No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019/10/30 - Agenda Packet - Public Works SubCommitteeOctober 30, 2019 - 3:30 P.M. PUBLIC WORKS SUBCOMMITTEE AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA — CITY HALL, TAPIA CONFERENCE ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730-3801 A. CALL TO ORDER A Roll Call: Kennedy Hutchison B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Public Works Subcommittee on any item listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Subcommittee from addressing any item not previously included on the Agenda. The Subcommittee may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual. C. ITEM(S) FORDISCUSSION C1. Approve and File Minutes of: September 18, 2019. C2. Update on the Randolph Davis Property Community Trail and Heritage Park Bridges. D. ADJOURNMENT I, Linda A. Troyan, MMC, City Clerk Services Director, or my designee, hereby certifies that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on October 28, 2019, at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California, and on the City's website. e ina A. Troyan, MMC City Clerk Services Director City of Rancho Cucamonga If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Office at (909) 774-2023. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Page 1 of 1 September 18, 2019 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA I PUBLIC WORKS SUBCOMMITTEE SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES A special meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga Public Works Subcommittee was held on Wednesday, September 18, 2019, in the Tapia Conference Room of the Rancho Cucamonga City Hall located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California, Mayor Pro Tem Lynne B. Kennedy, and Council Member Ryan A. Hutchison called the meeting to order at 4 p.m. Al. Roll Call: Present were Mayor Pro Tem Lynne B. Kennedy, and Council Member Ryan A. Hutchison Also, present: John R. Gillison, City Manager; James Markman, City Attorney; Jason C. Welday, Engineering Services Director/City Engineer; Fred Lyn, Deputy Director of Engineering Services/Utilities and Environmental Programs; Linda Ceballos, Environmental Programs Manager; Scott Rapp, Environmental Programs Coordinator; Marissa Ostos, Management Analyst I; and Rebecca Fuller, Executive Assistant. Rose Radford, Project Manager R3 Consulting Group, Inc. Mike Arreguin, Vice President of Burrtec Waste Industries Bob Coon, Chief Financial Officer of Burrtec Waste Industries Steve Bradshaw, Representative of Burrtec Waste Industries B1. No public communications were made. Cl. Approve and File Minutes of June 6, 2019: Approved — Motion moved by Council Member Ryan A. Hutchison to approve the June 6, 2019 minutes; seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Lynne B. Kennedy. C2. Review Solid Waste Collection Rate Adjustment Request and Consider Presentation of Proposed Rates to City Council for Consideration. Linda Ceballos, Environmental Programs Manager, presented the staff report and provided background and analysis of the review of the Solid Waste Collection Rate Adjustment which will be presented to City Council for consideration. Rose Radford, Project Manager, presented her firm's findings and explained their methodology for how the rates were calculated in the report. Mike Arreguin, Vice President; Bob Coon, Chief Financial Officer; Steve Bradshaw, Representative, disagreed with the recommended adjustment in the consultant's report and explained their methodology in their rate proposal. Mike explained that $1.50 was taken out twice and the carry forward amount for increased disposal and processing costs is allowed per the Agreement. Burrtec staff also provided copies of a solid waste rate survey for other cities. The rate survey was not provided to the City prior to the meeting and therefore was not part of the agenda packet, however, it was relevant to the meeting and is now available to view with the agenda packet. Following discussion on the rate calculation methodology, the subcommittee concurred with Mr. Arreguin's approach for calculating the carry forward amount. Based on this concurrence, James Markman, City Attorney, advised that the Public Works Subcommittee members had the option to amend staff's recommendation to include: (1) recalculating of the rates following this revised methodology, (2) a review of the recalculated rates by staff, and (3) the subcommittee would receive the recalculated rates by email. Staff would determine if a subsequent subcommittee meeting is required for further discussion prior to issuance of the public hearing notice and consideration of the proposed rates by City Council. September 18, 2019 1 Public Works Subcommittee City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 1 of 2 September 18, 2019 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA I PUBLIC WORKS SUBCOMMITTEE SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES Council Member Ryan A. Hutchison moved to approve the amended recommendation; seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Lynne B. Kennedy. D1. The Public Works Subcommittee meeting adjourned at 5:04 p.m. Date: Respectfully submitted, Jason C. Welday Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer September 18, 2019 1 Public Works Subcommittee City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 2 of 2 DATE: October 30, 2019 TO: Public Works Subcommittee STAFF REPORT FROM: Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer INITIATED BY: Gianfranco Laurie, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Update on the Randolph Davis Property Community Trail and the Heritage Park Bridges RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Public Works Subcommittee: 1. Recommend that the City Council include Option 2 for the Heritage Park Bridge Replacement Project consisting of replacement of three bridges at the entrance to the equestrian center with one consolidated bridge and removal of the remaining two bridges utilizing the funding sources as described in the staff report below in the Fiscal Year 2020/21 CIP Budget; and 2. Receive a report on the status of the Randolph Davis Property Community Trail deferring recommendation regarding short- and long-term reconstruction of the Davis Trail until a decision on the insurance claim has been received. BACKGROUND: Randolph Davis Property Community Trail In January 2019, a portion of the community trail located on the Randolph Davis Property, 9400 Almond Street, was eroded after a heavy storm event. For the protection of the public and to prevent further damage to the trail or the adjacent hillside, Public Works staff closed the community trail by placing trail closed signs at either entrance to the trail and implementing erosion control measures until the community trail can be restored to a safe condition. Engineering staff contracted with a geotechnical engineering firm to prepare a slope stability assessment report that investigated the failure and provided recommendations on potential short- term and long-term solutions. Heritage Park Bridge Replacement An initial bridge evaluation for the five bridges located at Heritage Park was completed back in March 2011. The initial bridge evaluation recommended replacement of the bridges but identified minor bridge repairs by replacing the existing wood railing supports for each bridge. Because of the timeline from the initial report and current condition of the bridges, Engineering staff contracted with a civil engineering firm to reassess the five bridges at Heritage Park. In September 2019, an updated bridge evaluation report was prepared and submitted to staff for consideration. Page 1 of 3 ANALYSIS: Randolph Davis Property Communitv Trail Ninyo & Moore, one of the City's on-call geotechnical engineering firms, has completed an initial slope stability assessment report that isolated the erosion repairs into six (6) areas along the community trail. Proposed recommendations for repair of each area varies between re -grading the surface, importing fill material and compacting, reconstructing the slope failure (Area 4 only) and installing surface drains to reduce future erosion. A copy of the Randolph Davis Property Community Trail Slope Stability Report is included as Attachment 1. Based on the slope stability assessment report, Engineering staff developed conceptual drawings and a rough estimate for each affected area along the community trail. Conceptual drawings illustrate short-term and long-term improvements that can restore the community trail to a safe condition and re -open for use. A rough estimate was generated and preliminary costs to repair the community trail range between $360,000 for short-term improvements and $640,000 for long- term improvements. These rough estimates include all soft costs such as design, environmental, permits, material testing and inspection. A copy of the Randolph Davis Property Community Trail Conceptual Drawings and Rough Estimate is included as Attachment 2. Risk Management staff has submitted an insurance claim that, if approved, would cover $500,000 (or 78%) of the repair costs associated with the erosion and slope failure. Staff is waiting to hear back from the insurance company regarding the claim status. Public Works and Engineering staff continue to work on interim measures to prevent further erosion as well as seeking alternate possible routes along the Randolph Davis property that may involve temporary access easements while the decision on the claim is evaluated. Heritage Park Bridge Replacement Aufbau Corporation, on-call civil engineering firm, has completed an updated bridge evaluation report that evaluates future restoration or replacement and rough order magnitude costs for each bridge. Proposed recommendations include two options; 1) replace all five bridges independently at a rough cost of $1.8 million or 2) eliminate two bridges (pedestrian only bridges) and combining three separate bridges into one multi -use bridge for a rough cost of $1.1 million. Staff's recommendation is to follow the latter recommendation due to less future bridge maintenance costs and construction cost effectiveness. A copy of the Heritage Park Bridge Replacement Report is included as Attachment 3. Option 2 would construct a new single 42.5 foot wide cast -in-place bridge that provides a 26 foot wide vehicular pathway and a 10 foot wide shared use pathway for pedestrian and equestrians. Vehicular traffic and shared pedestrian and equestrian traffic would be separated by a chain link fence installed over a reinforced concrete barrier. This combined bridge would serve vehicular, pedestrian and equestrian crossing needs across the Demens Creek Channel to provide access into Heritage Park Equestrian Center and Community Park respectively. An initial project timeline of three years has been determined which includes design, permit and construction. FISCAL IMPACT: No funding has been budgeted at this time for either reconstruction of the Randolph Davis Property Community Trail or the Heritage Park Bridge Replacement project. Further, reserves for Page 2of3 both Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 (LMD-1) and Park Development District No. 85 (PD - 85) are limited, supplemental funding may be available for these projects in the future. Randolph Davis Property Community Trail While adequate funding is not currently available in LMD-1, to make the trail repairs without depleting reserves, staff has submitted an insurance claim in the amount of $500,000 to cover a portion of the cost. Should the claim be approved, the remaining project cost would need to be funded out of LMD-1 reserves. Staff will re -analyze the project and recommendation once a decision is received on the insurance claim. Heritage Park Bridge Replacement Funding for the Heritage Park Bride Replacement Project has been identified through a combination of PD -85 and Rancho Cucamonga Fire District capital reserves and is available for budgeting in the Fiscal Year 2020/21 CIP Budget. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 — Randolph Davis Property Community Trail Slope Stability Report Attachment 2 — Randolph Davis Property Community Trail Conceptual Drawings and Rough Estimate Attachment 3 — Heritage Park Bridge Replacement Report Page 3of3 0 Geotechnical I Environmental I Construction Inspection & Testing I Forensic Engineering & Expert Witness Geophysics I Engineering Geology I Laboratory Testing I Industrial Hygiene I Occupational Safety I Air Quality I GIS ,ynyo �` /y►nor e Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants /yi17Yj9&/y►oore Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants Limited Geotechnical Evaluation Community Equestrian Trail Davis Property Rancho Cucamonga, California Mr. Gianfranco Laurie City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive I Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 June 5, 2019 1 Project No. 210274008 =r r f kl. 2537 F_ t�"�OF _C,�LOnle Matthew R. Harrell, PG, CEG Senior Project Geologist Q�pFESs� H A4 NO GE2509 �+ Garreth M. Saiki, PE, GE Principal Engineer * 0- A�,, *% MRH/GMS/RDH/mlc Distribution: (1) Addressee (via e-mail) DCA No. 1484 � � #I Ronald D. Hallum, PG, CEG Project Geologist 475 Goddard, Suite 200 1 Irvine, California 92618 1 p. 949.753.7070 1 www.ninvoandmoore.com CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 2 SCOPE OF SERVICES 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 5 FIELD RECONNAISSANCE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS 5.1 Area 1 5.2 Area 2 5.3 Area 3 5.4 Area 4 5.5 Area 5 5.6 Area 6 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Area 1 6.1.1 Rilling and Gullies 6.1.2 Positive Drainage 6.1.3 Low Water Crossing 6.2 Area 2 6.2.1 Rilling, Gullies and Piping 6.2.2 Positive Drainage 6.2.3 Down Drains 6.3 Area 3 6.3.1 Rilling 6.3.2 Positive Drainage 6.4 Area 4 6.4.1 Slope Reconstruction 6.4.2 Down Drain 6.5 Area 5 6.5.1 Rilling and Gullies 6.5.2 Down Drains 6.6 Area 6 6.6.1 Low Water Crossing Ninyo & Moore I Community Equestrian Trail, Davis Property, Rancho Cucamonga, California 1210274008 1 June 5, 2019 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 9 6 7 6.6.2 Down Drains 8 6.7 Fill Placement and Compaction 8 7 ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION 9 8 CONTINUED SLOPE MAINTENANCE 9 9 LIMITATIONS 9 10 REFERENCES 11 FIGURES 1 — Site Location 2 — Site Aerial 3 — Regional Geology 4 — Earthquake Fault Hazard Zones 5 — Keying and Benching Detail APPENDICES A — Photographs Ninyo & Moore I Community Equestrian Trail, Davis Property, Rancho Cucamonga, California 1210274008 1 June 5, 2019 ii 1 INTRODUCTION In accordance with your request, we have performed a limited geotechnical evaluation to assess the current condition of the equestrian trail and slope area of the community equestrian trail (Davis Trail) at the Davis Property in northern Rancho Cucamonga, California (Figure 1). The purpose of this evaluation was to observe and document the current trail conditions in order to note areas of erosion along the trail and adjacent slopes and conditions that should be improved or repaired to reduce the potential for future erosion of the trail and adjacent slopes (Figure 2). This report presents our findings, conclusions, and preliminary recommendations relative to the slopes and subject trail. 2 SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of our geotechnical services included the following: • Review of readily available background material, including published geologic maps and literature, stereoscopic aerial photographs, and plans provided by the client. • Geotechnical site reconnaissance to observe and document the surficial conditions of the subject trail area that have excessive erosion and other areas that may be considered susceptible to erosion and slope failure. • Compilation and geotechnical analysis of the background information and field data. • Preparation of this preliminary geotechnical report presenting our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Davis Trail is a City maintained pedestrian/equestrian trail easement located on the Davis Property in the northern part of the city of Rancho Cucamonga, California (Figure 1). The approximately 1,400 -foot long portion of the Davis Trail reviewed as a part of this study is west of the intersection of Amethyst Street and Almond Street (Figure 2). The trail easement trends west from the intersection for approximately 500 feet before turning north for approximately 900 feet. The trail is generally bound by a small residential community accessed by a private drive to the south, an equestrian center to the north and east, and undeveloped Thorpe Canyon to the west. The portion of the slope adjacent Thorpe Canyon is well -vegetated with chaparral, shrubs, and small trees. A review of the readily available background material including plans, historical aerial photographs, and historical topographic maps indicates that the portion of the Davis Trail from the trail head at Almond Street to the general vicinity of Area 4 shown on Figure 2 was constructed during the late 1990's. The trail to the north of Area 4 was previously constructed at an unknown Ninyo & Moore I Community Equestrian Trail, Davis Property, Rancho Cucamonga, California 1210274008 1 June 5, 2019 1 date by the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) to provide vehicle access to up -hill facilities. Portions of the equestrian trail for the MWD section was observed to be paved with asphalt concrete. Construction for the trail was noted to be cut into the uphill portions with fill placed on the downslope portion to create a relatively level cross section approximately 10 feet in width. The limits of the trail are defined by a PVC post and rail fence system set in concrete footings. The slope from the trail alignment to Thorpe Canyon was observed to be at an approximate inclination of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) of varying height. In general, the slopes are heavily vegetated with a variety of chaparral, shrubs, trees, and grasses. In some cases, perimeter slopes adjacent to natural areas were observed to be bare of vegetation. 