y. $298 $542,630 R/W COST 3.77 ACRES $90,000 $339,300 n=.015 Z=1.5:1 SLAB THICKNESS = 6" 108" RCP 2640.00 LF $364 $960,960 MANHOLE NO. 2 8T' TO 108" 1.00 Ea $3,832 $3,832 108" 5.00 Ea $5,140 $25,700 TOTAL LINE D $3,390,228 LINE D1 42' RCP 1320.00 LF $131 $172,920 45" RCP 1320.00 LF $137 $180,840 48" RCP 1980.00 LF $142 $281,160 51" RCP 950.00 LF $146 $138,700 MANHOLE NO. 2 42" TO 45" 1.00 Ea $2,321 $2,321 45" TO 48" 1.00 Ea $2,397 $2,397 48" TO 51" 1.00 Ea $2,473 $2,473 42" 3.00 Ea $2,281 $6,843 45" 2.00 Ea $2,359 $4,718 48" 3.00 Ea $2,435 $7,305 51" 1.00 Ea $2.512 $2,512 TOTAL LINE D1 $802,189 LINE D2 39" RCP 1140.00 LF $124 $141,360 45" RCP 1320.00 LF $137 $180,840 48" RCP 1320.00 LF $142 $187,440 60" RCP 1320.00 LF $165 $217,800 63' RCP 1070.00 LF $174 $186,180 SBCFCD - PROJECT3-4, MODEL-1 12-Sep-91 PAGE 6 MANHOLE NO. 2 39" TO 45" 1.00 Ea $2,281 $2,281 45" TO 48" 1.00 Ea $2,397 $2,397 48" TO 60" 1.00 Ea $2,588 $2,588 60" TO 63" 1.00 Ea $2,780 $2,780 39" 2.00 Ea $2,281 $4,562 45" 1.00 Ea $2,359 $2,359 48" 2.00 Ea $2,435 $4,870 60" 2.00 Ea $2,648 $5,296 TOTAL LINE D2 $940,753 LINE D3 39" RCP 45" RCP 48" RCP 51" RCP 57" RCP MANHOLE NO. 2 1320.00 LF $124 $163,680 1320.00 LF $137 $180,840 1320.00 LF $142 $187,440 1320.00 LF $146 $192,720 1100.00 LF $157 $172,700 39" TO 45" 1.00 Ea $2,281 $2,281 45" TO 48" 1.00 Ea $2,397 $2,397 48" TO 51" 1.00 Ea $2,473 $2,473 51" TO 57" 1.00 Ea $2,588 $2,588 39" 2.00 Ea $2,281 $4,562 45" 2.00 Ea $2,359 $4,718 48" 2.00 Ea $2,435 $4,870 51" 1.00 Ea $2,512 $2,512 TOTAL LINE D3 $923,781 SUBTOTAL $6,056,951 t******************************k*!*************************ik*********lrl **tr:*******************4 SBCFCD - PROJECT 3-4, MODEL-1 12-Sep-91 PAGE 7 LINE E T.C.C. B=10' d=5.5' 1077.21 C.Y. $298 $321,010 R/W COST 2.98 ACRES $90,000 $268,200 B=10' d=10' 3778.26 C.Y. $298 $1,125,921 R/W COST 8.14 ACRES $90,000 $732,600 B=10' d=11' 2483.05 C.Y. $298 $739,950 R/W COST 5.14 ACRES $90,000 $462,600 n=.015 Z=1.5:1 SLAB THICKNESS = 6" R.C.C. B=25' d=15' 3800.00 C.Y. $381 $1,447,800 R/W COST 2.77 ACRES $90,000 $249,300 n=.014 WALL & SLAB THICKNESS = 12" TOTAL LINE E $5,347,381 LINE El 45" RCP 1320.00 LF $137 $180,840 48" RCP 1320.00 LF $142 $187,440 51" RCP 1380.00 LF $146 $201,480 60" RCP 1380.00 LF $165 $227,700 75" RCP 440.00 LF $226 $99,440 MANHOLE NO.2 45" TO 48" 1.00 Ea $2,397 $2,397 48" TO 51" 1.00 Ea $2,473 $2,473 51" TO 60" 1.00 Ea $2,627 $2,627 60" TO 75" 1.00 Ea $3,028 $3,028 45" 2.00 Ea $2,359 $4,718 48" 1.00 Ea $2,435 $2,435 51" 1.00 Ea $2,512 $2,512 60" 1.00 Ea $2,648 $2,648 TOTAL LINE El $919,738 SBCFCD — PROJECT 3-4, MODEL-1 12—Sep-91 