4 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS The project site is located within the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province of southern California (Norris and Webb, 1990). The province is characterized by generally east -west trending mountain ranges, fault zones, and structural basins. The trail alignment is located south of the east -west trending San Gabriel Mountains and northeast of the San Jose Hills within the Cucamonga Basin. The project is underlain by relatively thick accumulations of Quaternary age sediments eroded from the San Gabriel Mountains that have infilled the basin as broad south - sloping alluvial fans. The material types within the alluvial fans are typically interbedded boulders, cobbles, gravel, and sand with minor silt and clay. The material types can change gradually or abruptly both vertically and laterally. Deposits are typically coarser upslope on the alluvial fan and closer to the mountain front. The project site is situated on a broad alluvial fan at the base of the southeastern portion of the San Gabriel Mountains (Figure 3). Regional geologic mapping indicates that the alluvial fan deposits generally consist of sand, gravel, and boulder alluvial deposits (Dibblee, 2003a,b; Morton and Matti, 2001a,b; and Morton and Miller, 2006). Our review of the referenced geologic literature indicates that the project area evaluated is not transected by active faults. However, the trail is located in the projected path of the Sierra Madre fault zone with active and potentially active fault segments located in relatively close proximity to the boundaries of the trail. The active Cucamonga fault segment of the Sierra Madre fault zone, is located along the northern boundary of the Davis Trail, adjacent to Area 6 (Figure 3). The active Cucamonga fault in this area has a maximum projected earthquake magnitudes of 6.0 to 7.0, which can cause significant ground shaking (Southern California Earthquake Data Center [SCEC], 2019. Nearby seismic events have the potential to cause cracking of the ground surface and slope failures in the project area. Ninyo & Moore I Community Equestrian Trail, Davis Property, Rancho Cucamonga, California 1210274008 1 June 5, 2019 2 5 FIELD RECONNAISSANCE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS Representatives from our firm performed a geotechnical site reconnaissance on April 4, 2019 to observe and document the condition of the slopes and other general site conditions. Our site reconnaissance consisted of walking the trail to observe and document the site conditions. Our evaluation included documentation of geotechnical issues, such as drainage concerns and significant erosion. Our scope of services for this project was limited to visual observations of the trail and slope surfaces and did not include subsurface exploration. Heavy vegetative coverage limited our visual observations for much of the slope areas facing Thorpe Canyon. Our observations documented during our site reconnaissance are provided in the sections below and are indicated on Figure 2. Selected representative photographs of observed conditions are provided in Appendix A. 5.1 Area 1 Trail erosion consisting of rilling and gullies were observed within Area 1, beginning near the trailhead and extending approximately 100 feet west on the south side of the trail, exposing coarse gravels and cobbles. The erosion then continues south off the property across a private drive. Sands and gravel are visible on the private drive where drainage is conveyed to an existing swale to the southwest. A graded swale within the Davis property was observed along the east property boundary to convey drainage onto the trail. Additionally, an existing drainage culvert approximately 200 feet from the trail is present to the south of the trail where it crosses a topographic swale. 5.2 Area 2 Drainage on the trail in the vicinity of Area 2 is concentrated off -trail with erosion to the west towards Thorpe Canyon consisting of gullies of less than 6 inches in depth and "piping" of an existing animal burrow where the trail trends to the north. Additionally, trail erosion consisting of rilling is present on the slope side of the trail. 5.3 Area 3 A small gulley of less than 6 inches was observed at the top of slope facing towards Thorpe Canyon. Additionally, trail erosion consisting of rilling is present on the slope side of the trail. However, changes in the drainage have conveyed water away from the slope face and the slope erosion. Ninyo & Moore I Community Equestrian Trail, Davis Property, Rancho Cucamonga, California 1210274008 1 June 5, 2019 3 5.4 Area 4 Significant slope erosion consisting of a deep gully up to 8 feet in depth and up to 14 feet in width, extends to the floor of the adjacent Thorpe Canyon. Field measurements estimate that the slope is approximately 26 feet in height based on a slope inclination of 2:1 over a distance of approximately 52 feet. Soil exposed in the sidewalls of the gully were observed to be loose with significant amounts of cobbles and boulders. An MWD water line is exposed approximately 6 feet from the top of slope. Drainage is conveyed to Area 4 from the Davis Trail to the north and the Davis property to the east. To reduce additional erosions, city personnel have installed gravel bags to direct water away from gully and to the south. 5.5 Area 5 Drainage on the trail is concentrated off of the Davis Trail to the south where an existing vehicle access ramp to Thorpe Canyon is cut. Additionally, erosion consisting of rilling is present on the ramp access. To reduce additional erosion on the trail alignment, city personnel have installed a gravel bag berm to direct water away from the trail, south onto the access ramp. 5.6 Area 6 Drainage of an existing swale has been altered from the original alignment by the construction of the MWD access road currently used by the Davis Trail. Drainage has been cut-off from Thorpe Canyon and is conveyed south along the trail to Areas 4 and 5. Discontinuous asphalt pavement has been exposed at the base of rilling in some areas. In addition, rilling is limited to the inside edge of the trail, away from the slope to Thorpe Canyon. 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The purpose of our study was to evaluate the condition of the subject trail and slopes, and to provide our opinions regarding their condition from a geotechnical perspective. To accomplish this, we have performed a review of readily available background information, including geologic maps, aerial photographs, and plans, and we have performed a geotechnical site reconnaissance of the subject trail and slopes. Based on the results of our evaluation, it is our opinion that the majority of the trail and slopes observed during our site reconnaissance are in relatively good condition; however, the noted locations are in need of mitigation, repair, or maintenance. Our preliminary recommendations regarding the observed conditions on the subject slopes are presented in the following sections. Ninyo & Moore I Community Equestrian Trail, Davis Property, Rancho Cucamonga, California 1210274008 1 June 5, 2019 4 6.1 Area 1 The Davis Trail has significant erosion from off-site drainage on the trail. To address erosion concerns, the following recommendations for erosion and drainage in the vicinity of Area 1 are as follows. 6.1.1 Rilling and Gullies Riling and gullies greater than 6 inches in depth, observed during our site reconnaissance, were located in areas with concentrated runoff from the adjacent property to the north. Areas of surficial erosion should be filled with compacted soil to help maintain surficial soil stability. 6.1.2 Positive Drainage Consideration may also be given to the construction of additional surface drainage mitigation systems, such as positive drainage to the inside edge of the trail to maintain drainage on the north side and to convey runoff west to the existing swale and culvert. 6.1.3 Low Water Crossing Positive drainage to the existing swale to the west will concentrate drainage south across the trail to the existing culvert. Site improvements consisting of a low water crossing will reduce routine maintenance where rilling and gullies form. The design and sizing of the low water crossing should be completed by a licensed civil engineer. 6.2 Area 2 The Davis Trail has moderate erosion from drainage on the trail conveyed from north to south. The drainage is then concentrated off-site to the west to Thorpe Canyon at the turn of the trail, resulting in gullies less than 6 inches in depth and "piping" of an existing animal burrow. The following recommendations for erosion and drainage in the vicinity of Area 2 are as follows. 6.2.1 Rilling, Gullies and Piping Rilling, gullies less than 6 inches in depth, and piping, observed during our site reconnaissance were located in areas with concentrated runoff along the equestrian trail and at the point of discharge to Thorpe Canyon to the west. Areas of surficial erosion should be filled with compacted soil to help maintain surficial soil stability. Area of piping should be excavated and exposed before being filled with compacted soil. Consideration may also be given to the construction of additional surface drainage mitigation systems, such as positive drainage to maintain drainage on the north side of the trail to the existing swale and culvert to the west. Ninyo & Moore I Community Equestrian Trail, Davis Property, Rancho Cucamonga, California 1210274008 1 June 5, 2019 5 6.2.2 Positive Drainage Consideration may also be given to the construction of additional surface drainage mitigation systems, such as positive drainage to the inside edge of the trail to maintain drainage on the east side of the trail to the proposed down drain. 6.2.3 Down Drains Consideration may be given to the construction of a down drain to reduce the risk of scour and gullies forming on the slope face to Thorpe Canyon. The design and sizing of the down drain system should be completed by a licensed civil engineer. 6.3 Area 3 Moderate erosion consisting of a small gully on the slope face and rilling on the slope side of the trail is present. However, changes in the drainage have conveyed water away from the slope face. The following recommendations for erosion and drainage in the vicinity of Area 3 are as follows. 6.3.1 Rilling Riling, observed during our site reconnaissance were located in areas with concentrated runoff from the adjacent property. Areas of surficial erosion should be filled with compacted soil to help maintain surficial soil stability. 6.3.2 Positive Drainage Consideration may also be given to the construction of additional surface drainage mitigation systems, such as positive drainage to maintain drainage on the north side of the trail to the existing swale and culvert to the west. 6.4 Area 4 Significant slope erosion consisting of a deep gully up to 8 feet in depth and up to 14 feet in width, extends to the floor of the adjacent Thorpe Canyon. Drainage is conveyed to Area 4 from the Davis Trail to the north and the Davis property to the east. The following recommendations for erosion and drainage in the vicinity of Area 4 are as follows. 6.4.1 Slope Reconstruction Slope reconstruction will involve construction of a slope at an inclination of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Preliminary recommendations are that a new embankment fill slope be constructed with a fill key to the general dimensions shown on Figures 3 and 4. The fill key should be extended to the indicated dimensions into competent materials, as shown on Figure 8. Ninyo & Moore I Community Equestrian Trail, Davis Property, Rancho Cucamonga, California 1210274008 1 June 5, 2019 6 Furthermore, an engineered fill veneer of not less than 8 feet in width should be maintained during slope reconstruction between the temporary backcut for the fill slope and the finish slope face. The design of the finish slope face should be completed by a licensed civil engineer. The project plans and specifications should contain design features and construction requirements to reduce the potential for erosion of the on-site soils both during and after construction. The fill slope should be constructed in a manner (e.g., overfilling and cutting to grade) such that the recommended degree of compaction is achieved to the finished slope face. Appropriate drainage devices should be provided to direct surface runoff away from slope faces. In order to reduce future erosion, construction of a berm at the top of the new slope and the existing embankment slopes is recommended to keep water from flowing over the tops of slopes. Proposed 2:1 slopes are anticipated to be grossly stable provided that grading is performed in accordance with the recommendations provided herein. We anticipate that routine basin maintenance will include repair of rilling and other slope erosion that may occur. Consideration may be given to the construction of a slope rebuild with fill key, starting at the base of the slope and as detailed in Figure 4. Import materials are anticipated for the slope reconstruction. Due to the granular nature of the alluvial soils in the slope repair area, buildup of hydrostatic pressure between the alluvium exposed in the backcut and the engineered fill is not anticipated. Therefore, construction of a backdrain system is not considered necessary where engineered fill will be placed against granular alluvial soils. 6.4.2 Down Drain Consideration may be given to the construction of a down drain to reduce the risk of scour and gullies forming on the slope face to Thorpe Canyon. The design and sizing of the down drain system should be completed by a licensed civil engineer. 6.5 Area 5 Drainage is concentrated off of the trail alignment to the south where an existing vehicle access ramp to Thorpe Canyon is cut and erosion consisting of rilling is present on the ramp access. The following recommendations for erosion and drainage in the vicinity of Area 5 are as follows. 6.5.1 Rilling and Gullies Rilling and gullies observed during our site reconnaissance were located in areas with concentrated runoff along the access ramp to Thorpe Canyon to the southwest. Areas of Ninyo & Moore I Community Equestrian Trail, Davis Property, Rancho Cucamonga, California 1210274008 1 June 5, 2019 7 surficial erosion should be filled with compacted soil to help maintain surficial soil stability. Consideration may also be given to the construction of additional surface drainage mitigation systems, such as a down drain system to maintain drainage access road. 6.5.2 Down Drains Consideration may be given to the construction of a down drain to reduce the risk of scour and gullies forming on the access road to Thorpe Canyon. The design and sizing of the down drain system should be completed by a licensed civil engineer considering the contributing watershed area. r. Area 6 Drainage of an existing swale has been altered from the original alignment by the construction of the original MWD access road currently used by the Davis Trail. The following recommendations for drainage in the vicinity of Area 6 are as follows. 6.6.1 Low Water Crossing Restoring drainage to the existing swale will concentrate drainage across the trail to the southwest. Site improvements consisting of a low water crossing will reduce routine maintenance where rilling and gullies traditionally form. The design and sizing of the low water crossing should be completed by a licensed civil engineer. 6.6.2 Down Drains Positive drainage to the exsting swale will concentrate drainage across the trail to the existing culver to the south. Site improvements consisting of a low water crossing will reduce routine maintenance where rilling and gullies traditionally form. The design and sizing of the down drain system should be completed by a licensed civil engineer. 6.7 Fill Placement and Compaction} Fill materials for Areas 1 through 6 should be placed and compacted in accordance with project specifications, and sound construction practice. Fill should be compacted to 90 percent relative compaction or as evaluated by ASTM Test Method D 1557. No vibratory compaction equipment should be used near the edges of the slopes. Fill should be tested for specified compaction by the geotechnical consultant. The lift thickness for fill soils will vary depending on the type of compaction equipment used, but should generally be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. Ninyo & Moore I Community Equestrian Trail, Davis Property, Rancho Cucamonga, California 1210274008 1 June 5, 2019 7 ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Our scope of services included review of readily available background information, including geologic maps and aerial photographs. We have also performed a site reconnaissance and visual assessment of the subject slopes. However, we have not performed a subsurface investigation to evaluate the soil conditions at the site, nor have we performed slope stability analyses of the existing slopes. To further evaluate the potential for future soil -related movement that may affect site improvements, geotechnical evaluations should be performed, including slope stability analysis of Area 4 Slope Reconstruction based on proposed import materials and a review of the proposed civil design. These evaluations could include the sampling of proposed import materials and laboratory testing. A detailed scope and cost estimate for such an evaluation can be provided upon request. 8 CONTINUED SLOPE MAINTENANCE Continued vigilance and on-going maintenance are important for reducing the potential for future slope instability. The following additional recommendations for continued trail maintenance are provided below: • Areas that are not adequately vegetated should be covered with plastic sheeting or jute mesh during rainy seasons, as appropriate. • Surface drainage should be provided so that surface water runoff does not flow over the tops of the slopes. Irrigation or drainage from the adjacent property along the tops of the slopes should not saturate the slope soils or flow over the tops of the slopes. • Slope inspections should be performed on a regular basis, especially during the rainy seasons. Suspected geotechnical or slope maintenance issues should be reported as soon as they are observed and repairs or mitigation measures should be performed promptly by qualified personnel. 9 LIMITATIONS The field evaluation presented in this limited geotechnical evaluation has been conducted in general accordance with current practice and the standard of care exercised by geotechnical consultants performing similar tasks in the project area. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made regarding the conclusions, recommendations, and opinions presented in this report. There is no evaluation detailed enough to reveal every site condition. Variations may exist and conditions not observed or described in this report may be present. Uncertainties relative to subsurface conditions can be reduced through subsurface exploration. Subsurface evaluation will Ninyo & Moore I Community Equestrian Trail, Davis Property, Rancho Cucamonga, California 1210274008 1 June 5, 2019 9 be performed upon request. Please also note that our evaluation was limited to assessment of the geotechnical aspects of the project, based on visual observations at the time of our evaluation. Slope conditions will change over time. This document is intended to be used only in its entirety. No portion of the document, by itself, is designed to completely represent any aspect of the project described herein. Ninyo & Moore should be contacted if the reader requires additional information or has questions regarding the content, interpretations presented, or completeness of this document. Our conclusions, recommendations, and opinions are based on an analysis of the observed site conditions. If geotechnical conditions different from those described in this report are encountered, our office should be notified and additional recommendations, if warranted, will be provided upon request. It should be understood that the conditions of a site can change with time as a result of natural processes or the activities of man at the subject site or nearby sites. In addition, changes to the applicable laws, regulations, codes, and standards of practice may occur due to government action or the broadening of knowledge. The findings of this report may, therefore, be invalidated over time, in part or in whole, by changes over which Ninyo & Moore has no control. This report is intended exclusively for use by the client. Any use or reuse of the findings, conclusions, and/or recommendations of this report by parties other than the client is undertaken at said parties' sole risk. Ninyo & Moore I Community Equestrian Trail, Davis Property, Rancho Cucamonga, California 1210274008 1 June 5, 2019 10 10 REFERENCES Dibblee, T.W., Jr., 2003, Geologic Map of the Cucamonga Peak Quadrangle, San Bernardino County, California: Dibblee Foundation, DF -106, Scale 1:24,000. Google Earth, 2019, http://google.earth.com. Hart, E.W., and Bryant, W.A., 1997, Fault -Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zone Maps: California Geological Survey, Special Publication 42, with Supplements 1 and 2 added in 1999. Jennings, C.W., and Bryant, W.A., 2010, Fault Activity Map: California Geological Survey, California Geologic Data Map Series, Map No. 6, Scale 1:750,000. Morton, D.M. and Matti, J.C., 2001, Geologic map of the Cucamonga Peak 7.5' Quadrangle, San Bernardino County, California, Version 1.0: U.S. Geological Survey, Open -File Report 01- 311, scale 1:24,000. Morton, D.M., and Miller, F.K., 2006, Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30'x 60' Quadrangles, California, Version 1.0: United States Geological Survey, Open -File Report 2006-1217, Scale 1:100,000. Ninyo & Moore, 2019, Proposal for Geotechnical Evaluation Services, Davis Trail, Amethyst Street and Almond Street, Rancho Cucamonga, California, dated February 26. Norris, R.M., and Webb, R.W., 1990, Geology of California, Second Edition: John Wiley & Sons. Southern California Earthquake Data Center, 2019, Significant Earthquakes and Faults, http://scedc.caltech.edu/significant/cucamonga.html. State of California, 1995, Earthquake Fault Zones, Cucamonga Peak Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute Series: Scale 1:24,000, dated June 1. United States Geological Survey, 2019, U.S. Quaternary Faults, https://usgs.maps.arcgis.com. University of California at Santa Barbara, 2019, http:Hmil.library.ucsb.edu/ap indexes/FrameFinder/, Aerial Photograph, dated December 31, 1937, October 21, 1952, September 30, 1969 and October 1, 1995. Ninyo & Moore I Community Equestrian Trail, Davis Property, Rancho Cucamonga, California 1210274008 1 June 5, 2019 11 E Ninyo & Moore I Community Equestrian Trail, Davis Property, Rancho Cucamonga, California 1210274008 1 June 5, 2019 a m N moo \ 300 { o 6� "1 4000 I IF77��$ 3600 �Q \SNOWDROPST 1 m owo v — ` 2800 Cucamonga Road ,_. `; 0�_. °- ���Jn°, tib' Angalls Canyon �- nyon � 1yOp' REALES ST Tfiorpe'Canyon tiff ,�; - ALMOND ST fl I SITE �z ti o: ORCHARD ST Q 2 � Q f Z�Z z VN ST It I— -F_." rvuOD DR 4ILL-RD t RD - _tARRAIRI ST VISTA-GROVEST - 7 HILLSIDE RD rZ7 WILSON AVE t1800 p 1 NOLRTH811DIGI)R BANYAN ST N FEET NOTE: DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. I REFERENCE: USGS, 2018. 0 2,000 4,000 SITE LOCATION N,nyo&/�oore COMMUNITY EQUESTRIAN TRAIL, DAVIS PROPERTY Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 210274008 1 6/19 a m 0 N 0 0 3 of 0 0 0 N a, n �_AREA 6 �_• LIMIT OF EVALUATION /nom `�� � � •` � � � C - � � P c�GF 1'� � � � I � •z i i }l+et { AV -7 ri e jo. •. � �r l t' - `ham � � � -y`t,, t • ' * , d ✓ •�, ; • fio� 1 i\ u•' y s AREA 5 +� s 3 I Q L `. ,� � � � fr i •jet r`- ,f _� rM. tl ���� - ,•.1�-�eb.r1D«-i a-q'8rsy? - { .�. y 1t { SLOPE REBUILD 8' WIDE iy - ' AREA 4 4 PROPOSED KEYWAY lkI 15' WIDE x 5' DEEP '� - - � �' � � _ hr+°� •+'- co AREA 3 &� a, F iKia�gb aw - f J a rl 1' r Ir 4. AREA1 1 1 AREA 2 at •wX s _ l 00.999 3 „#x,15.68 hF� --���„..b u, -�- 1V . — S QN0,W7b 7.? LEGEND APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF SURFACE WATER FLOW PROPOSED LOW WATER CROSSING f� PROPOSED SLOPE DRAIN I C� EXISTING GRAVEL BAG BERM NOTE: DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. I REFERENCE: GOGGLE EARTH, 2019. *1yffo&*uurp. Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants 1r- -1 N FEET 0 80 160 SITE AERIAL COMMUNITY EQUESTRIAN TRAIL, DAVIS PROPERTY RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 210274008 1 6/19 al LEGEND N Qg ALLUVIAL GRAVELS HORNBLENDE GNEISS o N Qa ALLUVIUM • • FAULT 3 C7 Qoa OLDER ALLUVIUM — GEOLOGIC CONTACT o 0 FEET a o NOTE: DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. I REFERENCE: THOMAS W. DIBBLEE JR., 2003. O 1,000 2,000 N ■ REGIONAL GEOLOGY jyinyo&*nnre COMMUNITY EQUESTRIAN TRAIL, DAVIS PROPERTY Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 210274008 1 6/19 FIGURE 4 %1% FILL SLOPE PROJECTED PLANE (KEY) SUBDRAIN DETAIL 3/4 -INCH OPEN -GRADED GRAVEL WRAPPED IN AN APPROVED GEOFABRICI� T-CONNECTION— (SEE DETAIL) / NON -PERFORATED PIPE, 4 INCHES OR LARGER SCHEDULE 40 PVC OR EQUAL r OUTLET PIPE 2% E T -CONNECTION DETAIL PERFORATED PIPE, 4 INCHES OR LARGER SCHEDULE 40 PVC OR EQUAL, INSTALLED WITH PERFORATIONS DOWN, SLOPED AT 1 % OR MORE TOWARD OUTLET PIPE NOI OU, N NOTE: 'AS AN ALTERNATIVE, AN APPROVED GEOCOMPOSITE DRAIN SYSTEM MAY BE USED. N;nyo&ffioore Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL GEOFABRIC /1 2 INCHES OR MORE 4 INCHES OR MORE I CAP KEYING AND BENCHING DETAIL COMMUNITY EQUESTRIAN TRAIL, DAVIS PROPERTY RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 210274008 1 6/19 COMPACTED FILL / 1 TO 1 MAXIMUM FROM TOE OF / SLOPE TO APPROVED GROUND NATURAL / BENCH GROUND / --' HEIGHT VARIES 2% MIN. BENCH INCLINED OUTLET PIPE \ 1______- - ___-- , � � � � �_, SLIGHTLY INTO -- __— — I— SLOPE (TYPICAL) 2 % MIN. 2' MIN. KEY 1S MIN. DEPTH LOWEST BENCH (KEY) SUBDRAIN DETAIL 3/4 -INCH OPEN -GRADED GRAVEL WRAPPED IN AN APPROVED GEOFABRICI� T-CONNECTION— (SEE DETAIL) / NON -PERFORATED PIPE, 4 INCHES OR LARGER SCHEDULE 40 PVC OR EQUAL r OUTLET PIPE 2% E T -CONNECTION DETAIL PERFORATED PIPE, 4 INCHES OR LARGER SCHEDULE 40 PVC OR EQUAL, INSTALLED WITH PERFORATIONS DOWN, SLOPED AT 1 % OR MORE TOWARD OUTLET PIPE NOI OU, N NOTE: 'AS AN ALTERNATIVE, AN APPROVED GEOCOMPOSITE DRAIN SYSTEM MAY BE USED. N;nyo&ffioore Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL GEOFABRIC /1 2 INCHES OR MORE 4 INCHES OR MORE I CAP KEYING AND BENCHING DETAIL COMMUNITY EQUESTRIAN TRAIL, DAVIS PROPERTY RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 210274008 1 6/19 Ninyo & Moore I Community Equestrian Trail, Davis Property, Rancho Cucamonga, California 1210274008 1 June 5, 2019 Photograph 1: Area 1 Davis Property graded swale. Photograph 2: Area 1 gully trail erosion. PHOTOGRAPHS NWnyo&/V►oore COMMUNITY EQUESTRIAN TRAIL, DAVIS PROPERTY Geotechnical& Environmental Sciences Consultants RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 210274008 16/19 Photograph 3: Photograph 4: r im vo jj-w-mm am & 26 In 17; "1 w: - -0 w 01 - it Area 1 gully and rilling trail erosion. Area 1 drainage culvert. jVW7.qjg/V►oore Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants PHOTOGRAPHS COMMUNITY EQUESTRIAN TRAIL, DAVIS PROPERTY RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 210274008 16/19 Photograph 6: Area 3 small gully erosion at slope face. Sm PHOTOGRAPHS NWnyo&*%mre COMMUNITY EQUESTRIAN TRAIL, DAVIS PROPERTY Geotechnical& Environmental Sciences Consultants RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 210274008 16/19 yam, �_.� f :�7' ._may � �! moi• �'r�"�T` �T Vie% V. Photograph 5: Area 2 gully and "piping" erosion. Photograph 6: Area 3 small gully erosion at slope face. Sm PHOTOGRAPHS NWnyo&*%mre COMMUNITY EQUESTRIAN TRAIL, DAVIS PROPERTY Geotechnical& Environmental Sciences Consultants RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 210274008 16/19 Photograph 7: Area 3 rilling trail erosion. Photograph 8: Area 4 deep gully of slope face. -0= PHOTOGRAPHS NWnyo&*%mre COMMUNITY EQUESTRIAN TRAIL, DAVIS PROPERTY Geotechnical& Environmental Sciences Consultants RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 210274008 16/19 e. IR �� -.rte � '` � � '� � .:' �.. y -•"`* -� ,r �� x r y —war"'. L : rnsA_ , tet.. Photograph 9: Area 4 deep gully of slope face. 41u Photograph 10: Area 4 drainage from Davis Trail and Davis Property. PHOTOGRAPHS N�nyo&/hoots COMMUNITY EQUESTRIAN TRAIL, DAVIS PROPERTY Geotechnical& Environmental Sciences Consultants RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 210274008 16/19 Y^�J. 2 - .1 . s_ "e� b I d' r, Photograph 10: Area 4 drainage from Davis Trail and Davis Property. PHOTOGRAPHS N�nyo&/hoots COMMUNITY EQUESTRIAN TRAIL, DAVIS PROPERTY Geotechnical& Environmental Sciences Consultants RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 210274008 16/19 Photograph 11: Area 5 vehicle access ramp to Thorpe Canyon. Photograph 12: Area 6 existing swale drainage area. PHOTOGRAPHS N�nyo&*3ore COMMUNITY EQUESTRIAN TRAIL, DAVIS PROPERTY Geotechnical& Environmental Sciences Consultants RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 210274008 16/19 475 Goddard, Suite 200 1 Irvine, California 92618 1 p. 949.753.7070 ARIZONA I CALIFORNIA I COLORADO I NEVADA I TEXAS I UTAH www.ninyoandmoore.com : =Kt . P ` VI . • 40 OF ilk 416 s •. F• IN - 4b a� fit! • . • •- �! IM I !j !!!WW . f ' • V, •. 1 1 K 4r"e • w t . • •' N • . TO . _1•.'� r •. � ' • • may,,, w" � • •,. • ' • • • .: � ,'' ►. ' •� a40IFAlpOf �• • • i POP .0 RE—GRADE bob 410 r • �.� • ♦. r- �• I + may, ` � .�• % '� -, . like 1 -ft 14 a �•�SL- . 1► �.+. -:.t � i • — of -6 %, I — .— 6 AM Jol • orl 00 1 Awl 1 r OW ` s • • _, s ' 4p a At f• - r, •;, .� `` _ _47wmo. '0 46 W.— I& # #. % ! �ar•.• of . r w % ' A , • •• S i • I•�•'� �7 •� �� M '04s Ir 1, Awe SWI ra, fto • . • - . . ' - ��• r7 �~ ' ' '• '" 'rte 'i— Rik NrOW �� •� •j�'•"� `��'"/ '!�' .'. • X11 • �• , • . 1 •af • • - s .] ♦. - A- M -I& 0 w B. w W] m. 0 Ll -wli- �A� - w 1 /' .• - 1 'I •••:'tel, •4p�1 r Poor � i • .�-ter. Tr .►� W y .. ! 24 . .lb 40 i 1 • �- �..� tom. •• � ,. . l Nor ` 40 •fit `. ~ •� ,� -48- � 1 � 1 � 1 1 � i� '•.•`• � F ' •• •i•. , �� tb 7e 46 r • db •' . il, %'•' Ap i r -r. fm r • Wit: .. •� , • '� ♦ r .• �� ��� �����-.�� �� ��:!•► 49 0 10 .+riot• VIA '. lot •. - 40 40 •r �:. � `�J � . 1i • � '•r, . i _ _ - � •tom ilbi FAAKI lab • r � fes, 4d. � Ir - r 06 r fig. i t • » / ► • • . _ yp 4p_ 4t� •d,• • dw �- ; ice, • •��� }� �: �,;-•�•�� lb FA qr I CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA L w • r EXHIBIT 16 qr • A DAVIS TRAIL APPROVED - DATE: ENGINEERCITY 67514 RECOMMENDEDPLAN PREPARED BY: • 1 ONGA CITY OF RANCHO 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE �- RANCHO CUCAMONGA,91730 R.C.E. No 67514 DRAWING DATE X FILE No x EXHIBIT . . . ,• . , ., «. ti. , , .. . • .. . • .I _'l r y 14 A db Brij . • ♦4k• '► ; . 1F goo gL • i i t II••,,,, ••�� � 40 r� f 1 i• .a t M Of 1df 1 ber or 044 r �' j ' • lb •' � •, • r►� �w .�� - � • . _ .�• ray �� a � M r . • .r • •' r •�' ice:. t-lk 04 • h/ 11 _� • • • �• r:. •r % v 1 r + 14 • All 41 • • C ��• , 1 '. J• rte, Ir� '� • 11 1 ��` • � � •• ♦� ♦ \ � •a'-` •. ` • � ••�� ' • � • ` � •VA r• � ^ ��� '• �' • • � . •• syr . • . • • , . •� , • ' • 14. • ti ' ', —', �/�#'• - _ iii iii , do. Pb r r, •'; • , • • . ',� � �. 1 • • e • iii 1 Ap. ILIL FF � � • Pu 44 Axe 1, Ir •, ,• • JI. moi► • i .Tf • . f • AA go 'r it r ►• ' " 7.& s� r • t : �t - �' '''� ` . • r fA IOWA At •� ' 16 •' gob '' • . / • j • • 1 •' 1 s . } fir"} +'i •• •' • • itVA • • . • t IF 12' •� •ter - •' •ir • t 1 r• • •'�,� IF it 'ley is 00 too 00 ♦• ♦ •• • �• - t • J ` pp ' . w • ,/• Aw. INLET 046 • • %�• // / - f ' AM RECOMME • Is I r a IN lop IMPROVEN III rAREP � •. �* • 1. • ' M '••�'• �•;'� SHORT TERM FILL COMPACTIOI 4` �• •''' DAVIS - GRADING 1 t -'• PROPERTY - NATURAL GF •. SWALE • � ! `• �• —'--tee — R/W LONG TERM 1 , , ,. it � •:. w . � ,: • _ �. _ j•s� '.�'� Aft �• - � �.`. is: Ira r I (• • • 1 • s Ir �• ' • ' -' • • r L " . � � � . • A/ T � � ��' • �+ it `� . 7R ft. • _ . It 44 I R• 141qd I • •-tom • � • X ' • , • • i • •r, �f • .i .r .A --� w i w—I` CON( EN ER 0 wMal 0 fit w 1lw/v w l 10 tojow�►•�' ♦. •. i 4 /� IL 4k qdl AN q l _t • • ` �.44 14 44 1 ��, j • 40 Oak ter. • �_ •• �► fj�`. .�. - ,�•� � ••r' ♦ '�! •+. tA,= •: , I� : • • ' - •• y • * _ �• , ` ' �• i IL a �. . - "s hi v 00 014b 04, jA SO Jew op 40 110, Ot 1 •' g r , '. f �'• • • AV •� « • ti 4p 0 • . wv, �. r 17 L &� qwop 1 .' Ok lb �• 4r • • i • • r , ® • ,� i . lb 04 .01 ♦t •qL 1 • , ' _. i is f•� •► • � -: �„ it `�„ � ,I ;, tpr-vlp • • . ' • • dl �'�, , � � --.� •t• � _► '' f i�►—C �� � A1C •- ..; � sow !' • ' _ ., ' • S I ,� • w• '�, . - ,• •- ` -tel ,' • a • • • • • I `�` • r ,` _• _44 _ _ • �� "� • ' • , •� • w ' •-• • lb _-o •'•�,' �1 • - • : _SRT '' . r -r • • � , ` . ��� � � '�• • ' • I ��.• . ` J r ,� ► • , � • .. r -. ♦ �� ..er', . .`, •, ♦.•• • • •• .. � • ♦, LALA AL ,Of e - ; N �V 9% 0 - I V, I - 1 18" DIA RCP PIPE _ t Ir � aJ � � • t1i. +• s, i' +.'.moi �' RECONSTRUCT •R SLOPE. Lej 70 DEEP BY 23' WIDE AT 2. • J ;. � IMPORT DIRT FOR HYDROSEED NEW SLOPE Alb . me, 1IL • M 40 • � • • 4b 1 �• s *i ,w `, w " ia,r Ar • a .1 -r_,1.1 mi - 0 R ,. 11'i —� •ri ..•�•� `10 * it14 i + _ • • • +► t � � •i • f i •��. � 1 iii 'ECOMMENDEL MPROVEMENTS APPA d . 0 PIP 73 t-% x .lm IJ 0 0 . w I .j • lb 4 �• r FILL ERODED SURFACE AND • f �, ••1k COMPACT y • 4 •t. 1RE-GRADE EXI ST rC I �►7}, i •� . r ' ,� r' "jam•' • i �1/ Ik rev 40 . • , AAA � �` .r - �, • 1 _. •' � • . _ • - _ , � do 4. Ilk 1p 614 . ► ;» Aq i r •� • � �'tti • Ilk I. r. lb s•' ` -V'Ow • ' ► • 4. • ti44b moi" R OL �. . y 411, lb P •• 14 Alb I� •-' • • f i 4' .int • , ; -� z= IP 0 V4 • w ITvp• '� .... 1. e .� tip q• - 0 Q_*6; • RECUMMENC MPROVEMEN A D C: A ti w 0 ''� f•�-t a -'� '•:};'' PROP GRADING - R/W • PVC PIPE r 41p, '' • '� �: t [ HEADWALL EASEMENT ' •�! AC BERM �► , , • • ���T� AC BERM • • , r o ENERGY DISSIP - ' R/W r .� 's .. .. . r UNGROUTED R( 16 w • t UNGROUTED _ Ir ROCKS � -' •. • ' it » 1 4--k. RE -GRADE EXI ST SURFACE 741 ET HEADWALL --------------- ' Mkt• •t ,�, •wl�� ',• t.�_ � j t� � 1 ; 8 DIA PVC . . INr ' • If• — • ► •• •• .r f - / . t. • . -• • a • � � ' �% t ' • � '� 1•• Ami' � � ' ��� + •�,•• 1 its ". ♦ •A, 7"% fit, • f so ' •Qv ' %f IL ..i F ♦.t , •. , 491 W A - .