PAGE 8 LINE E2 42" RCP 48" RCP 78" RCP MANHOLE NO. 2 1320.00 LF $131 $172,920 1320.00 LF $142 $187,440 950.00 LF $238 $226,100 42" TO 48" 1.00 Ea $2,359 $2,359 48" TO 78" 1.00 Ea $3,047 $3,047 42" 2.00 Ea $2,281 $4,562 48" 2.00 Ea $2,397 $4,794 TOTAL LINE E2 $601,222 LINE E3 36" RCP MANHOLE NO.2 36" 1250.00 LF $112 $140,000 2.00 Ea $2,185 $4,370 TOTAL LINE E3 $144,370 LINE E4 54" RCP 63" RCP MANHOLE NO. 2 54" TO 63" 54" 63" 1400.00 1200.00 1.00 Ea 3.00 Ea 1.00 Ea $151 $174 $211,400 $208,800 $2,703 $2,703 $2,588 $7,764 $2,818 $2,818 TOTAL LINE E4 $433,485 SUBTOTAL $7,446,196 *********** ,.***, ,**, «*********************#***,*, , #****, **:********************. SBCFCD — PROJECT 3-4, MODEL-1 12—Sep-91 PAGE 9 LINE F 45" RCP 1500.00 LF $142 $213,000 66" RCP 3320.00 LF $192 $637,440 90" RCP 1410.00 LF $300 $423,000 108" RCP 2670.04 LF $364 $971,880 120" RCP 5700.00 ' LF $414 $2,359,800 MANHOLE NO.2 45" TO 66" 1.00 Ea $2,780 $2,780 90" TO 108" 1.00 Ea $4,678 $4,678 108" TO 120" 1.00 Ea $5,620 $5,620 45" 2.00 Ea $2,512 $5,024 66" 4.00 Ea $3,047 $12,188 90" 2.00 Ea $4,139 $8,278 108" 3.00 Ea $5,140 $15,420 120" 7.00 Ea $5,928 $41,496 MANHOLE NO. 4 72" TO 90" & 66" 1.00 Ea $6,421 $6,421 EXCAVATION & HAUUNG 120" RCP 193414 C.Y. $4 $773,656 TOTAL LINE F $5,480,681 SUBTOTAL $5,480,681 ************k******************1**s************* ********** ***************t******************r SBCFCD — PROJECT 3-4, MODEL-1 12—Sep-91 PAGE 10 LINE G 54" RCP 510.00 LF $157 $80,070 69" RCP 1360.00 LF $202 $274,720 72" RCP 1060.00 LF $214 $226,840 75" RCP 400.00 LF $226 $90,400 78" RCP 2380.00 LF $238 $566,440 MANHOLE NO. 2 54" TO 69" 1.00 Ea $2,933 $2,933 69" TO 72" 1.00 Ea $3,163 $3,163 72" TO 75" 1.00 Ea $2,359 $2, 359 75" TO 78" 1.00 Ea $3,353 $3,353 78" TO 72' 1.00 Ea $3,316 $3,316 54" 1.00 Ea $2,740 $2,740 69" 1.00 Ea $3,124 $3,124 72" 2.00 Ea $3,201 $6,402 78" 2.00 Ea $3,391 $6,782 TOTAL LINE G $1,272,642 SUBTOTAL $1,272,642 TOTAL $26,695,616 15 PERCENT CONTINGENCIES $4,004,342 GRAND TOTAL $30,699,958 APPENDIX C NET ACREAGE ESTIMATES June, 1992 Append'a C MASTER STORM DRAINAGE BENEFIT AREA NET ACREAGE Page 1 of 2 (a) (b) (c) Zd) _ (e) (1, (9) Adjusted Net Net Developed Gross Public Developable & Developable Acres Exclusions Developed Developable Improvements Acres Acres FONTANA CITY: Hunter's Ridge 459.5 46.0 0.0 413.5 71.5 342.0 342.0 1-15 North 80.8 24.0 0.0 56.8 23.7 33.1 33.1 1-10 North 10,524.0 1,443.3 3,172.9 5,907.8 2,094.9 3,812.9 6,985.8 Hawker Crawford 10,604.8 1,467.3 3,172.9 5,964.6 2,118.6 3,846.0 7,018.9 1-10 South 533.3 39.6 132.5 361.2 88.9 272.3 404.8 Declez North 3,655.4 1,011.1 885.0 1,759.3 428.4 1,330.9 2,215.9 Declez South 543.9 177.9 366.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 366.0 Declez Channel & Basin 4,199.3 1,189.0 1,251.0 1,759.3 428.4 1,330.9 2,581.9 Upper Etiwanda 204.5 47.3 23.0 134.2 34.5 99.7 122.7 Middle Etiwanda 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lower Etiwanda 808.8 297.0 259.3 252.5 52.7 199.8 459.1 Fontana East 2,166.0 256.6 1,600.7 308.7 118.6 190.1 - 1,790.8 Project 3-4 672.9 317.1 26.4 329.4 93.7 235.7 262.1 Mt. Jurupa 362.8 351.8 0.0 11.0 3.9 7.1 7.1 Subtotal (h) 20,011.9 4,011.7 6,465.8 9,534.4 3,010.8 6,523.6 12,989.4 COUNTY WITHIN SPHERE: Hunter's Ridge 20.6 17.1 0.0 3.5 0.9 2.6 26 1-15 North 1,242.9 765.3 49.0 428.6 105.5 323.1 372.1 1-10 North 5,379.1 413.7 2,218.4 2,747.0 708.7 2,038.3 4,256.7 Hawker Crawford 6,622.0 1,179.0 2,267.4 3,175.6 814.2 2,361.4 4,628.8 1-10 South 116.1 0.0 57.5 58.6 14.7 43.9 101.4 Declez North 1,264.7 50.4 919.0 295.3 66.3 229.0 1,148.0 Declez South 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Declez Channel & Basin 1,264.7 50.4 919.0 295.3 66.3 229.0 1,148.0 Upper Etiwanda 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Middle Etiwanda 556.3 141.6 68.6 346.1 86.5 259.6 3282 Lower Etiwanda 24.6 0.0 15.4 9.2 2.3 6.9 22.3 Fontana East 853.9 49.0 635.7 169.2 44.1 125.1 760.8 Project 3-4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mt. Jurupa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal (h) 9,458.2 1,437.1 3,963.6 4,057.5 1,029.0 3,028.5 6,992.1 Footnotes: (a) Adjusted gross acres = Assessor parcel acreage (which does not include existing dedicated streets/highways (b) Exclusions = non-taxable parcels plus taxable parcels with the following General Plan designations: PUC, PS, PR, PPF, OSN, OSR & Rt 30 (c) Developed = property not excluded per (c) and which has an improvement value to land value ratio of 1.0 or greater (d) Developable = (b) adjusted gross acres Teas (c) exclusions and (d) developed acres (e) Public improvements = (e) vacant developable acreage times a factor of .25 to allow for public dedications during subdivision [Note: a factor of .35 was applied to R-PC designated property in North Fontana since most of this acreage is in large vacant parcels] (f) Net developable = (e) developable less (f) public improvements (g) = the total of (d) developed and (g) net developable (h) Hawker Crawford and Declez Channel & Basin combine the acreage of other benefit areas and thus are excluded in computing subtotals (i) Rancho Cucamonga acreage Q Riverside County acreage Appendix C (Cont'd) MASTER STORM DRAINAGE