• :; fir► i •� .. • s � , *4W do ► •� ., ter•op- • � • • � / it � -' � • � �• � � • • � • f � ' , - f _ � ► « w I• t w • �1, •lIlk elk I• — • P t . L� ft It �i . ` • , ._ _ + f'i". • • •�. "� i 711' • i• - S f,. -, •1 / '[• 1 • I. got ♦ r i • . ' l A s y ,� J� • •. , 1 AW OR , • ' • �• ter. • • •, 1.X " •• . �. • •!l .401 • . '�• ip f•460 '�.. • -� ' 1 Ig Ig r " ~ •I N _ _ • • • ti �•ail •• iA •• 1•�• L� VIP '` r • • op 16.•• OF 41 ON • _ • IF *A r � , ,�'• , • • • • e; — r •'W •• 441 •'^ " 1 to • PRO 1 ll- �• elk • . • ' ale rti 41 vp Witleg •�j .� i • , ' 46 go - 41 lb All 64 Art i Of IL • '� 1 L � ter• �' V � � �"�• l a tom• •. ♦•_ � t � ,�••, • r . � -fes • • ���• f � • �. •- • • • � • t _ 'i i s • •' .Z .16 All L 7, -VWOLT •tw . • ✓ ` �� • IR/W FILL ERODED SURFACE AND COMPACT 1 w '1 • • ... ` •T L •, . ! • , 0. j s a do 00 41k P •• . •. .•- • � /41POP 41 • iN • _ 1 ph • �• • It r . *4&$ � • • �. y • � • � � � `• � � � � � • • � .1 •_ ���. , . OF �* 'IV Opo 441 ... • 1 a � � - � • � - ,•fir w ' ,• j � . ` • . �,• x 1, �• , ` . � 00twe 4Z lb 46 10 w7% lift qw- low to . •• 4 I• �, ••40 • •'\ t i • • ' 40 • • • 4 / . • • •.. �'� dw f4 pet. 03 40 or of a aj 1. �- �i,i � - • . • • t A a • .. • / r - r ♦.. . _ • • ` v 4w go 0 �.• •1�•••� /'•00- A. �� ♦ •. • • �^ log*. i f ��II►► • • .. ' • ' • • , • �• y 9F A to 1p • 1.40 Ku. dr; .i - , ! 41 •It•i r�. • _ • ,- - 440 4 •/ 1• L} • 1 AN .47 • , � 11 • ` r ry - • 'ECOMMENDEL MPROVEMENTS AREA 6 0, :levab w 0 NO 0 0 Community Equestrian Trail ROUGH ESTIMATE CONSTRUCTION COST Date of Estimate: 8/19/2019 Job Number: By: RD ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY (1) UNIT PRICE COST AREA 1 SHORT TERM FILL ERODED SURFACE AND COMPACT TO 90% OR PER THE SOILS ENGINEER CY $200.00 $2,000.00 SATISFACTION RE -GRADE EXISTING SURFACE TO CREATE NATURAL UN -GROUTED GRAVEL FLOWLINE SURFACE DRAINAGE INSIDE EDGE OF THE TRAIL TO CONVEY RUNOFF TO THE EXISTING LS $9,100.00 $9,100.00 SWALE/DIRT AND EXISTING STORM DRAIN AND ENERGY DISSIPATOR, 4 LABORS 24 HRS @ $65 AND 1 SKIP WITH OPERATOR 24 HRS@$120 LOW WATER CROSSING DRAINAGE, CONCRETE CROSSING TRAIL 45 DEGREES SF $20.00 $2,000.00 TOWARDS SOUTH 10'X10', AT 1% FLOW TOWARD CENTER. SUB -TOTAL $13,100.00 LONG TERM INSTALL INLET HEADWALL AND CONNECTED 1 TO EXSTING STORM DRAIN AND NEW V- 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 DITCH 2 CONCRETE V -DITCH SWALE 2' FEET WIDE 6" 123 FT $50.00 $6,150.00 DEEP SUB -TOTAL I I 1 1 $11,150.00 Grand -Total $24,250.00 Area 2 SHORT TERM FILL ERODED SURFACE AND COMPACT TO 90% OR PER THE SOILS ENGINEER CY $200.00 $1,600.00 SATISFACTION. RE -GRADE EXISTING SURFACE TO CREATE NATURAL UN -GROUTED GRAVEL FLOWLINE SURFACE DRAINAGE INSIDE EDGE OF THE LS $18,200.00 $18,200.00 TRAIL TO CONVEY RUNOFF TO THE EXISTING SWALE/DIRT AND CULVERT, 4 LABORS 48 HRS @ $65 AND 1 SKIP WITH OPERATOR 48 HRS@$120 INSTALL 12 -INCH DIAMETER PVC PIPE WITH INLET HEADWALL AND CONNECTED TO LS $8,000.00 $8,000.00 EXISTING CMP, 28 LF 12" PVC@$145/LF, 1 HEADWALL@$4,000/EACH $27,800.00 SUB -TOTAL AREA 3 SHORT TERM FILL ERODED SURFACE AND COMPACTED LONG TERM 1 CONCRETE V -DITCH SWALE 2' FEET WIDE 6" DEEP TO CATCH WATER COMING FROM ARENA AND NORTH TRAIL 362 FT $50.00 $18,100.00 SUB -TOTAL RE -GRADE EXISTING SURFACE TO CREATE $18,100.00 Grand -Total NATURAL UN -GROUTED GRAVEL FLOWLINE $45,900.00 AREA 3 SHORT TERM FILL ERODED SURFACE AND COMPACTED CY $200.00 $2,000.00 PER THE SOILS ENGINEER SATISFACTION RE -GRADE EXISTING SURFACE TO CREATE NATURAL UN -GROUTED GRAVEL FLOWLINE LS $9,100.00 $9,100.00 SURFACE DRAINAGE INSIDE EDGE OF THE TRAIL TO CONVEY RUNOFF TO THE EXISTING LS $13,700.00 $13,700.00 SWALE/DIRT AND CULVERT, 4 LABORS 36 HRS @ $65 AND 1 SKIP WITH OPERATOR 36 HRS@$120 SUB -TOTAL $15,700.00 LONG TERM 1 CONCRETE V -DITCH SWALE 2' FEET WIDE 6" 240 FT $50.00 $12,000.00 DEEP LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00 BENCHING AND INSTALLATION OF INSTALL 12 -INCH DIAMETER PVC PIPE WITH 2 INLET GRATE AND OUTLET HEADWALL, 1 LS $9,450.00 $9,450.00 ROLLER, PERFORATED PIPES AND FITTINGS ENERGY DISSIPATOR, 10 LF 12" FOR SUBDRAIN, 3 LABORS FOR 48 HOURS PVC@$145/LF, 2 HEADWALL@$4,000/EACH 3 IMPORT FILL MATERIALS SUB -TOTAL CY $20.00 $6,000.00 $12,000.00 HYDROSEED NEW SLOPE TO PROTECT FROM Grand -Total LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $27,700.00 AREA 4 SHORT TERM RE -GRADE EXISTING SURFACE TO CREATE NATURAL UN -GROUTED GRAVEL FLOWLINE SURFACE DRAINAGE INSIDE EDGE OF THE TRAIL TO CONVEY RUNOFF TO THE EXISTING LS $9,100.00 $9,100.00 SWALE/DIRT AND CULVERT, 4 LABORS 24 HRS @ $65 AND 1 SKIP WITH OPERATOR 24 HRS@$120 RECONSTRCUT EXISTING SLOPE, 70 FEET DEEP BY 23 FEET WIDE SLOPE AT A 2:1 COMPACTED PER THE SOILS ENGINEER SATISFACTION INCLUDING KEYING, LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00 BENCHING AND INSTALLATION OF SUBDRAIN, I BACKHOE WITH COMPACTOR ROLLER, PERFORATED PIPES AND FITTINGS FOR SUBDRAIN, 3 LABORS FOR 48 HOURS 3 IMPORT FILL MATERIALS CY $20.00 $6,000.00 HYDROSEED NEW SLOPE TO PROTECT FROM LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00 ERODING. SUB -TOTAL $36,600.00 LONG TERM INSTALL 18-INCH DIAMETER PVC PIPE WITH 2 INLET GRATE AND OUTLET HEADWALL, 1 LS $16,200.00 $16,200.00 ENERGY DISSIPATOR, 57 LF 18" PVC@$145/LF, 1 HEADWALL@$4,000/EACH 2 CONCRETE V-DITCH SWALE 2' FEET WIDE 6" 75 FT $50.00 $3,750.00 DEEP SUB-TOTAL $19,950.00 ,GRAND-TOTAL $56,550.00 AREA 5 SHORT TERM FILL ERODED SURFACE AND COMPACTED CY $200.00 $2,000.00 PER THE SOILS ENGINEER SATISFACTION RE-GRADE EXISTING SURFACE TO CREATE DIRT FLOWLINE SURFACE DRAINAGE OUTSIDE TRAIL TO MAINTAIN DRAINAGE ON LS $10,300.00 $10,300.00 THE EAST SIDE, 2 LABOR AND 1 SKIP FOR 48 HOURS. OPERATOR 8HRS@$85 PLUS LABOR 8 HRS@$65 SUB-TOTAL $12,300.00 LONG TERM CONSTRUCT 18" DIAMETER PVC PIPE, INSTALL INLET HEADWALL AT THE TOP EAST 1 SIDE OF THE TRAIL AND INSTALL OUTLET 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 HEADWALL AT THE WEST SIDE TAIL WITH ENERGY DISSIPATOR. 12 FT OF PVC PIPE. (TWO LOCATIONS) RE-GRADE EXISTING DIRT AND INSTALL 2 UNGROUTED ROCKS TO DEFLECT WATER TO 1 LS $8,000.00 $8,000.00 NEW INLET HEADWALLS @$4,000/EACH INSTALL AC BERM AT THE EDGE OF AC 3 DRIVEWAY TO ELIMINATE ERODING AT DIRT 200 LF $25.00 $5,000.00 SLOPE SUB-TOTAL $23,000.00 Grand-Total $35,300.00 AREA 6 SHORT TERM FILL ERODED SURFACE AND COMPACTED CY $200.00 $2,000.00 PER THE SOILS ENGINEER SATISFACTION RE-GRADE EXISTING SURFACE TO RESTORE DIRT FLOWLINE SURFACE DRAINAGE SWALE TO MAINTAIN DRAINAGE ON THE EAST SIDE LS $5,100.00 $5,100.00 AND CLEAN UP, 2 LABOR AND 1 SKIP FOR 24 HOURS. OPERATOR 24 HRS@$85 PLUS LABOR 24 HRS@$65 SUB-TOTAL 1 $7,100.00 LONG TERM SHORT TERM TOTAL COST LOW WATER CROSSING DRAINAGE, $112,600.00 MOBILIZATION (10%) 25% CONTINGENCY $25,350.00 CONCRETE CROSSING TRAIL 45 DEGREES $28,150.00 1 LS SHORT TERM TOTAL COST A3 1 TOWARDS SOUTH 20 FEET WIDE X10 FEET, 1 LS $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $76,050.00 1% FLOW TOWARD CENTER AND INSTALL MOBILIZATION (10%) 1 LS $14,075.00 A2 OUTLET HEADWALL AND ENERGY 1 LS $42,225.00 A3 CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION (25%) DISSI PATOR. LS $35,187.50 A4 CONSTRUCTION STAKING (30%) 1 SUB-TOTAL $42,225.00 A5 SWPPP $6,000.00 LS Grand-Total A6 DESIGN COST (20%) 1 $13,100.00 SHORT TERM ADMIN AND CONSULTANT COST (A1 -A8) $216,125.00 SHORT TERM GRAND -TOTAL COST $356,875.00 LONG TERM SUB -TOTAL COST (INC. SHORT TERM COST) $202,800.00 25% CONTINGENCY $50,700.00 LONG TERM TOTAL COST $253,500.00 SHORT TERM TOTAL COST $112,600.00 MOBILIZATION (10%) 25% CONTINGENCY $25,350.00 A2 $28,150.00 1 LS SHORT TERM TOTAL COST A3 CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION (25%) $140,750.00 $63,375.00 SHORT TERM ADMIN COST AND CONSULTANT COST 1 LS $76,050.00 Al MOBILIZATION (10%) 1 LS $14,075.00 A2 SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING (30%) 1 LS $42,225.00 A3 CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION (25%) 1 LS $35,187.50 A4 CONSTRUCTION STAKING (30%) 1 LS $42,225.00 A5 SWPPP 1 LS $5,000.00 A6 DESIGN COST (20%) 1 LS $28,150.00 A7 ENVIRONMENTAL (25%) 1 LS $35,187.50 A8 DEPOSIT/PERMITS (10%) 1 LS $14,075.00 SHORT TERM ADMIN AND CONSULTANT COST (A1 -A8) $216,125.00 SHORT TERM GRAND -TOTAL COST $356,875.00 LONG TERM SUB -TOTAL COST (INC. SHORT TERM COST) $202,800.00 25% CONTINGENCY $50,700.00 LONG TERM TOTAL COST $253,500.00 LONG TERM ADMIN COST AND CONSULTANT COST Al MOBILIZATION (10%) 1 LS $25,350.00 A2 SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING (30%) 1 LS $76,050.00 A3 CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION (25%) 1 LS $63,375.00 A4 CONSTRUCTION STAKING (30%) 1 LS $76,050.00 A5 SWPPP 1 LS $5,000.00 A6 DESIGN COST (20%) 1 LS $50,700.00 A7 ENVIRONMENTAL (25%) 1 LS $63,375.00 A8 DEPOSIT/PERMITS (10%) 1 LS $25,350.00 LONG TERM ADMIN AND CONSULTANT COST (A1 -A8) $385,250.00 LONG TERM GRAND -TOTAL COST $638,750.00 HERITAGE COMMUNITY PARK BRJDGE EVALUATION REPORT PREPARED BY: ATTACHMENT 3 au Corp. SEPTEMBER 2019 �uf This Bridge Evaluation Report has been prepared under the direction of the following registered civil engineer. The registered civil engineer attests to the technical information contained herein and the engineering data upon which recommendations, conclusions, and decisions are based. QROF E5310,y 9 tiD J . VARjq. C h Q No. 38893 m �. Exp. 03-31-21 .a *�qTe FrCALF�* September 9, 2019 Vartan Vartanians Date: Registered Civil Engineer Aufbau Corporation Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to document the condition of the vehicular, pedestrian, and equestrian bridges within the Heritage Community Park, evaluate alternative locations and designs for their future restoration or replacement, and assign rough order of magnitude costs for the City of Rancho Cucamonga's budgeting purposes for their reconstruction. This report identifies four viable alternatives for the replacement of the existing bridges within the Heritage Community Park, namely Alternative 1, Alternative 2, Alternative 3, and Alternative 4. Each of these alternatives provides two construction methods - Option 1 and Option 2. Detailed discussions of said alternatives and said construction methods are provided further in this report. The rough order of magnitude implementation costs of the viable alternatives presented in this report range between $1,040,000 and $1,840,000 — Alternative 1 being the costliest alternative at a rough order of magnitude cost of $1,840,00 and Alternative 4 being the least costly alternative at a rough order of magnitude cost of $1,040,000. The alternative which best preserves the current vehicular, equestrian, and pedestrian circulation pattern of the Heritage Community Park and the Heritage Park Equestrian Center is Alternative 1. Under Alternative 1, the removal and reconstruction of the existing five (5) bridges — one (1) vehicular bridge, three (3) equestrian bridges, and one (1) pedestrian bridge - within the Heritage Community Park would be conducted under a single construction contract. Alternative 4 provides the essential access needs of the vehicular, equestrian, and pedestrian traffic to Heritage Park Equestrian Center. Under this alternative the five (5) bridges within Heritage Community Park will be removed and will be replaced with a single bridge. The single bridge will be constructed at the location of the existing vehicular bridge where it crosses over Demens Creek Channel. The proposed bridge will accommodate a 26 -ft wide pathway for vehicular traffic and a 10 -ft wide pathway for the shared use of equestrian and pedestrian traffic. The vehicular pathway will be separated by a chain link fencing installed over a concrete barrier from the shared pedestrian and equestrian pathway. Under Alternative 4, due to the elimination of two equestrian bridges, the travel paths of some equestrian communities to and from Heritage Park Equestrian Center will be altered and increased. Prior Bridge Repair/Retrofit Work: Reference is made to Exhibit A for the locations of Bridge C, Bridge D, and Bridge F. The bridges subject to light utility vehicle and vehicle loading within Heritage Community Park, namely Bridge C, Bridge D, and Bridge F, were repaired/retrofitted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in the past to address the deflection of the wood railings and chain-link fencing that were along the sides of said bridges. The wood railings and chain-link fencing had deflected and moved away from the bridge decks. The repair/retrofit work modified the connection between the wood railings and the bridge deck by introduction of additional timber blocks under the bridge decks, introduction of new timber curbs on top of the bridge decks and strengthening of the bolted connections between the wood railings and the timber blocks and the timber curbs. 1 bulbau Aufbau is not aware of the exact date when the above repair/retrofit work was conducted —the work had however taken place prior to February of 2011. Aufbau is not aware of any other major bridge repair/retrofit work within Heritage Community Park prior to 2011. Prior Bridge Evaluations by Aufbau: Reference is made to Exhibit A for the location of the bridges situated within Heritage Community Park. In February of 2011, Aufbau conducted field inspections to evaluate condition of seven bridges - six bridges spanning over Demens Creek Channel and one bridge spanning over Rancho Wash Channel. The inspections and evaluations were based on visual observation of said bridges. A report, dated March 2011, was prepared by Aufbau and was presented to the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Engineering Services Department and Public Works Services Department. The report assigned letters A through G, inclusive, to identify the bridges that were the subjects of the above- mentioned bridge investigation and bridge evaluation report. Bridges identified by letters A and B were located outside of Heritage Community Park — the remaining five bridges were situated within Heritage Community Park. The above -referenced report made recommendations for minor repairs to Bridge C, Bridge D, and Bridge F - to repair some failed bridge elements that provided support for the wood railings along the outside edges of said bridges. The previously conducted bridge repair/retrofit work, as described above, was showing signs of failure. Aufbau prepared construction drawings - Drawing Number 2272 - for the bridge repair recommendations outlined in the report. The repairs were subsequently conducted by a construction contractor retained by the City. Bridge C — Scanning over Demens Creek Channel — Serves only eauestrian traffic at this time Bridge C — Looking West Bridge C — Looking South 2 rufbau Bridge D — Looking East Bridge D — Looking West 3 Bridge D — Looking Southeast Bridee E - Soannine over Demens Creek Channel — Serves only pedestrian traffic Bridge E — Looking South Bridge E — Looking North �uf Bridge E — Looking South Bridge F - Spanning over Demens Creek Channel — Serves vehicular traffic �ufbau Bridge F — Looking North Bridge F — Looking North ufba ..o ff iwi v _ _. 4 + s, ..o ff iwi v _ _. b,juLfbau Bridge G — Looking North Background: Reference is made to Exhibit B for the below discussions. Heritage Community Park is situated at the southeast corner of the intersection of Beryl Street and Hillside Road. The park site is comprised of approximately 41 acres of land, approximately 34 acres of which is owned by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. San Bernardino County Flood Control District and Cox Communications PCS, L.P., doing business as Sprint, own approximately 6.5 acres and 0.5 acres of land within the park site, respectively. Heritage Community Park is physically separated into two portions by Demens Creek Channel - a concrete - lined channel owned and operated by San Bernardino County Flood Control District. Rancho Wash Channel, a concrete -lined channel, also owned and operated by San Bernardino County Flood Control District, is located within the northerly portion of the Park. Rancho Wash Channel receives runoff from natural watercourses to the north. The runoff generated to the north of Hillside Road is first carried through an underground storm drain pipe that crosses under Hillside Road and outlets into the northerly portion of the Park, the runoff then flows overland to the upstream end of said concrete -lined Rancho Wash Channel. The runoff is thereafter conveyed south through Rancho Wash Channel to its point of confluence with Demens Creek Channel. Demens Creek Channel extends to the east and to the west of Heritage Community Park. The runoff within Demens Creek Channel flows to the west, where it drains into Cucamonga Creek Channel. Reference is made to Exhibit A and Exhibit C for the below discussions. 