BENEFIT AREA NET ACREAGE Page 2 of 2 (al r (b) (c) (d) _ (el (9) Adjusted Net Net Developed Grose Public Developable & Developable Acres Exclusions Developed Developable Improvements Acres Acres OTHER JURISDICTIONS: Hunter's Ridge 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1-15 North 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1-10 North 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hawker Crawford (i) 55.2 0.0 0.0 55.2 13.8 41.4 41.4 1-10 South 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Declez North (1) 29.5 0.0 16.0 13.5 3.4 10.1 26.1 Declez South Q 148.7 0.0 6.0 142.7 35.7 107.0 113.0 Declez Channel (j) 178.2 0.0 22.0 156.2 39.1 117.1 139.1 Upper Etiwanda 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Middle Etiwanda 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lower Etiwanda 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Fontana East 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Project 3-4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mt. Jurupa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal (h) 178.2 0.0 22.0 156.2 39.1 117.1 139.1 TOTALS: Hunter's Ridge 480.1 63.1 0.0 417.0 72.4 344.6 344.6 1-15 North 1,323.7 789.3 49.0 485.4 129.2 356.2 405.2 1-10 North 15,903.1 1,857.0 5,391.3 8,654.8 2,803.6 5,851.2 11,2425 Hawker Crawford 17,282.0 2,646.3 5,440.3 9,195.4 2,946.6 6,248.8 11,689.1 1-10 South 649.4 39.6 190.0 419.8 103.6 316.2 5062 Declez North 4,949.6 1,061.5 1,820.0 2,068.1 498.1 1,570.0 3,390.0 Declez South 692.6 177.9 372.0 1427 35.7 107.0 479.0 Declez Channel & Basin 5,642.2 1,239.4 2,192.0 2,210.E 533.8 1,677.0 3,869.0 Upper Etiwanda 204.5 47.3 23.0 134.2 34.5 99.7 122.7 Middle Etiwanda 556.3 141.6 68.6 346.1 86.5 259.6 3282 Lower Etiwanda 833.4 297.0 274.7 261.7 55.0 206.7 481.4 Fontana East 3,019.9 305.6 2,236.4 477.9 162.7 315.2 2,551.6 Project 3-4 672.9 317.1 26.4 329.4 93.7 235.7 262.1 Mt. Jurupa 362.8 351.8 0.0 11.0 3.9 7.1 7.1 Subtotal (h) 29,648.3 5,448.8 10,451.4 13,748.1 4,078.9 9,669.2 20,120.6 APPENDIX D BIBLIOGRAPHY June, 1992 FONTANA DRAINAGE FEE STUDY BIBLIOGRAPHY (1) Mister Storm Drainage Plan Study Volume I and Volume 1A, Hall and Foreman and Bill Mann & Associates, May 1992 (2) Cost Estimates for Individual Lines E through H (Rialto Study Area), Hall and Foreman, May 18, 1992 (3) Development Impact Fee Report for the City of Rialto, MSI, April 1990 (4) Hawker -Crawford Channel and Rich Basin Drainage Analysi , Bill Mann & Associates, Inc., in association with Hall and Foreman, Inc., August 1991 (5) Local Area Drainage Plan Project 3-4 Engineer's Report Volume #1, San Bernardino County Flood Control District Planning Division, June 1992 (6) Upper Etiwanda Creek and San Sevaine Creek Area Drainage Plans, City of Fontana and San Bernardino County Department of Transportation and Flood Control, September, 1989. (7) San Bernardino County Flood Control District. Comprehensive Storm Drain Plus Project 3-3. Rialto Channel Drainage Area: Volume I - Storm Drain System, James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc., in association with Bill Mann & Associates, April, 1988 (8) City of Rancho Cucamonga. Etiwanda Area Master Plan of Drainage, February, 1989. (9) City of Rancho Cucamonga. Resolution No. 89-379. Establishing Updated Drainage Improvement Fees for All Developments Within the Etiwanda/San Sevaine Local Drainage Area as established by Chapter 13.09 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, adopted August 16, 1989. (10) City of Rialto. Resolution No. 3587. Establishing a Storm Drain Facility Development Fee as Established by Chapter 3.68 of the City of Rialto Municipal Code, adopted July 3, 1990. drotbib 6.92\dfr.dsk EXISTING CHANNEL IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII EXISTING RCB EXISTING STORM DRAIN PIPE ■■■■■■■■ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII PROPOSED TRAPEZOIDAL 11 CHANNEL PROPOSED RCB PROPOSED PIPE LINE IDENTIFICATION MASTER PLAN STUDY AREA AREAS IN ADJOINING DRAINAGE STUDY CITY OF FONTANA SPHERE -OF INFLUENCE CITY LIMIT HIGHLAND BASELINE AVE AVE ET1WANDA CHANNEL= SAN SEVAINE CHANNEL VICTORIA BASIN i l 1 iD ,n, ri Li.r. ,, ,r_ ETIWANDA PIPELINE MWD LINE 12'-O" DIA FOOTHILL �_. BEND- — MWD TRANSMISSION LINE CITY' RANCHO CISAIIIONGA ETIWAND4 .% I' L.'S CHANNEL MWD PIPE. 1 11 Eimm D4 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY (UNINCORR) CITY OF UCAMONG RANCHO Al RIALTO PIPELINE MWD LINE 8'- 0" DIA. >- SAN SEVAINE • cn 1 1— BASINS # 1-4opiO CITY OF 1109 RANCHO CUCAMONGA p45 IC 100 HERE7 FLUENCE ,Afrioomisiciiri sou 25 YE /// •- H14 • (44 25. YEAR 25 YEAR EN I1�1■1■ �1u1■i.5 jii i C6 i 5 25 YEAR // � vwi • Z 8/1 I J ' X 6 5' 100 YEAR FUTURE ROUTE 30 FREEWAY // 2-36" TRANSMISSION LINES • HAWKER CRAVVFORD CHANNEL CITY OF FONTANA SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DEBRIS BASIN IN11118;Mill: BASIN aim. in Oil 0/ o ETIWANDA PIPELINE III t'Ll/ 7/ DEBRIS BASIN !...-: ♦zgyp.,■G��wi25 YEAR ,AI 4 • �� �/ ■ �• // iAA2 64 3AA3// q o_ ,o•x8' " limmimmitimi. 102"ir tJ• ,,� 102" �: 102" ■■1■1■1■1■1J1■1■t■1■1■1■1■1■1. A DUNCAN CANYON ›-1�00 YEAR ROAD CITY OF FONTANA SPHERE OF INFLUENCE 'i1IM1•I■I•, •1 ••1■11 i� / B3 - . 