7 bulbau The northerly portion of the Park, on the east side of Rancho Wash Channel, is primarily improved with Heritage Park Equestrian Center. The area to the west of Rancho Wash Channel is comprised of natural equestrian trails which lead to Heritage Park Equestrian Center by means of an equestrian bridge which spans over Rancho Wash Channel. This equestrian bridge in the past was occasionally used by light utility vehicles. Posted signs at the location of this bridge presently prohibit use of the bridge by motor vehicles. The south portion of the Park — the area to the south of Demens Creek Channel - encompasses sports fields, open play area and picnic tables, children's play equipment area, covered picnic shelters, and concession and restroom buildings. It also accommodates community trails which lead to the north portion of the Park. Within the south portion of the park site, Cox Communications maintains a cell tower within the property that it owns. Vehicular, pedestrian, and equestrian connectivity between the south and the north portions of the Park are provided by means of four bridges which all span over Demens Creek Channel - one vehicular bridge, two equestrian bridges, and one pedestrian bridge. The vehicular bridge is utilized for vehicular access to the Heritage Park Equestrian Center parking lot as well as for emergency vehicle access of the first responders to the Heritage Park Equestrian Center facilities. The equestrian bridge situated to the west of the confluence of Demens Creek Channel and Rancho Wash Channel was in the past frequently used by light utility vehicles — presently, posted signs at the bridge location prohibit the use of the bridge by motor vehicles. The above -noted bridges spanning over Demens Creek Channel, together with the bridge that spans over Rancho Wash Channel, comprise the five bridges that are the subject of this report. All five bridges noted above were constructed prior to the completion of the construction of Heritage Community Park. The City owns and maintains all five bridges. San Bernardino County Flood Control District has a paved patrol road along and adjacent to the south edge of Demens Creek Channel. Access to this paved patrol road is provided from gated driveways at Wilson Avenue and Beryl Street. This paved patrol road is designated as a Class 1 shared -used path on Rancho Cucamonga Final Circulation Master Plan for Bicyclists and Pedestrians, dated May 2015, and comprises a portion of the 2.1 miles reach of Demens Creek Trail. Equestrian access to the Heritage Park Equestrian Center is provided from Hillside Road, Beryl Street, Rancho Street and Mustang Road. Vehicular access to the Heritage Park Equestrian Center parking lot is provided by means of the vehicular bridge which spans over Demens Creek Channel. The vehicular bridge is accessed from a driveway opening serving the Park at Beryl Street. Drainage Channels within Heritage Community Park: Reference is made to Exhibit A and Exhibit B for the below discussions. As stated above, there are two drainage channels within the park site, namely Demens Creek Channel and Rancho Wash Channel. Demens Creek Channel and Rancho Wash Channel are both reinforced concrete channels which were constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in early 1980s. Both channels are situated within the property owned by San Bernardino County Flood Control District. San Bernardino County Flood Control District operates and maintains both channels. San Bernardino County Flood Control District has a paved patrol road along and adjacent to the south edge of Demens Creek Channel. Access to this paved patrol road is provided from gated driveways at 0 6ulbau Wilson Avenue and Beryl Street. Additionally, San Bernardino County Flood Control District has a paved patrol road situated within the north portion of the park site. The access road initiates at Hillside Road and terminates on the north side of Demens Creek Channel. A gated driveway within Hillside Road provides access to this paved patrol road. The gated driveway is posted with a sign indicating the driveway to be used for designated trail use only. It is to be noted that Rancho Wash Channel is not provided with a paved patrol road along the channel for the use and benefit of San Bernardino County Flood Control District. Construction Drawings for Demens Creek Channel and Rancho Wash Channel within Heritage Communitv Park: Reference is made to Armendix 1 for the below discussions. Demens Creek Channel and Rancho Wash Channel were constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Drawing Number 1-301-26, approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in February of 1980. Sheets 27, 28, 36, 39, and 42 of said construction drawing provide details for the construction of said channels within the Heritage Community Park. Based on our review of the construction drawings of Demens Creek Channel and Rancho Wash Channel, it appears that construction of the bridges within Heritage Community Park were not anticipated at the time of preparation of the construction drawings of said channels. Also, as part of our review of the "As Built" drawings of the channels, we found no indications of any modification of the sidewalls of the channels to provide support and accept vertical and lateral loads from the abutments of the bridges that are situated within Heritage Community Park. Per the construction drawings of the channels, the sidewalls of Demens Creek Channel and Rancho Wash Channel were designed and constructed as unrestrained cantilever retaining walls. Under unrestrained cantilever wall construction, the top of the cantilever retaining wall is permitted to yield and move away from the retained earth. Restricting the lateral movement of the top of cantilever retaining walls can alter the behavior of the retaining walls and therefore their design. The bridge abutments of Bridge C, Bridge D, and Bridge F rest directly on top of the sidewalls/retaining walls of the channels and are directly connected to them. These connections may inhibit the lateral movement of the top of the channel sidewalls. The bridge abutments for Bridge E and Bridge G do not rest on top of the sidewalls/ retaining walls of Demens Creek Channel — it is assumed that the bridge abutments for these two bridges are supported either on reinforced concrete spread footings or on reinforced concrete pile foundations. Available Construction Drawings for the Bridges Spanning Over Demens Creek Channel and Rancho Wash Channel within Heritage Communitv Park: Reference is made to Appendix 2 for the below discussions. The bridges within Heritage Community Park appear to have been constructed in connection with the Cucamonga and Demens Recreation project by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Aufbau was provided with an unsigned set of construction drawings for said project by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The preparation of the above unsigned drawings appears to have been started in 1983. The plans for the Cucamonga and Demens Recreation project include construction drawings for three bridges within Heritage Community Park as follows: E bulbau o Bridge spanning over Demens Creek Channel at Channel Station 99+20. See Appendix 2 Sheet C- 8. The bridge is designed for a bridge deck width of 10 feet and a bridge span of 22 feet. The width of Demens Channel at the location of the bridge is called out to be 18 feet. The sidewalls of the Channel are used as the end supports/ abutments of the bridge. The drawing indicates two glued - laminated stringers supporting the bridge deck. The sizes of the glued -laminated stringers are however not reflected on the drawings — the sizes were to be specified by the bridge manufacturer. o Bridge spanning over Demens Creek Channel at Channel Station 111+80. See Appendix 2 Sheet C- 9. The bridge is designed for a bridge deck width of 27 feet and a bridge span of 26 feet. The plans for this bridge call out for a 5 -ft wide pedestrian walkway at the east side of the bridge, with two 11 -ft wide lanes - apparently for use of vehicular traffic. The sidewalls of the Demens Channel are used as the end supports/ abutments of the bridge. The drawing indicates five glued -laminated stringers supporting the bridge deck. The sizes of the glued -laminated stringers are however not reflected on the drawings — the sizes were to be specified by the bridge manufacturer. It is to be noted that Sheet C-9 of the construction drawings for Cucamonga and Demens Recreation project indicates the width of Demens Creek Channel at Channel Station 111+80 to be 22 feet. The width of Demens Creek Channel at Channel Station 111+80 is 12 feet. o Bridge Spanning over Rancho Wash Channel at Channel Station 13+50. See Appendix 2 Sheet C- 10. The bridge is designed for a bridge deck width of 10 feet and a bridge span of 14 feet. The sidewalls of the Rancho Wash Channel are used as the end supports/ abutments of the bridge. The drawing indicates two glued -laminated stringers supporting the bridge deck. The sizes of the glued -laminated stringers are however not reflected on the drawings — the sizes were to be specified by the bridge manufacturer. The width of Rancho Wash Channel, at the location of the bridge, is called out to be 10 feet. Based on information received from a City of Rancho Cucamonga employee, who started his employment with the City in June of 1987, the bridges within Heritage Community Park were in place prior to start of his employment with the City and that the improvements of Heritage Community Park were underway when he started his employment. The bridges within Heritage Community Park were therefore constructed over 32 years ago. Bridges within Heritage Community Park - Construction Drawings for the Bridges Spanning Over Demens Creek Channel and Rancho Wash Channel within Heritage Community Park: Reference is made to Exhibit A. The bridees situated within the Heritage Communitv Park are as follows: Bridge C — Over Demens Creek Channel — Serves equestrian traffic (utility vehicle traffic in the past) Bridge D - Over Rancho Wash Channel — Serves equestrian traffic (utility vehicle traffic in the past) Bridge E - Over Demens Creek Channel — Serves pedestrian traffic Bridge F - Over Demens Creek Channel — Serves pedestrian traffic and vehicular traffic Bridge G - Spanning over Demens Creek Channel — Serves equestrian traffic 10 h1Aufbau Pertinent information regarding the above -noted bridges are as follows: Bridge Bridge Spans Over Centerline of Channel Approx. Approx. Approx. ID Bridge at Width Bridge Bridge Clear Approximate (ft) Span Deck Width Bridge Channel (ft) (ft) Deck Width Station (ft) C Demens Creek Channel 99+20 18 18 10 8 D Rancho Wash Channel 13+50 10 10 10 8 E Demens Creek Channel 111+45 12 17.5 8.5 8 F Demens Creek Channel 111+80 12 12 27 25 G Demens Creek Channel 112+15 12 17.5 10.5 10 Aufbau has not been able to obtain the construction drawings for the existing five bridges within Heritage Community Park—the information provided in the tabulation above and in Appendix 3 (general drawings depicting the existing bridge construction) are primarily based on field investigations conducted by Aufbau in connection with the preparation of its March 2011 report. It appears that the bridges reflected on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' drawings, prepared for the Cucamonga and Demens Recreation project, were somewhat modified to accommodate the site development and planning of the Heritage Community Park as follows: o Bridge C — Bridge C is constructed in substantial conformance with the bridge drawings for Cucamonga and Demens Recreation project — See Appendix 2, Sheet C-8. Exceptions include the configuration of the reinforced concrete corbels at the sidewalls of the channel which support the glued -laminated stringers of the bridge, and the clear bridge deck width. o Bridge D is constructed in substantial conformance with the bridge drawings for Cucamonga and Demens Recreation project — See Appendix 2, Sheet C-10. Exceptions include the configuration of the reinforced concrete corbels at the sidewalls of the channel which support the glued -laminated stringers of the bridge, and the clear bridge deck width. o Bridge E — the end supports/abutments of Bridge E do not rest on top of the sidewalls of Demens Creek Channel. The construction drawings for the Cucamonga and Demens Recreation project do not provide details for such bridge construction. o Bridge F - Bridge F is constructed somewhat similar to the bridge drawings for Cucamonga and Demens Recreation project — See Appendix 2, Sheet C-9. Exceptions include the bridge span, the bridge deck width, the clear bridge deck width, the number of glued -laminated stringers supporting the bridge deck, and the configuration of the reinforced concrete corbels at the sidewalls of the channel which support the glued -laminated stringers. o Bridge G —the end supports/abutments of Bridge G do not rest on top of the sidewalls of Demens Creek Channel. The construction drawings for the Cucamonga and Demens Recreation project do not provide details for such bridge construction. 11 �uf Existine Bridee Conditions: The bridge abutments and the glued -laminated stringers supporting the bridge decks, at all bridge locations, do not show visible signs of major deterioration, as viewed from the sides and bottom of the bridges. The exact condition of the glued -laminated stringers however cannot be ascertained until the wood decking materials, which are installed directly on top of the glued -laminated stringers, are removed for further observation and evaluation. Decay of the glue -laminated stringers due to dry rot can therefore not be ruled out entirely at all bridge locations. At Bridge E and Bridge G locations, the wood planks spanning perpendicular over the glued -laminated stringers are not covered and therefore their condition can be observed from top and bottom. These wood planks appear to be the wood planks that were installed at the time of the original bridge construction. The wood planks are weathered and exhibit moderate amount of surface checks, end checks, end splits, and other forms of deterioration — some of the wood knots within the wood planks have also became loose and have detached from the planks. At Bridge C, Bridge D, and Bridge F locations, the wood planks spanning perpendicular over the glued - laminated stringers are first covered with a layer of plywood sheeting, then with an asphaltic concrete overlay - tack coat is applied between the plywood sheeting and the wood planks to promote bonding. As such, the surface condition of the wood planks and the plywood sheeting cannot be observed from the top. Observations from the bottom of the wood planks and from the end sections of the wood planks, where wood planks have not received any covering, indicate moderate amount of end splits of the planks and their deterioration. Although the wood planks and the plywood sheeting at the location of Bridge C, Bridge D, and Bridge F are not directly exposed to weather at their top surfaces due to their asphaltic concrete coverings, we anticipate their deterioration to be somewhat similar to the deterioration of the wood planks at the location of Bridge E and Bridge G. This is due to their anticipated prolonged contact with the retained moisture in the asphaltic concrete pavement overlay, when the pavement has been wet. The asphaltic concrete overlay at Bridge C, Bridge D, and Bridge F locations exhibit moderate number of cracks, which permit infiltration of water into the pavement and the underlaying timber structural elements. The wood planks at the location of Bridge C, Bridge D, and Bridge F are the wood planks that were installed at the time of the original bridge construction. Based on our investigation, we are of the opinion that the least reliable structural elements of all bridges within the Heritage Community Park are the wood planks and plywood sheeting that span over the glued - laminated stringers. Of particular concern are the wood deck coverings at the location of Bridge C and Bridge D, where the bridges were subject to utility vehicle loads in the past; as well as Bridge F where the bridge is subject to standard vehicle loads, vehicle loads of trucks and trailers, and loads imposed by emergency vehicles. Wheel loads over deteriorated wood decking can puncture the deck, introduce cavities within the decking system, and cause damage to vehicles and bodily harm to humans and horses. Failure of the glued -laminated stringers can cause major damage to vehicles, cause major bodily harm or death to humans and horses. 12 �uf Bridge Alternatives: In conjunction with the preparation of this report, Aufbau investigated alternative bridge locations, bridge consolidations, and bridge construction options for the reconstruction of the bridges within Heritage Community Park. Below are a number of considered design alternatives. Alternative 1— Viable Alternative Under this alternative, all five bridges within Heritage Community Park will be removed and will be replaced with five new bridges of similar widths and somewhat similar spans at their present locations. This alternative will preserve the current vehicular, equestrian, and pedestrian circulation pattern of the Heritage Community Park and the Heritage Park Equestrian Center. Under this alternative, the construction cost of modification of the pedestrian, equestrian, and vehicular approach pathways to the new bridge structures will be minimal. Several construction options of the proposed bridges under this alternative are presented within Appendix 4. Reference is made to Appendix 5 for the estimated construction cost of the bridges under Alternative 1. Alternative 2— Viable Alternative Under this alternative, all five bridges within Heritage Community Park will be removed and will be replaced with four new bridges. The equestrian bridges, namely Bridge C, Bridge D, and Bridge G will be replaced with bridges of similar widths and somewhat similar spans at their current locations. Bridge E and Bridge F will however be combined into a single bridge and will serve the pedestrian and vehicular crossing needs across Demens Creek Channel. The new bridge will be approximately 38 feet in width and will be centered near the centerline of the existing Bridge F. Under this alternative, the construction cost of modification of the pedestrian, equestrian, and vehicular approach pathways to the new bridge structures will be higher than Alternative 1. Several construction options of the proposed bridges under this alternative are presented within Appendix 4. Reference is made to Appendix 5 for the estimated construction cost of the bridges under Alternative 2. Alternative 3 — Viable Alternative Under this alternative, all five bridges within Heritage Community Park will be removed and will be replaced with three new bridges. Bridge C, and Bridge D will be replaced with bridges of similar widths and somewhat similar spans at their current locations. Bridge E, Bridge F, and Bridge G will however be combined into a single bridge. The new bridge will be approximately 50 feet in width and will be centered near the centerline of the existing Bridge F. The bridge will serve the pedestrian, equestrian, and vehicular crossing needs across Demens Creek Channel. This alternative provides separate pathways within the proposed bridge for the pedestrian and equestrian crossings over Demens Creek Channel. 