25 YEAR Il � 4"5 1■1■1■1■1 ■ 141■ -> in 25 YEAR -- NrBI .: 5 YEARS B2 ! n_ v �a IC�0 'T EAR SUMMIT AVE. 100. YEAR /( CITY OF FONTANPy,SPYIERE OF INFLUENCE 25 YEAR 25 YEAR -J DUNCAN CANYON !1■1■1■1�1■1" *1 -51" 42 ■ a ■-t-25 YEAR A-x �1in S o IR ■ Y ■ U E I,�CST. 10'X8' RCB EXIST 6" RCP EXIST.10 X 5 RCB / 4 '/ / Ah �� 't!- '■1■1■1■1■1■63" 7 ▪ >`C2 ■a �— 25 YEAR ■ ■ ETIWANDA PIPELINE ////4/ MWD LINE 12'-0" DIA L-25 YEAR YEAR *i1.1■i .i 1■I D4� ■ a -25 YEAR i o■ U ER 25 YEAR ma 5 YEAR -V'• opc,r rcon miiirouroAl bi 93 25 YEAR 36 )1° 2 14.. SUP H2 emu cl Ai : T-3Aaht 63 " 36- ips 1 25 YEAR 48" -1■1■ ■ ■ i IS 100 YEAR--1 ■ z� a ■ -CITY!LIMITS 84• '^-■ 69•• F2p5pY�'EHI4IRL `�' 'e ip- 1■ _ 1■1■1m1m1■r 61■1�1T�womo e 69" 66" 1a■1�1■1 � ■1 ■ V cod 42 36•. ~■ 1... /1 1■Ilr 1■1■1 Nip.. i - IO0'YEAR 00 <NY EAR 11111 Bill 100 YEAR,--1 w::' ■. a� T8 u!-4T7 a■ io 0- pT-IA wi =1E11 _I M ■ ■▪ m - MWD UPPER FEEDER • � 1'-8" DIAL :II� j "1 _ CITY OF FONTANA - - -IT= w• MWD PIPE 1--..y SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ■ ■ QIs . SS-2A 100 YEAR_ _r, M 7A s▪ lo ■ M-6A •108" 87' 84" 63"Qi!" ■1■1■1■ummi 1■1s1■nomi 1■1■1■1■1■I■1■1■1■1 :Ic:IuPIII.II ,1 ▪ ml�Z I - RANDALL AVE. - 51 25 YR • 51 25 YR Q (� 45" 57169" - ■ �- ■1�1■1 1■ J CITY OF SS 2 Z �■� \ Ito } RANCHO j= M Q wITM 0'\ �' o CUCAMONG _• ■_J >; - SAN BERNARDINO SS 2D SS-2B.' �5 96/ 100YEAR L M-7B F,% M-6B AVE. KY x e. ._ ` 108" Sr 66" j �- �— ■■�E.,..1■1■ ■1■I■t.l■1■1.1■1■1 1■t■I■1■I■I.It■1■t■. rI I,t 1■ = =I■I■t, I■ �. SAN BERNARDINO AVE. - 51 I���vp ■ \ 51�25YR (D ■ \ 1.8 \ c ■ ■ ■. ■ - .Mt 7C i I I I■ 1 RAILROAD • CITY OF4 ONTARkt lw "-CITY LIMITS ivTRANSMISSION (J) T i, 1 , L . _ S.C.G. CO. 36" mil( No , 57. mammilm Niumi:: VALLEY BLVD. 84" r 75" ' 63" :AR mil otri.:0201Ct vows 1 LINE 1-10 FREEWAY SLOVER AVE. CITY OF ONTARIO SANTA ANA AVE. JURUPA AVE MARLAY AVE. CITY OF ONTARIO RIVERSIDE ETIWANDA AVE SS-564 100 YEAR 1E1E1 lEli SLOVER AVE roE 1:42" 48" 72') 7_6" m=iiiiiiiiiwE 100 YEAR imoisomounomoon mum ii— CALTRANS. 100 YEAR 111 iv i II .711 ili lint :71 iiri 6, fi Ici • CITY LIMITS BASIN cc cc 1: 100 YEAR 100 YEARm :139" 48" 66'. 64" 45" 36" 100 YEAR MN IN COUNTY aDE 0 • roE F. F. 25 YR o 66" JURUPA AVE. E. 1, ss 0 ,/,/ 4,5,,,, 1 iz, 0.\::0, z 6 _ imiiiii6noi" NA- . :‘"9".""""°"'‘."--\"ilic":717.9litill:"m;'ITs1 DECLEZ BASIN - ■ al■1s1■i.i . ■1■1■1■1■60" 10 iQ D2' "1 ▪ --25 YEAR li DI �' ■ o-N ■ .' R � L(1 z ■0 y:� ■ - 9' X 8' ■ .IV 57" 45•• 45.. 55ll 1■1■1■1■1■1■ 11■11111' ■ ■ l U iss+ 25 YEAR CI V' i ■ HIGHLAND D3� 2 - 8' X 6' RCB 102" 102" ;I D ■■■■i�■�1■1■1■1�1■1■1■1■1.1■1■1>tl■1■ BASELINE AVE. 25 YEAR- SOUTHERN' PACIFIC RAILROAD 11■I■.. 