13 bulbau Under this alternative, the construction cost of modification of the pedestrian, equestrian, and vehicular approach pathways to the new bridge structures will be higher than the construction cost of the approach pathway modification under Alternative 2. Several construction options of the proposed bridges under this alternative are presented within Appendix 4. Reference is made to Appendix 5 for the estimated construction cost of the bridges under Alternative 3. Alternative 4— Viable Alternative Under this alternative, all five bridges within Heritage Community Park will be removed. A single bridge will be constructed at the location of the existing vehicular bridge. Under this alternative, Bridge C and Bridge D will be removed and will not be replaced. Bridge E, Bridge F, and Bridge G will be combined into a single bridge. The new bridge will be approximately 42.5 feet in width and will be centered near the centerline of Bridge F. The bridge will provide a 10 -ft wide pathway for the shared use of pedestrian and equestrian traffic and a 26 -ft wide pathway for vehicular traffic. The pathways for the vehicular traffic and the shared pedestrian and equestrian traffic will be separated by a chain link fencing installed over a reinforced concrete barrier. The bridge will serve the pedestrian, equestrian, and vehicular crossing needs across Demens Creek Channel. Under this alternative, the construction cost of modification of the pedestrian, equestrian, and vehicular approach pathways to the new bridge structures will be close to the construction cost of the approach pathway modification under Alternative 2. Several construction options of the proposed bridges under this alternative are presented within Appendix 4. Reference is made to Appendix 5 for the estimated construction cost of the bridges under Alternative 4. Alternative 5 — Refected Alternative: Under this alternative, all five bridges within Heritage Community Park will be removed and will be replaced with four new bridges. Bridge C, Bridge D, Bridge E, and Bridge G will be replaced with bridges of similar widths and somewhat similar spans at their current locations. Instead of construction of a new bridge to replace Bridge F, a driveway apron/ driveway opening at Hillside Road with a paved driveway leading to the existing Equestrian Center parking lot will be introduced. This alternative was summarily rejected for the following reasons: o The existing vehicular bridge serves as a direct access to the Heritage Park Equestrian Center during emergencies — therefore, a permanent vehicular access, suitable for the use of fire trucks, fire engines, and ambulances will need to be maintained. The existing vehicular bridge cannot be eliminated unless a replacement vehicular access to the Equestrian Center, suitable for the use and benefit of first responders, is provided. There is an elevation difference of approximately eighteen (18) feet between Hillside Road and the Equestrian Center parking lot. To create a slope gentle enough to accommodate emergency vehicles, the paved driveway will need to be over two hundred feet in length. Additionally, the paved driveway will need to be a minimum of twenty-six feet in width. The required length and 14 bulbau width of the paved driveway will significantly impact the layout and circulation pattern of the Heritage Park Equestrian Center parking lot and will additionally result in significant loss of parking spaces. The construction cost of such a driveway and parking lot modification would also be significant as it would necessitate extensive earthwork, construction of retaining walls and paving. o Heritage Park Equestrian Center is a frequently used facility — it is used for drop-in uses and it is recurrently reserved for horse shows. Horses are often brought to Heritage Park Equestrian Center in trucks pulling horse trailers. As noted above, there is an elevation difference of approximately eighteen (18) feet between Hillside Road and the Heritage Park Equestrian Center parking lot. To create a slope gentle enough to accommodate a truck and a horse trailer, and to prevent them from bottoming out, the paved driveway will need to be over two hundred feet in length. The paved driveway will need to accommodate emergency vehicles as well, thus requiring a minimum width of twenty-six feet. The required length and width of the paved driveway will significantly impact the layout and circulation pattern of the Heritage Park Equestrian Center parking lot and will additionally result in significant loss of parking spaces. The construction cost of such a driveway and parking lot modification would also be significant as it would necessitate extensive earthwork, construction of retaining walls and paving. Alternative 6 — Reiected Alternative This alternative consists of the removal and replacement of the bridge superstructures of all existing bridges. Under this alternative, the end supports, and foundations of the existing bridges will remain and will be protected in place. The glued -laminated stringers, bridge side fences, wood decking, and asphaltic concrete wearing surfaces will however be replaced with members generally in kind — the intent being to keep the weight of the existing and the proposed bridge structures relatively the same. This alternative was summarily rejected for the following reasons: o Construction of new bridge superstructures, utilizing the existing bridge foundations and the bridge end supports, to continue resting on sidewalls of San Bernardino County Flood Control District's drainage channels, will require the review and approval of San Bernardino County Flood Control District, as well as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. We are not certain that such approvals from said regulatory agencies can be obtained at this time. The existing bridge foundations and bridge end supports, in most likelihood, will require major modifications to meet the current requirements of the above noted regulatory agencies. o Construction of new bridge superstructures, utilizing the existing bridge foundations and the bridge end supports, to continue resting on sidewalls of drainage channels, may require the review and approval of the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Building & Safety Services Department for compliance to current building codes. The existing bridge foundations and bridge end supports may require major modifications to meet the current building code requirements. Alternative 7 — Reiected Alternative This alternative may be considered as a routine bridge maintenance activity from the standpoint of permit approvals by San Bernardino County Flood Control District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Building & Safety Services Department. 15 bulbau Under this alternative the bridge foundations and the bridge end support of the existing bridges, the glued -laminated stringers supporting the bridge decks, as well as the side fences of the bridges will be protected in place. The wood decking and the asphaltic wearing surfaces supported by the glued - laminated stringers will however be replaced with members generally in kind — the intent being to keep the weights of the existing and the proposed bridge structures relatively the same. This alternative was summarily rejected for the following reasons: o This alternative maintains the existing glued -laminated stringers in place. The exact condition of the glued -laminated stringers which are the primary support system for the bridge decks, at the interface of the glued -laminated stringers and the bridge decks, particularly for the bridges which have received plywood sheeting and asphaltic concrete wearing surfaces, can only be ascertained upon removal of the entire bridge decks. Upon removal of the bridge decks, the bridge stringers may not be found to be in good enough condition to receive new decking. o This alternative may require permit approvals from San Bernardino County Flood Control District. Construction of new bridge superstructures, utilizing the existing bridge foundations and the bridge end supports, to continue resting on sidewalls of San Bernardino County Flood Control District's drainage channels, may require the review and approval of San Bernardino County Flood Control District, as well as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. We are not certain that such approvals from said regulatory agencies can be obtained at this time. o This alternative will not significantly add to the service life of the existing bridges, as the glued - laminated stringers, which are the main vertical load carrying members of the bridges, will not be replaced. Bridge Type Selection: A Bridge Type Selection Meeting was held with staff from the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Engineering Services Department and Public Works Services Department. The meeting provided a forum to discuss various alternatives for bridge types and bridge locations, including discussions on bridge consolidations. Presented at the meeting were six construction options for the bridge superstructure: o Option 1: Cast -in-place reinforced concrete deck with reinforced concrete side barriers o Option 2: Precast prestressed reinforced concrete deck with reinforced concrete side barriers o Option 3: Composite deck, cast -in-place reinforced concrete deck slab supported on wide flange steel girders with reinforced concrete side barriers o Option 4: Orthotropic steel deck with steel side barriers o Option 5: Prefabricated steel truss bridges o Option 6: Wood deck with wood side railings In view of the below considerations, the above -noted Option 1 and Option 2 were selected as the most desirable bridge superstructure types. 16 bulbau o Anticipated bridge service life o Initial bridge construction costs o Lifetime bridge maintenance costs o Bridge construction duration o Bridge aesthetics — maximum flexibility for architectural enhancements o Compatibility of the depth of the proposed bridge superstructures with the depth of the existing bridge superstructures — to minimize the cost of modification of the approach pathways leading to the bridges o Bridge types that would most likely be acceptable by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and San Bernardino County Flood Control District At the meeting, it was agreed that the bridge abutments and the foundation system for the bridge abutments should be constructed independent of the sidewalls of the channels which the bridges span. Three design alternatives for the locations of the bridges to be considered were as follows: Alternative 1: Maintain all five bridges within Heritage Community Park at their current locations. Alternative 2: Combine Bridge E, and F into a single multipurpose bridge — maintain the remaining bridges within Heritage Community Park at their current locations. Alternative 3: Combine Bridge E, F, and G into a single multipurpose bridge — maintain the remaining bridges within Heritage Community Park at their current locations. There were discussions during the bridge type selection meeting to possibly increase the width of Bridge C to provide vehicular access from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District's patrol road to the area to the north of Demens Creek Channel and to the west of Rancho Wash Channel. The widened bridge would provide another vehicular access point for the maintenance of Rancho Wash Channel by San Bernardino County Flood Control District. It was also preferred that the equestrian bridges under Alternative 1, Alternative 2, and Alternative 3 considerations — under both Option 1 and Option 2 construction options, receive decomposed granite riding surfaces, an acceptable surface for equestrian trail surfaces, instead of roughened concrete surfaces. Construction Timing: We anticipate a period of approximately three years from the time of initiation of the conceptual design of the project until all five bridges within the Park are removed and are replaced under the below timeline: o Six (6) Months - Preparation of the conceptual plans and architectural renderings for the new bridge structure(s), engagement of the City of Rancho Cucamonga's equestrian community and the Trails Advisory Committee, as well as the members of the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Planning Commission and City Council to achieve consensus on a desirable design concept. o Eight (8) Months - Preparation of the construction drawings and construction specifications, subsequent to the required review and approval of the conceptual drawings of the bridge(s) by City officials. 17 bulbau o Ten (10) Months — Permit processing and approvals from San Bernardino County Flood Control District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and other regulatory agencies. o Four (4) Months - Timeline between the advertisement of the project for construction and the construction start date. o Eight (8) Months - Construction period of the project. Estimated Direct Bridge Construction Costs — Year 2019: Reference is made to Appendix 5 for the development of the estimated direct construction costs of the bridges. The estimated direct construction costs of the bridges within Heritage Community Park under Cast -In - Place Concrete Deck (Option 1) and Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck (Option 2) are tabulated below. The construction costs of the bridges are estimated under the assumption that construction of all bridges within Heritage Community Park, under the alternative under consideration, will be conducted at the same time under a single construction contract. The tabulations below are for the estimated construction costs of the proposed bridges. The overall construction costs of the bridges within Heritage Community Park are provided further in the report. Alternative 1: Bridge ID I Bridge Type C Equestrian/ Utility Vehicles D Equestrian/ Utility Vehicles E Pedestrian F Vehicular G Equestrian Falsework Estimated Construction Cost of Bridges Only Cast -In -Place Concrete Deck (Option 1) Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck (Option 2) $115,000 $125,000 $95,000 $100,000 $95,000 $100,000 $190,000 $205,000 $100,000 $105,000 $80,000 $0 Totals Alternative 1: 1 $675,000 $635,000 18 Alternative 2: Bridge ID I Bridge Type C Equestrian/ Utility Vehicles D Equestrian/ Utility Vehicles E and F Pedestrian and Vehicular Combined Bridge Width of 38 feet G Equestrian Falsework �ufbau Estimated Construction Cost of Bridges Only Cast -In -Place Concrete Deck (Option 1) Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck (Option 2) $115,000 $125,000 $95,000 $100,000 $230,000 $245,000 $100,000 $105,000 $70,000 $0 Totals Alternative 2: 1 $610,000 $575,000 Alternative 3: Bridge ID Bridge Type C Equestrian/ Utility Vehicles D Equestrian/ Utility Vehicles E, F, and G Pedestrian, Vehicular, and Equestrian Combined Bridge Width of 50 feet Alternative 4: Falsework Estimated Construction Cost of Bridges Only Cast -In -Place Concrete Deck (Option 1) Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck (Option 2) $115,000 $125,000 $95,000 $100,000 $295,000 $315,000 $60,000 $0 Totals Alternative 3 1 $565,000 $540,000 Bridge ID Bridge Type E, F, and G Pedestrian, Vehicular, and Equestrian Combined Bridge Width of 42.5 feet Falsework Estimated Construction Cost of Bridge Only Cast -In -Place Concrete Deck (Option 1) Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck (Option 2) $240,000 $270,000 $40,000 $0 Totals Alternative 4: 1 $280,000 $270,000 Estimated Overall Construction Cost of Alternatives — Year 2019: Below are the estimated overall construction costs of the bridges within Heritage Community Park under Option 1 (Cast -In -Place Concrete Deck) and Option 2 (Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck). 19 6ulbau Alternative 1: Estimated Construction Cost Item Number Description Cast -In -Place Concrete Deck (Option 1) Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck (Option 2) 1 Mobilization/ Demobilization $ 15,000 $ 15,000 2 Traffic Control $5,000 $5,000 3 Removals/ Demolition $100,000 $100,000 4 Bridge Construction $675,000 $635,000 5 Patrol Road and Approach Pathway Modifications $150,000 $150,000 6 Bridge Lighting $75,000 $75,000 Totals Alternative 1: 1 $1,020,000 1 $980,000 Alternative 2: Estimated Construction Cost Item Number Description Cast -In -Place Concrete Deck (Option 1) Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck (Option 2) 1 Mobilization/ Demobilization $ 15,000 $ 15,000 2 Traffic Control $5,000 $5,000 3 Removals/ Demolition $100,000 $100,000 4 Bridge Construction $610,000 $575,000 5 Patrol Road and Approach Pathway Modifications $190,000 $190,000 6 Bridge Lighting $60,000 $60,000 Totals Alternative 2: $980,000 1 $945,000 Alternative 3: Estimated Construction Cost Item Number Description Cast -In -Place Concrete Deck (Option 1) Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck (Option 2) 1 Mobilization/ Demobilization $ 15,000 $ 15,000 2 Traffic Control $5,000 $5,000 3 Removals/ Demolition $100,000 $100,000 4 Bridge Construction $565,000 $540,000 5 Approach Pathway Modifications $230,000 $230,000 6 Bridge Lighting $45,000 $45,000 Totals Alternative 3: $960,000 1 $935,000 20 6ulbau Alternative 4: Estimated Construction Cost Item Number Description Cast -In -Place Precast Concrete Deck Prestressed (Option 1) Concrete Deck (Option 2) 1 Mobilization/ Demobilization $ 15,000 $ 15,000 2 Traffic Control $5,000 $5,000 3 Removals/ Demolition $100,000 $100,000 4 Bridge Construction $280,000 $270,000 5 Approach Pathway Modifications $200,000 $200,000 6 Bridge Lighting $20,000 $20,000 Totals Alternative 4: 1 $620,000 1 $610,000 Estimated Overall Construction Cost of Alternatives — Year 2021 Construction Advertisement Date: Construction escalation costs are based on annual construction cost escalation of 6%. Alternative 1: Estimated Construction Cost Description Cast -In -Place Concrete Deck (Option 1) Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck (Option 2) Year 2019 Construction Cost $1,020,000 $980,000 Escalation in Construction Costs, YR 2019 - YR 2021 $126,000 $121,000 10% Incidentals and Contingencies $115,000 $110,000 Total Alternative 1: $1,261,000 $1,211,000 Use: $1,270,000 $1,220,000 Alternative 2: Estimated Construction Cost Description Cast -In -Place Concrete Deck (Option 1) Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck (Option 2) Year 2019 Construction Cost $980,000 $945,000 Escalation in Construction Costs, YR 2019 - YR 2021 $121,000 $117,000 10% Incidentals and Contingencies $110,000 $106,000 Total Alternative 2: $1,211,000 $1,168,000 Use: $1,220,000 $1,170,000 21 6ulbau Alternative 3: Estimated Construction Cost Description Cast -In -Place Concrete Deck (Option 1) Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck (Option 2) Year 2019 Construction Cost $960,000 $935,000 Escalation in Construction Costs, YR 2019 - YR 2021 $119,000 $116,000 10% Incidentals and Contingencies $108,000 $103,000 Total Alternative 3: $1,187,000 $1,154,000 Use: $1,190,000 $1,160,000 Alternative 4: Estimated Construction Cost Description Cast -In -Place Concrete Deck (Option 1) Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck (Option 2) Year 2019 Construction Cost $620,000 $610,000 Escalation in Construction Costs, YR 2019 - YR 2021 $77,000 $76,000 10% Incidentals and Contingencies $70,000 $69,000 Total Alternative 4: $767,000 $755,000 Use: $770,000 $760,000 Estimated Fees for Geotechnical Studies. Environmental Studies, Engineerin Design, Construction Management and Inspection, Engineering Support During Construction, Materials Testing, Construction Survey, and Permits: For budgeting purposes, the total fee for geotechnical studies, environmental studies, engineering design, construction management and inspection, engineering support during construction, materials testing, construction survey, and permits is assumed to range between 35% and 45% of the total construction costs, as follows: Alternative 1: $450,000 to $570,000 Alternative 2: $430,000 to $550,000 Alternative 3: $420,000 to $540,000 Alternative 4: $270,000 to $350,000 Assumptions being that the design of all bridges for a given Alternative will be conducted at the same time and construction of all bridges under the given Alternative will take place under a single construction contract. 22 ft1juLau Estimated Project Cost of Viable Alternatives — Year 2021 Construction Advertisement Date: Alternative 1: $1,720,000 to $1,840,000 Alternative 2: $1,650,000 to $1,770,000 Alternative 3: $1,610,000 to $1,730,000 Alternative 4: $1,040,000 to $1,120,000 Recommendations: It is our opinion that the five bridges within the Heritage Community Park have neared the end of their service life. As such, their removal and replacement are recommended at this time or at very near future. In absence of project funding constraints, we would recommend replacement of all existing bridges within Heritage Community Park under Alternative 1 consideration - utilizing either cast -in-place concrete deck construction (Option 1) or precast prestressed concrete deck construction (Option 2) for the bridge - utilizing cast in drilled hole (CIDH) reinforced concrete pile foundations for the support of the bridge abutments. However, should project funding becomes a constraint, our recommendation would be implementation of Alternative 4 instead. We recommend construction of the bridges within Heritage Community Park to be awarded under one construction contract. We believe that there would be significant cost savings with the removal and replacement of all five bridges under a single construction contract. We recommend the equestrian and pedestrian bridges be designed to accommodate weights of light utility vehicle. The design of the new bridges should comply with the Bridge Design Practice Manual by the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the appropriate Engineer Manuals by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). We recommend frequent inspection of the bridges, at a minimum of biennial frequency, until the bridges are removed and replaced. Limitations: The findings and recommendations presented in this report are for the exclusive use of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The findings and recommendations are not intended for use by other parties and may not contain sufficient information for the purposes of other parties or other users. Aufbau Corporation's services are performed using the degree of diligence and skill ordinarily exercised for rendering similar services by reputable consultants practicing in the field. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional recommendations presented in this report. 23 NOT TO SCALE BRIDGE TYPES BRIDGE C - EQUESTRIAN BRIDGE D - EQUESTRIAN BRIDGE E - PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE F - VEHICULAR BRIDGE G - EQUESTRIAN EQUESTRIAN ACCESS POINTS TO HERITAGE PARK EQUESTRIAN CENTER 1-11 HILLSIDE ROAD 2] BERYL STREET NORTH 3] BERYL STREET SOUTH 4] MUSTANG ROAD 5] RANCHO STREET LEGEND "mowm -% I IX o COMMUNITY TRAILS - https://www.cityofrc.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=7020 ® SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT PATROL ROAD. ALSO, CLASS I SHARED -USE PATH - PER FIGURE 4-6- RANCHO CUCAMONGA FINAL CIRCULATION MASTER PLAN FOR BICYCLISTS AND PEDESTRIANS o SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT PATROL ROAD NOT TO SCALE PROPERTY OWNERSHIP APN: 1061-631-01-0000: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA APN: 1061-641-07-0000: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA APN: 1061-641-06-0000: SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT APN: 1061-641-00000: COX COMMUNICATIONS LEGEND J PROPERTY LINE DRAINAGE CHANNEL I BRIDGE CROSSING LUNGING r _ - ARENA r I HILLSIDE ROAD PARKING Olt -.10_ ,+ F yo S P OW OFFICE P� l 4"` �" BRIDGE G W CONCESSION STANDS _ W - RESTROOMS G�Q► BRIDGE F .J L BRIDG D ��V - ,. � F W G y . � BRIDGE E A Ao iw HERITAGE - �" COMMUNIT4 APPENDIX 1 VALUE ENGINEERING PAY a SANTA ANA RIVER BIASIN, :CALIFORNIA CUCAMONGA CREEK, SAN BERNARDINO & RIVERSIDE COUNTIES I � . -FOOTHILL BLVD, , NORTH HALF AIRPORT CONDUI 4. { DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL AND DEBRIS BASIN INDEX TO CONTRACT DRAWINGS FILE NO. 251 /1 THROUGH 251/110 TITLE SHEET TITLE SHEET TITLE SHEETM R� �E I INDEX TO CONTRACT DRAWINGS 1 A CARNELIAN STREET DRAIN -ENTRANCE STRUCTURE AND UTILITY RELOCATION DETAILS A OUTLET WORKS -JUNCTION STRUCTURE -STRUCTURAL DETAILS 87 ; . PROJECT LOCATION MAP, GENERAL NOTES AND ABBREVIATIONS 2 A RED HILL BASIN DRAIN -GENERAL LAYOUT 51 OUTLET WORKS -JUNCTION STRUCTURE -MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS 88 FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION -LOCATION OF EXPLORATIONS 3 RED HILL BASIN DRAIN -JUNCTION STRUCTURE 52 OUTLET WORKS -JUNCTION STRUCTURE -MISCELLANEOUS METALS 89 i FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION-CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL 4 RED HILL BASIN DRAIN -CHANNEL SECTION AND BOX CONDUIT 53 OUTLET TO SPREADING GROUND g0 A FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION-CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL 5 CUCAMON43A CREEK AND DEMENS CREEK DIVIDER WALL -STRUCTURAL DETAILS STAFF GAGES, SURVEY MONUMENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS 91 i > FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION-DEMENS CREEK DEBRIS BASIN 6 DEMENS CREEK AND RANCHO WASH DIVIDER WALL -STRUCTURAL DETAILS S WATER RETENTION TANK (GUZZLER) -PLAN, SECTIONS AND DETAILS 92 FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION-DEMENS CREEK DEBRIS BASIN 7 AIRPORT BOX CONDUIT -APPROACH DIVIDER WALL 5 IRRIGATION PLAN _ 93 Ar FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION-DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL AND DEBRIS BASIN 8 AIRPORT SOX CONDUIT -STRUCTURAL DETAILS S PLANTING PLAN AND DETAILS 94 A CUCAMONGA SPILLWAY DIVERSION CHANNEL REMOVAL PLAN 9 A AIRPORT BOX CONDUIT -SAFETY FENCE AND SIDE DRAIN DETAILS 5 A DEMENS BASIN NO, 2 -INLET SPILLWAY 95 ..-BA IN N .- s s PLAN AND PROFILE (CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL}-STA.IOOIt20.47 TO STA.992+50.00 -1 A AIRPORT PAVING AND MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS $ DEMENS'SASIN ND.'2�OUTLET BASIN DRAIN W W PLAN AND PROFILE (CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL) -STA. 992+50.00 TO STA.980+'50.00 11 PLAN AND PROFILE (CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL CONTINGENCY EXCAVATION PLAN, g n ALTA w M4 Y t M-R(DH ASIN SBCFCD FILE NO. 1-404-4A-1 x DEMENS CREEK, PORTION OF CUCAMONGA RANCHO AND SECTIONS 15 a22 TIN, R7W. SBCFCD x "� PLAN AND PROFILE (CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL)•- STA. 980+50.00 TO STA -971 +00.00 12 - AIRPORT CONDUIT) STA.660+00.00 TO STA. 650+25,00 0 1 p t - Ll DEMENS BASIN NO, 2, WATER CONSERVATION BASIN DEVELOPMENT f' }xa PLAN AND PROFILE CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL}- STA. 971 +0000 TO STA. 959+DO.OD 13 - PLAN AND PROFILE (CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL CONTINGENCY EXCAVATION PLAN it 9 a SBCFCD, FILE NO. 1-401-4A-3 s s s ( _ _ f •Y.A_a mmr PLAN AND PROFILE (CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL} -STA. 959+00.00 TO STA.945t00.00 14 A AIRPORT CONDUIT) STA. 650+23.00 TO STA. 638+94.T1 _ PLAN AND PROFILE (CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL}- STA. 943+00.00 TO SYA.933+00.00 15 A SECTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS-(CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL CONTINGE116Y $21 A BRIDGES PLAN AND PROFILE (CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL} -STA. 933+00.00 TO STA.920+00.00 16 EXCAVATION PLAN, AIRPORT CONDUIT) BANYAN STREET -EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY, PLAN AND PROFILE 96 PLAN AND PROFILE (CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL) -STA. 920+00.00 TO STA.907+00.00 17 A TAXIWAY 'S' DETOUR -PLAN AND DETAILS 43 A BANYAN STREET CROSSING -STRUCTURAL DETAILS 97 L. PLAN AND PROFILE (CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL} -STA. 907+00.00 TO STA. 896+00.00 IS RANCHO WASH ENTRANCE STRUCTURE -GENERAL PLAN 64 19th. STREET -EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY, UTILITIES. REMOVALS AND ROAD DETOUR 98 PLAN AND PROFILE (CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNELS -STA. 896+00.00 TO STA. 81+00.00 19 RANCHO WASH ENTRANCE STRUCTURE -STRUCTURAL DI:TAIIS 65 A N -PLAN AND PROFILE 99 ---- ----- _ ___ W�_ _ -._ _._ PLAN AND PROFILE (CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL - STA. 883+00.00 TO STA. 871+00.00 2 CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL THROUGH S.RR.R. BRIDGE 66 19th_ STREET CROSSING -STRUCTURAL DETAILS 100 A ----- _ - -_ _--- - - ---------. ... _-_......_ _ PLAN AND PROFILE (CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL}- STA. 871 +00.00 TO STA. 857+79.78 21 A INVERT ACCESS RAMP STA. 97B+ZOM-PLAN. PROFILE AND TYPICAL SECTION 6T RED HILL COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE ' PLAN AND PROFILE (CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL}-STA.857+79.78 TO STA.646+40.69 22 13 INVERT ACCESS RAMP STA. 889+20(R) -PLAN, PROFILE AND TYPICAL SECTION 68 -EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY, UTILITIES, REMOVALS, PLAN AND PROFILE 101 A i PLAN AND PROFILE (CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL} -STA. 646+40.69 TO STA. 836+76.43 2 INVERT ACCESS RAMP DETAILS AND SCHEDULES �- 69 RED HILL COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE CROSSING -STRUCTURAL DETAILS 1021 A PLAN AND PROFILE (CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL) - STA. 660+00.00 TO STA 650+25.00 2 3 WEST CUCAMONGA BYPASS CHANNEL -INLET CONTROL GATES T A WILSON AVENUE AND CARNELIAN STREET -� PLAN AND PROFILE (NORTH HALF AIRPORT CONDUIT) -STA, 650+25.00 TO 25 A CUCAMONGA CREEK DIVERSION STRUCTURE AND TURNOUT DETAILS 7 II -EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY, UTILITIES. REMOVALS AND ROAD DETOUR 103 A STA. 638+94.71 GAGING STATION DETAILS 7 A u -PLAN AND PROFILE 104 A t ! i PLAN AND PROFILE (DEMENS CREEK CHANNE!}- STA -125+50.64 TO STA. 120+00.OD 2 LOG OF TEST BORINGS (CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL) -STA. 987+00 n - TYPICAL SECTIONS - -- T - • 1031 A i -- -- - -- - -- - -- - -- --- ---- PLAN -- - - - - - - - - - - _ _ ----r - PLAN AND PROFILE (DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL] -STA. 120+00.00 TO STA.108+00.00 27 G -� II -CATCH BASINS AND MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS 1061 A + PLAN AND PROFILE(DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL) -STA. 108+00.00 TO STA. 97+00.00 28 A MISCELLANEOUS ROADWAY DETAILS' --'107] A PLAN AND PROFILE (DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL) -STA. 97+00.00 TO STA, ae+00.00 2 3 DEMENS DEBRIS BASIN BRIDGE APPROACH GUARD RAIL 108: PLAN AND PROFILE(OEMENS CREEK CHANNEL} -STA. 86+00.00 TO 3TA. 76+00.00 3 3 GENERAL PLAN 71 A TYPICAL BRIDGE DETAILS -CONCRETE BARRIER 109 PLAN AND PROFILE MBANKMENT AND BASIN PLAN 72 PLAN AND PROFILE DMENS CREEK CHANNE STA. 65+00.00 TO STA. 53+00.00 32 c EMBANKMENT AND PILOT CHANNEL -PLAN, PROFILE AND DETAILS - 73 A if -TUBULAR F- W__-.3 _- it too. 00 31 a -- - ---- --- -- - --- - --- -' - - - ---- GENERAL PLAN a DETAILS DEMENS CHANNEL HANDRAIL _ 110 ( � - EL CROSSING VICINITY - JASPER AVE, -1: PLAN AND PROFILE (DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL} - STA- 53+00.00 TO STA. 41450,00 - 33 H EMBANKMENT PROFILE _ - -- --� - 74 BRIDGE DETAILS, DEMENS CHANNEL CROSSING, VICINITY JASPER AVE. 732-z PLAN AND PROFILE (DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL) -STA. 41+50.00 TO STA. 29+00.00 34 A EMBANKMENT CROSS SECTIONS 75 PLAN AND PROFILE (DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL.) -STA. 29+00.00 TO STA. 16+48.87 35 A EMBANKMENT ACCESS RAMPS.A AND B 76 PLAN, PROFILE, AND GRADING PLAN -RANCHO WASH CHANNEL 36 EMBANKMENT ACCESS RAMP C -AMETHYST AVE. RELOCATION 77 A As-�urif Cnan a5 1 z TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS-{CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL) 37 SPILLWAY AND OUTLET WORKS -PLAN. AND PROFILE to sr.uat cesnrnors o+n wrrorw TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS-(CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL) 38 A SPILLWAY AND OUTLET WORKS -CROSS SECTIONS 79 REVISIONS TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS-(DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL) 39 SPILLWAY -STRUCTURAL DETAILS 84 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY It S. ARMY ENGNEER DISTRIC T_�� �---•---_-____ aro wsrLln, cars oP LacINELIIs LOS ANGELES sAcw.Ic TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS-(DEMENS CREEK AND RANCHO WASH CHANNELS) 4 SPILLWAY - MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS _ el 3AC4M�iNtD,"IFORHIA CORP$ OF E+4GNEIMS ( } GENERAL NOTES AND MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS 41 SPILLWAY AND OUTLEY WORK.- QNFl,IiEN;E STRUCTURE 4x M ?s:f IxslcreDsn SANTA ANA RIVER RAIN CALIFORNIA CIICAVONGA CREEK, SAN /ERNARDIND� • RIVERSIDE COUNT:ES CHANNEL SECTION -STRUCTURAL DETAILS 42 A SPILLWAY - SUBORAINAGE SYSTEM 83 AJ J. MOORE CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL - -- FOOTHILL BLVD. TO CUCAMONGA DEBRIS BASIN. - TRANSITION WALLS -SCHEDULES AND DETAILS 43 OUTLET WORKS-PROFI.I„ g ANI? SEGT�ON 84 99AWN IT. NORTH HALF AIRPORT CONDUIT I -- --T" DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL AND DEBRIS GASIN A CHANNEL SUBDRAINAGE SYSTEM 44 A) OUTLET WORKS -INTAKE f6 W�f�-$fR4I TUA: DETAILS 0'i J. MOORE I 4 51D£ DRAIN DETAILS AND TABULATION T_ 45 C OUTLET WORKS-- INTAKE' TQWER MI3CELLAN900 DETAILS --yam 8B INLET STRUCTURE DETAILS 46 INDEX TO CONTRACT DRAWINGS PIPE INLET AND MANHOLE DETAILS 47 - .. - LYS vto: � � 1 AT E: SH�t CARNELIAN STREET DRAIN -GENERAL LAYOUT 44 -:z .. .• /<¢--�r IF is . d XAIAR"fU CARNELIAN STREET DRAIN -JUNCTION STRUGTURIR, „ ;i 49 _ 51(rN AE4}FF:7l(Q IDICATE UiilClA R GMMEMD 1 V' AP RQV (Cfi�CphIMENDEO. FRE/ARCD i�DER THE DIRECTION OF; SFEG N0. DAC11D�-.0.Q F4445 it S« 6�1" .,--.+•*-y G!rNN h _.. • r _ ^. PRVY 0 ALL �F.R14,�N` iN THt� SfT A INDE,xE Air. A. TEAGUE D NQ. 2`�1/ I�� I IO r DFFIC� h wft�� Of Exp�MEFRd,r u r ti pi iTrlCY EMfpMC[� R41�. . LTA Y 1 /-� �h CntA A a , r r .v 0 cV z us zussUJ A us 30 iUJZ OXW WWF 1910 1900 1890 1880 • 1870 1860 1850 7' R 60, J r = 24.3/11 � L = 5#.s4 COnIST.e/ CT AC. ACCESSRAMA WITH CCM/CRETED/W ' 2 LOGIT/CW8 AS SHOWN 14 DETAILS ON SNEEr I0 ) TOP QF CUT R�W N 92•t9'4p'E�1 - 7nP GF CuT d = a6'20'3il O R - 2. 