111 MILLER ■ 100 YEAR cc -J II II 1111.001 O. is Eiji rq O▪ r on CO • • 5 011 Lu cc 36" NOTE : EXISTING 1-15 R.C.B'.SWILL REMAIN TO HANDLE LOCAL DRAINAGE FLOW UNDER FREEWAY DUNCAN CANYON ROAD RIALTO PIPELINE MWD LINE 10'- 0" DIA. CITY OF RIALTO SUMMIT AVENUE CHANNEL CHANNEL ���� -'I-"" - HIGHLAND AVE. 100 YEAR 48" 39" 42" 1■1■1■1■1■1■ '-'�1■1� WALNUT ST. ,■r.-25 YEAR) 3 MILLI ▪ 4▪ 2" >111 3• cn • IX 100 111. YEAR • • • • • • • eeeee • ea- • 100 i YEAR j 100 i12, YEAR ARROW i BLVD. i cn 11,31118 i co IL CITY LIMITS i •• • • crrON ,'.. OL M-5E 100 YEAR ommismoim it SAN BERNARDINO AVE. MWD UPPER FEEDER M" 58 100 YEAR VALLEY BLVD. 63" CITY LIMITS )11\11 1 1 11111111111o1111$311111Y11:1111R0111 F. MWD UPPER FEEDER / a. in= 42 )i . I: OE Nli wE l."7 ... 1 II NI Coll sr- MERRILL • 100 YEAR • • • fin GI .4; • 0111 • Film 411118 • 25 YEA R icr 2000' 3000' Sicrrarc6 bnsi 0{- RQ104- 7-7 CITY LIMITS CITY OF FONTANA 7-- SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ›.-1 • • • • • • • • E311P'..44,1 E5 E611, • CITYILIMITS 11111111111 EAST FONTANAI°83HYPEkaEL YEAR i ictql BASELINE AVE. CITY LIMITS1E FOOTHILL BLVD. 9641. w • • • • • • • • • cCig • • • RIALTO STUDY ARFA • 1.111111( ti 72" 90" i 102h 10e elf 1 • YE CITY OF FONT NA SPHERE OF I FLUENCE • • • • • • • • • • • • • CRIIITAYLTOOF Z 1 , MERRILL AVE. IN - 120" 4.1(- -25 YEAR • IV 11 CITY LIMITS wimisiiiim litifiallii GIZNDALL AVE. • • • • • • • • J1-4, CITY LIMITS it 11V11///1111111ifill11111111111111111(10111110M1111111100°V11/1106/4fiffogitibm:111-'' .04111iiimmitimi in I \--CITY LIMITS Ai r - cr INT 71VrAntl,175v,FEA •100 YEAR DZ-5 all:011110111.1y111E1114111 R11191111111111.11f.i11111,1,11111011.1x111151,11411111111111111111:1111111111.; REVISIONS DATE. ' CITY.' DATE ADDED S.CG. CO. 36" GAS TRANS. LINES CITY OF rc rom 100 YEAR CITY LIMITS • ONTANA 0 25 YEAR 100 YEAR-1.11 an A SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY 2ov.A4zeot, goz IIMIMMIP CIVIL ENGINEERING • LAND PLANNING • LAND SURVEYING • afi Lit VALLEY BLVD. • • SAN BERNARDINO AVE 1-10 FREEWAY SLOVER AVE. SANTA ANA AVE. COUNTY UNINCORP. LOCUST AVE. • CITY LIMITS COUNTY PROJECT 3-.4 AREA CITY OF FONTANA MINED .Minb MAPLE AVE. LINDEN AVE. • • • • • CITY OF RIALTO COUNTY UNINCORP. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY (UNINCORP.) • • • CITY LIMITS CITY OF FONTANA MASTER STORM DRAINAGE PLAN EXHIBIT MAP Dr. No 2153 6-23-92 LEGEND X `ZZ` .LLLLLLLL .LLLLLLLLL I1III1I1.1.1.1.1.I.1, Al CUCAM❑NGA CITY LIMITS CITY LIMITS CITY SPHERE ❑F INFLUENCE EXISTING CHANNEL DECLEZ NDRTH ($17,980) DECLEZ SOUTH ($21,351) HUNTER'S RIDGE (NOT INCLUDED) FDNTANA EAST ($10,944) UPPER ETIWANDA ($6,957) MIDDLE ETIWANDA ($5,353) LOWER ETIWANDA ($5,419) I-10 NDRTH ($15,721 ) I-10 SOUTH ($3,851) I-15 NORTH ($14,695) MOUNT JURUPA (NOT INCLUDED) Ld LD zzI LJ I =Di Q I PROJECT 3-4 ($12,892) : z I HAWKER-CRAWFDRD -- U ~ I CHANNEL (NOT INCLUDED) a I rWMP FEE PER NET DEVELOPABLE ACRE SAN BERNARDIN❑ COUNTY (UNINC❑RP❑RATED) OM OMB =II MI MIS MO MO MO CITY OF RANCHO CUCAM❑NGA SANT CITY LIMITS a z a IMP 11111111111 MID 01111 __J CITY LIMITS —) =II MI SAN GABRIEL MOUNTAINS + + I 15 NORTH+ + IOX I U I YOX n< I-1 UNTER' ,ET)_ 71:1, P5E, \ Li AOL v /XL\/6L v HAWKER-CRAWFORD CHANNEL CITY CORP _Acks+e, Sicrrarc6 bA6, )(2100r1- SJMMIT AVE A HIGHLAND AVE Al 17:////jArIBASELINE AVE Arr W.4VAIV 400/4",7 ORATE BOUNDARY UNINCORP. COUNTY //:". Ail 41_ >if.* - I-10 NEIRTI:y, FOOTHILL BLVD JrAr/A,77 ZiAdr AP.4 AidrAf ,frAZ aAru'a 7411W" r MIDDLE ETIWANDA LLL LLLLL LLLLL LLLLLL LLLL_Lt_ LLLLL LLLLL LLLLL ETIWANDA CITY I, LIMITS i � NO MD ON MD Ma Ma LLLI N\L±J LLL LLLL_N\ LLLI LLL LJ c_LDLJNI I-10 CHANNEL ORAjT, Kr( INTERSTATE 10 DECLEZ NORTH DECLEZ SAN BERNARDINO RSIDE COUNTY AVE CITY LIMITS GM MIMI 2000 FEET CITY OF RIALTO OM ONO FONTANA EAST, LIJ rf/ LEY B CITY / LIMITS MP OM MO MO • 4000 6000 • MO WI SO IMINI MAPLE . AVE >- E-31 CITY 4_ 4_ IL LIMITS 1+ + + + + + + N10114440111.118 141.1110.11/440110.0141 + + • 1111 NAPO 4 Ak AO( 14 VOA1 VA .10 .41 I Sri ivir • • • SPHERE OF INFLUENCE CITY OF FONTANA MASTER STORM DRAINAGE BENEFIT AREA FEES EXHIBIT MAP REVISIONS . APPROVAL DATE APPROVAL DATE A 1$1-18U170. M1(-..4 %E\I;Fl.; I.T A REA FEE WAS JT 7-31-92 ta(1b kb-03.0.1:0 12 IL-tf• + + + + + CITY OF FONTANA -COUNTY AREA LL LLJ LLJ 7Cj LINDEN AVE + DENOTES COUNTY AREA SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT r JURUPA SAN BERNARDINO C9UNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY Subarea B 0 a SUBAREA B ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION COST: MODEL 1 = $15.3 MILLION MODEL 2 = $12.2 MILLION DIFFERENCE = $ 3.1 MIWON SUBAREA A's FAIR SHARE COST OF SUBAREA B CONSTRUCTION 7r J Sj SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 7 RIVERSIDE COUNTY i' /- /' FFIEQUENLY/PEAR Flow RAZE MODEL 1 WiNUNE STOitifilIRAIN AND SIZE RCP MISER OR TRAP CHANNEL NM , DEPNN MODEL 2 STORM DRAIN SIZEFREPUNCIIPEOR Rnr RATE (OA.) RCP OM. OR C VOR1 r.O LOCAL STORM DRAINS SUBAREA 8 DRAINAGE DMIDE 0 2000 U. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT COMPREHENSIVE STORM DRAIN PLAN PROJECT 3-4 SUBAREA B FACILITIES COMPARISON BY JLD DATE JUN 91 ACAD FILE P115SUBB PLANNING F9.E NO. PM-DI-115