1 � T = �7T' I ® EXUT. F&xZ (KESMOYC d L a 3•-491 Luce Qq yW LIHC, ,re -use rucko m - a TzkAL mD fWS h w7rE�cG ft-MzLE) d - 3/ • L S/'J 3" R- 40' T = it. 2-7 REVIEW-cC L y E1.97' X PROFILE SCALE: 1' • 40' HORIZONTAL 8 1' • 10' VERTICAL LIMITS OF EXISTING CONCRETE LINED CHAAWEL AND 8RIDG£ STRUCTURE • NS/T/ON 9ENCH 14ARX USCE-197S-D C='J ///2' X.P. W/SRASS CAP N 723, 832.03 N ".9- /05. 2/ L Q' EL EV. 1814. OW uc+ JO/A /I' coNc. curia 0 GUTTER-FVFJTECr/N EX/STING OR106E jPROTECT /N PLACE'/ Lw_ NOTES THE TOPOGRAPHY OF DEM. -NS CHANNEL BETWEEN STAS. /23t00 AND 98000 IS GENTLY SLOPING AND CULTIVATED /N VINEYARD. THE LIMITS OF' CLEARING SHALL EXTEND THE FULL LIMITS OF THE CHANNEL R/W. 2� * LIENOTE3 EX13T./Tuc3C'IED C97CH 495W3- It UIS ARC 2'XI!'I'VWXS OV49 Cf1iV4d5S HELD W PeAcz tlY 1311 Q-LURT WIA.C. EKE aym. lP LVI(e fLu63 W44 C7k� Caf,- 5-jguCT/GY/ CCw'N Tw. TH 70-2$" 39CM STA. - t&M- ,STA, III # 18 .. I. WALL REIiNT DINERSION IS MEASURES FROM,• INVERT AT SASE Of WALL TO TOP OF WALL. _. WNERE PROFILE INDICATES A6RUPT CFARSE IS S ".WALL 1E16IT, COM STRYCT A STRAIONTLIRE WALL NE16RT TRAISITIOI 6E61N1116 WI TN TIE ALL WALL RE164T AT TORT STATION AND j ERDINS WITHIN 611 WALL FORM LERITI (S0 TS J 60 FEE11. Q•3%'1I/3l� r= Lar9' COA5EMON MENr O L� 38.951 � O —T' -- .1.C. PAYED PATROL Row Rrw TOE OF COMA FILL t 7.3 ✓t7/N C► OEMENS CREEK TOP OF CUT N J3•46'33'E R= 4 -Op __ TOP OF CUT h r 17.42' _ R•60, UNPAVED f71TRtIL /4+w 1-1M1T M15C tom, L=y.o► + ANGLE Pollfr _ AQ E/,3a9,39.T.f0 r Comsr. A•C• Acceds 9AA7P WIA,C. D/IN (TYq a LOCAriays /SI AS SHortlr 9 PER OCTA.LS ON S.QIFr 107) REFERENCE ORAW/NGS GENERAL NOTES ANO AeMEY/ATIONS ......... SHEET PLAN CHANNEL SECT/OAl -STRUCTURAL DETA/L 5 ... SHEET Access x wl�, cuxe 4 &vVEWAY LXM I VLS........ sNEer !c SCALE 1' • 40' SAWO STATAW DETAILS .......................... SHEET i GRAPHIC SCALE O M. a0' Bd- _- - 120 ICC!'. 1'- 40-0" AFETY PAYS 1910 1900 1890 1880 1870 1860 1850 X RECORD DRAIVING AS CONSTRUCTED CUNT. NO.! REV. I DATEPOSTED CHECKE► REVIEW-cC SYAIROL DE3cWIf7NS `" C lYllXUGT: DATI I A"OVAL REVISIONS CEPARTMENT OF THE ARRAY U. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT SACRAMENTO DISTRICT, CONS OF LNGINEERS LOS ANGELES SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA CORPS OF ENGINEERS DE51GN'D IT, SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CALIFORNIA CUCAYONGA CREEK, SAN SERNARDINO 9 RIVERSIDE COUNTIES E.GARCIA CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL FOOTHILL BLVD. TO CUCAMONGA DEBRIS BASIN, DuwN in NORTH HALF AIRPORT CONDUIT, R4 DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL AND DEBRIS BASIN A.MOORE PLAN AND PROFILE Q*Q'°•*' (DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL) D.WOE HL STA -120+00.00 TO STA.108+00.00 SURMRT10 RYA �ROVFA SPED NO• DACW 09- BQ D•�¢ SHEET 4F DMTWILlNM 251/ 27 W"C" 110 w SHEETSI)DI-0 T, 1870 1860 1860 1840 1830 VALVE EIYGIiVEEKINO PAY5 1870 1860 1810 1840 1830 + ,• V PROFILE i A roTE� rQ t , GRAPHIC SCALE SCALES 1" 40' HORIZONTAL EI 1' • 10' VERTICAL WALL REIFIT IIYEI3111 li MEASIREI FRDr IITLIT 1T I1SE IF_XALIR It 0 20' 40' BO' 120' Ie0' 200' ry Jl rfl0 j • ® AS B1J/LT C,LlAti�6ES OE:PTED JTA. A7r9b) CW.>2r) x'tq � X � sT►ua c>Esawnota cAn A/TR'71 AA °'"- , aT .. .t- W ,1: DETARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT SAClA1AENT0 DIStIICT• CORM Of, ENGINEEAS LOS ANGELES z W = ; sAcIAMENTO CALIFOINIA CORPS OF ENGINEERS DE51GrA0SY SANTA ANA RIPER BASIN CALIFORNIA awz r 0 = W E.GARCIA CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL W z r - FOOTHILL BLVD. TO CUCAMONGA DEBRIS BASIN, CONF1UENCRlw - DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL AND DEBRIS BASIN ` AMOORE PLAN AND PROFILE o 01Km'n (DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL) M WOEHL STA. 108+00.00 TO STA.97+00.00 suamirno by, DATE SHEET APPRCIVEG SPEC Na DAC *09• &2M- ti i i h i r 1870 1860 1860 1840 1830 VALVE EIYGIiVEEKINO PAY5 1870 1860 1810 1840 1830 u • SEE OETA/L 'A' ANYANCH WA -FOR PLAN, PROFILE, PLAN SEE SHEET 36. k NOTE. I. THE TOPOGRAPHY OF DEMENS CHANNEL BETWEEN STAB. 12,1 -.POO AND 98/•OO IS GENTLY SLOPING ANO CULTIVATEO /N VINEYARD. THE LIMITS OF CLEARING SHALL EXTENO THE f0f t W/OTN OF THE CHANNEL R/W, Z. FOR LIMITS OF CLEARING OFRANCHO WASH, SEE SHEET 36. PLAN r SCALE: 1'• 40' REFERENCE DRAWINGS GENERAL .NOTES AND ABBREVIATIONS" .......... SHEET 2 CHANNEL - SECTION -STRUCTURAL DETAILS,...... SHEET 4P SIDE ORA/N D47A/LS...............................SHEET 43 RANCHO` wASH- DETAIL S............................ SHEET 56 SPECIAL SECT/ON..................................... SHEET 33 RAAtW WASH EHTRANCe SMUCME.................WEET-f64 GS X 4 fAWAVEO PATRM ROAD • o b E/,19B,4t9.T1 0-^nbr1 rrrMer. N /t1 0.11- 05 9 0 Eisea.,rte.00 -� � � Is' f RANCHO 11'A ti SAFETY PAYS . 6 _:�fi4'Y,..7E'..�n-. .a ,ea':"v�.A.�'.t ._.s..•..�,is ?�3d�Yr.i..ss� __ _�rti-Mt�i'41Y3.i'F!"9 r _ t�.di•r' .at a.+-.. •'�1i(!� l� h h mx Yli9 DETAIL 'A' �cALE:r• - z ts1.tl 41f. 6d r V PROFILE i A roTE� t , GRAPHIC SCALE SCALES 1" 40' HORIZONTAL EI 1' • 10' VERTICAL WALL REIFIT IIYEI3111 li MEASIREI FRDr IITLIT 1T I1SE IF_XALIR It 0 20' 40' BO' 120' Ie0' 200' Jl rfl0 j • ® AS B1J/LT C,LlAti�6ES OE:PTED JTA. A7r9b) CW.>2r) x'tq � jr �� � sT►ua c>Esawnota cAn A/TR'71 AA °'"- , aT .. REVISIONS a DETARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT SAClA1AENT0 DIStIICT• CORM Of, ENGINEEAS LOS ANGELES ; sAcIAMENTO CALIFOINIA CORPS OF ENGINEERS DE51GrA0SY SANTA ANA RIPER BASIN CALIFORNIA CUCAMONGA CREEK, SAN BERNARDINd 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTIES E.GARCIA CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL FOOTHILL BLVD. TO CUCAMONGA DEBRIS BASIN, CONF1UENCRlw - DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL AND DEBRIS BASIN AMOORE PLAN AND PROFILE 01Km'n (DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL) M WOEHL STA. 108+00.00 TO STA.97+00.00 suamirno by, DATE SHEET APPRCIVEG SPEC Na DAC *09• &2M- " -n Z8 ..•.... _..�i d.Qit .TcelCJ '//40 ps:RKT FR! Na 251r28 MY. 'A" 110 -. 7qe 4R OJT DESIGN srEra is 1j 4 C. PAVED PATROL ROAp { OENENS CREEK5.111 , ♦_-.� _-i �st•46'.� ' Ton aF cu r 4 . UNPAVED PATROL ROAD T _ 1 - M 13�Eji s a --- TOP OF curs -�.-�• � � o _ �, _,,;rte,_ �_ :i .., � .-- �_• TOP OF cur 3' u • SEE OETA/L 'A' ANYANCH WA -FOR PLAN, PROFILE, PLAN SEE SHEET 36. k NOTE. I. THE TOPOGRAPHY OF DEMENS CHANNEL BETWEEN STAB. 12,1 -.POO AND 98/•OO IS GENTLY SLOPING ANO CULTIVATEO /N VINEYARD. THE LIMITS OF CLEARING SHALL EXTENO THE f0f t W/OTN OF THE CHANNEL R/W, Z. FOR LIMITS OF CLEARING OFRANCHO WASH, SEE SHEET 36. PLAN r SCALE: 1'• 40' REFERENCE DRAWINGS GENERAL .NOTES AND ABBREVIATIONS" .......... SHEET 2 CHANNEL - SECTION -STRUCTURAL DETAILS,...... SHEET 4P SIDE ORA/N D47A/LS...............................SHEET 43 RANCHO` wASH- DETAIL S............................ SHEET 56 SPECIAL SECT/ON..................................... SHEET 33 RAAtW WASH EHTRANCe SMUCME.................WEET-f64 GS X 4 fAWAVEO PATRM ROAD • o b E/,19B,4t9.T1 0-^nbr1 rrrMer. N /t1 0.11- 05 9 0 Eisea.,rte.00 -� � � Is' f RANCHO 11'A ti SAFETY PAYS . 6 _:�fi4'Y,..7E'..�n-. .a ,ea':"v�.A.�'.t ._.s..•..�,is ?�3d�Yr.i..ss� __ _�rti-Mt�i'41Y3.i'F!"9 r _ t�.di•r' .at a.+-.. •'�1i(!� l� h h mx Yli9 DETAIL 'A' �cALE:r• - z ts1.tl 41f. 6d r w t , GRAPHIC SCALE 0 20' 40' BO' 120' Ie0' 200' rfl0 j • ® AS B1J/LT C,LlAti�6ES OE:PTED JTA. A7r9b) CW.>2r) x'tq � y• �� � sT►ua c>Esawnota cAn A/TR'71 AA °'"- , aT .. REVISIONS a DETARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT SAClA1AENT0 DIStIICT• CORM Of, ENGINEEAS LOS ANGELES ; sAcIAMENTO CALIFOINIA CORPS OF ENGINEERS DE51GrA0SY SANTA ANA RIPER BASIN CALIFORNIA CUCAMONGA CREEK, SAN BERNARDINd 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTIES E.GARCIA CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL FOOTHILL BLVD. TO CUCAMONGA DEBRIS BASIN, PlAWN sn NORTH HALF AIRPORT CONDUIT. DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL AND DEBRIS BASIN AMOORE PLAN AND PROFILE 01Km'n (DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL) M WOEHL STA. 108+00.00 TO STA.97+00.00 suamirno by, DATE SHEET APPRCIVEG SPEC Na DAC *09• &2M- " -n Z8 ..•.... _..�i d.Qit .TcelCJ '//40 ps:RKT FR! Na 251r28 MY. 'A" 110 -. DESIGN srEra is 1j -1 .+.�. ' { IaTO 1660 1850 1840 1830 1820 VALUE ENGINEERING PAY Z�I 8 rf DEMEMB CREEK srwDE Dcsauvr$ DAIS MYR W — DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT SACIIAMENTO DISTRICT, cOEK of EN6lNEER3 I !j. R WALL SACIIAMENTO, CALIFOEHIA CARPS OF ENGINEERS DESK440BY. SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CALIFORNIA CUCAMONGA CREEK, SAN BERNARDINO a RIVERSIDE COUNTIES J. MOORE CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL FOOTHILL BLVD. TO CUCAMONGA DEBRIS BASIN, °AWN EY' NORTH HALF AIRPORT CONDUIT, DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL AND DEBRIS BA31H J. MOORE PLAN,PROFILE AND GRADING PLAN (RANCHO WASH CHANNEL) D. WOEHL SYr DATE PP AROVE0. I aj N55•46'3 OF 110 DE i� SHEETS EOZ. r — r SrA, )0$,1-00 // SEE DETAIL A" ON SH£Er ?B 0 N 74-5,4-40,29 % SPECIAL SECT/pN-Gvi�/GEi7 E /, 5B8, 618. p3 = NAZI GETA/LSr SH T. 5$. N 22#53'38,W / f RANCHO AASH n p $ O^ AT y + a ► h y r CURVE DATA ( G/Ii1N EL SUBDRA/NAC,E $� I • 76' 46 30' S� rEM(SEE SHr. 44) CIRCULAR CURVE SPIRAL N0.72O 4O' I 462.24?'j0 As , 07•/2 OD' 6p • G, R • 300, 00' Ta - ?75.60' S `rT1 A p$L- 326.60 IF L s 7500' / H 1Rco�O l�F/0, PLAN s r. ?TAh'l$ I f / f+?' ST,+ /* , _ SCALE: 1'040' d �4S SHEE / I (BOT40' S w ) g NAROUND rI, 588, 496 `P'4A'CHp �O'r 66 RANCHO WASH wQSy ENTRANCE STRUCTURE • 1 x . - 1870 1860 laso REFERENCE DRAW/NGS GENERAL NOTES AND ABBREVIATIONS .................... SHCEr 2 CHANNEL SUBDRAINAGE Sl'SrEM ........ . .......... . ...... SHEEr 44 1940 CHANNEL SECTION -STRUCTURAL DETAILS ............. SHEET 42 RANCHO WASH D/V/DER WALL -STRUCTURAL DETA/LS ... SHEEr 35 RANCHO WASH ENTRANCE STRUCTURE ..................... SHEETS 64 9 65 1830 for of COAIPACrrq ra ; m 1 lit � ( � o I 1O I 'I S w i m TOP aF cur rop of cur rop OF CTJr 1 / j SLOP£ r0 A AM l F-3aCI l � i U PAVED PATROL R I I ,3 ! ti Di MISC. FILL I l I �1. STEEPEN MJW. FILL I � SLOPESTHESE / % LIMITS 0 4 XlAXr) f ' TO ACc&ODArE I0Ix 4•o' TuftN/ eotA OS, BOTH SIDES C.A' 04wkrz c / I - _ SAFETY PAYS _ 144 �-TOP 0f CUT II'au tH(r/�rp) Norr: THE TOPOGRAPH r OF RANCHO WASH /S STEEP, RUGGED, AND COVERED W/TH rHICK STANDS OF OF BRUSH AND TREES, THE LIMITS OF CLEARING SHALL EXTEND TO THE BOUNDARIES FORMED Br THE UPPER 4IMIrS OF MISCELLANEOUS FILL ON THE rASr AND WEST SIDES AND 5 FEET BEYOND TNF BOUNDARY FORMED BY TOE OF COMPACrEO F11-4 ON THE SOUTH SIPE, _ L/MIr OFMISC. F/II GRADING PLAN RECOR�AS NSTRUCTED CONT, h.J,i REV. j DATE niPOSTED CHECKS REVIEWED - 1.3oi-2do---� .© srwDE Dcsauvr$ DAIS MYR W REVISIONS DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT SACIIAMENTO DISTRICT, cOEK of EN6lNEER3 LOS ANGELES SACIIAMENTO, CALIFOEHIA CARPS OF ENGINEERS DESK440BY. SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CALIFORNIA CUCAMONGA CREEK, SAN BERNARDINO a RIVERSIDE COUNTIES J. MOORE CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL FOOTHILL BLVD. TO CUCAMONGA DEBRIS BASIN, °AWN EY' NORTH HALF AIRPORT CONDUIT, DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL AND DEBRIS BA31H J. MOORE PLAN,PROFILE AND GRADING PLAN (RANCHO WASH CHANNEL) D. WOEHL SYr DATE PP AROVE0. EC. SPNO. DAC W 09• _Q4.. h 990 aj DISTRICT FU NO. 251/36 OF 110 DE i� SHEETS - 1.3oi-2do---� .© U.S. ARMY ENGiNEFR DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGtNEARS M®I 5..-�__�..-.r..w�.-.'.T+....�:•.:.o-kr�. 'v.w.r�r. r.,. �,_..., ,.. ..:.,�•,,:,.:. '... w.:. :. ..r.:,.. w,�..•- ..�-� :.....r.....�.�..:._�e...w.::�' ,..rte.v.;sa�r,�.ar,.�i:;....�-..'..rwi'.-,:..���w•-':..:ria-u:.- wiw+'.��:3......�,.. }.r �., __. �_.....+�.. �._._•1 _. .�►.:.....w.-ar: �__ �.a-,..--. _- .'�.+i.ti.�r.wx+.s�'::,.. .n .....,�...�. - .� --_�,. ..... ... ....._. .�. Y Poet (ryp.) Note: Reinforcing 5paclng to be le,CtC., un/e55 ,51bwn otherwise An9/e varies dep& d/ng on trancwr5e /avert cope, wall offset and aupereJevation. Chdr"I syr», dbf rr7d A?/) F " rw b O a„I Bar Bar in m2ll LQ VALUE ENGINEERING PAYS L'A.C. over 4 "6e ca-npdcted to 95q of /nox/rjxrm der l"'y. _ 0/7 CUCdOVI-60 0.75 01 De/rA&V Gk. 1_ /mit of Ctkr,Ine/ ExCard trop 04 rS 12" , unless ottt�rwi6e ,si�own " *4, Owl, Centered ons . t x z -b . rype,B" �PTIONA C 5T. - JT: DET. �driea L -WALL, SECTION A -A TO M -M NOT TO SCALE L- WALL SCHEDULE �`4 Trirrvr,�r 04 0120 #4 a l' -/a - REINFORCING 'C'bar a /Z "Cut H rFr Bar td Zr-Or a/temete Ts T� bare Z' -O" a MANMy1 frovn trap b E Qtr of wd// .D. "'; Note: Reinforcing 5paclng to be le,CtC., un/e55 ,51bwn otherwise An9/e varies dep& d/ng on trancwr5e /avert cope, wall offset and aupereJevation. Chdr"I syr», dbf rr7d A?/) F " rw b O a„I Bar Bar in m2ll LQ VALUE ENGINEERING PAYS L'A.C. over 4 "6e ca-npdcted to 95q of /nox/rjxrm der l"'y. _ 0/7 CUCdOVI-60 0.75 01 De/rA&V Gk. 1_ /mit of Ctkr,Ine/ ExCard trop 04 rS 12" , unless ottt�rwi6e ,si�own " *4, Owl, Centered ons . t x z -b . rype,B" �PTIONA C 5T. - JT: DET. �driea L -WALL, SECTION A -A TO M -M NOT TO SCALE L- WALL SCHEDULE CONCRETE REINFORCING REINFORCING STEEL H 'R' Ber Tw Ts T� "A' a MANMy1 "B' b b rC. .D. "'; "); a MEM f DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL AND DEBRIS BASIN OF' C. LEE H L ej f2 9 Ts bOr 01 02 bar bl 62 bar bar d bar el e2 w1_6 10'- I'-1' I'-3' d-1 N/A Note: Reinforcing 5paclng to be le,CtC., un/e55 ,51bwn otherwise An9/e varies dep& d/ng on trancwr5e /avert cope, wall offset and aupereJevation. Chdr"I syr», dbf rr7d A?/) F " rw b O a„I Bar Bar in m2ll LQ VALUE ENGINEERING PAYS L'A.C. over 4 "6e ca-npdcted to 95q of /nox/rjxrm der l"'y. _ 0/7 CUCdOVI-60 0.75 01 De/rA&V Gk. 1_ /mit of Ctkr,Ine/ ExCard trop 04 rS 12" , unless ottt�rwi6e ,si�own " *4, Owl, Centered ons . t x z -b . rype,B" �PTIONA C 5T. - JT: DET. �driea L -WALL, SECTION A -A TO M -M NOT TO SCALE L- WALL SCHEDULE CONCRETE REINFORCING REINFORCING STEEL H SECTION Tw Ts T� "A' a MANMy1 "B' b b rC. .D. "'; "); a MEM f DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL AND DEBRIS BASIN OF' C. LEE H L T TW Ts bOr 01 02 bar bl 62 bar bar d bar el e2 bar 10'- I'-1' I'-3' d-1 N/A - - W7 5'-6' 3'-3" #4 N/A - OW5 2'-V N/A - A - A Oa 5'-0" d -Id -IO' I'- Cr N /A - - +Y 4 3'-d 2'- 6" #4 NIA - N/A - - *4 I'- I' e-3* V-1 N/A - - 07 5'-W 4'-6" 04 N/A - 05 2'4 N/A - IBTO d 7T0. P -P Id -8" TO 8-8 1'-d 6'-d0'-Idd-Id d-11'06 1'-0" N/A - - #6 4--d N-6'#4 - N/A - N/A - - *4 la' -d a'- 6. 0-0 IO' -6' TO Id -O' 1'-1" 1'-4' U-1 #6 2'-6' 3'-e&6 7'-0' 4'-d 04 N/A - .96 2'-01' WA - t2'-3" C C T -d O' -1 o'-114 I'-3' #5 2'-6' 3'-d #4 5'-6" 6-0" #4 N/A - N/A - 04 I8'-01 TO l�OTOOr' i-6' or -10'07 4'-d W -d A'6 9'-1 7'-6r 04 4*4 2'-6' N/A - 04 V -O• 14'-d 20'-8/ pTO. D - D 8'-d O'- KI 1'-0' 1'-3' 06 2'-6' 2'-6" #5 7'-d 5'-6" #4 N/A - N/A - 04 11'- 6r E -E TO 9'-d --1' 1'-5` #6 2'-6' 3'-d #6 7'-5 W -O" #4 WA - N/A - - 04 . F- F TO V -4. a-1' 1'-5' #6 3'-6` 8'-O` #6 W-6" 5'-6' #4 #4 2'-d WA - -- 04 13'-d G- G IN- I' TO -O' '-10 r-2' 1'-6' 06 3'-9' 4'-0' #6 9'- 7'-W#4 04 2'-6' N/A - - #4 14'-d H -H 0• II' -0, '-I 1'-4' 1'-8" #7 3'-9' 8'-6' /17 KI -6' 4-0 #4 V4 3'-d N/A - - Xi•4 -s' I -I '-Id1'-5' 4'-0r 9'-d#7 gr -(f3'-6 #5 N/A - WA sF6"II'-6r N/A- NOT APPLICABLE TRANSITION L -WALL SCHEDULE J - J W-6' TO II'- 0 .-Io I'-5" TO 1' -Id TO #6 4'-6'9#-6'#? 11'-d W-6' #5 #5 21-0" #4 2--0" 5'-0" x/5 18'-d 1'-7' Z -O" K - K 0-11 TO 11-7'V-0. TO TO #8 4'-6' 10'- #8 12'-6r 4'-6" #5 05 2'-6' 04 2'- 6'-d 05 y, to w L - L ■ 19'-7 6r � ■ 1 -9 T O� 2'-3' #9 4'-6" 12'-0 09 14'- 5'-6' - #5 #5 3'-d #4 1'-d 9'-0` #5 IT a 2,T0 -71 2'-0'2'- ■ 2T0 M- M TO T0 #10 6'-d 7'-0 #95 15'-6 13'-6" #5 a'!5 4'-d 23'- t6' -d0'-12'2'-2' 2' -td NO rel : "dZ' frAVbe less th5n 'bz" M oac ,?eetie rv. Dirr.>A Ia? &w/ be in am rdame with reinAnne iry &tee/xhed_�/e. (] Where v, a1 P � WAYM of Cannel, #wcanter invert5leb i8 elirnirvtedand the left dad rlc1h t favtiry i5 tied together oy 44 dowel ov Me Center of eldb. © Where to/5 /Ength id Z'-O'(Yr /cam, the #4 dowel maybe e/i, »MrVteddr)d the 05 trdverde 45ar5 from the Center /n vert a/eb eha/l be extended 1'-.3' .a)10 60th &0hi a ® Con trdc7br fray provide *9 Ler to 14'dbove invert Or4aCe o #Ca &*- to 71a #9 h5r B'-6,vet ove :evert. © CrntrV^tt r- May provide 4'9 bdr tea 15'_&"&)0VL' in vertGr-)doitie a #6 bar lo t/a #9 bar 9' 6'l above /'/-,vert. i 3 10L011FZ"A.(ab C. ut Ipo _ of Noll) 1 3%_ l ex/Oh/ yyfmlw xrMee Ccvnpx�d` Fi 1 /, CJXv�re/ 1* 6 � D" Ghain link %rxi g (Per section 6p of sOe ij POSE ?cwt filled) ,see 5pma. Note: 5echi n ,vitn no �uCadrdin clvwn; me � CtxSrY)el 5ubdrdl/k� 3 System 5nt. 44 fore~'' beCf6n wiffimbdrdin-Ste(n. Z a, ./mit of ch*wIel excevotI617 TYPICAL EARTHWORK AT RECTANGULAR SECTION NOT TO SCALE —f&ve post lryp) s 4.1 t#4 rr inner r olternate Channel M. �' u" fr,✓vn to #4 pz'-p' &bout L� Of well 14 "Dr bar 9 ® f O'4 0 P-6" I CROSS SLOPE VZIRO IA/CAILrs Q Tvfffl�w Y .I T 4"C/r.(typ) n /� ,74 Dowel A> "C" I b (D I 30d1r.(typ) match Vert bar bar In wall e U -WALL, SECTION N -N TO R_ -R__ NOT TO SCALE U -WALL SCHEDULE CONCRETE REINFORCING STEEL SECTION H w Tw Ts T� "A' a 0 "B' b b rC. .D. d rE. a 'F' f DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL AND DEBRIS BASIN C. LEE CHANNEL SECTION de'a1;o rY� bo r I 2 bar I 2 bar bar bar 1'Y1L(z5 t'k tJ D15rRlCT FEE Na 25v42 'A' bar .i: Rev. N -N -6r 10'- I'-1' I'-3' d-1 N/A - - W7 5'-6' 3'-3" #4 N/A - OW5 2'-V N/A - 1d -d 0-0 10'-6` I'- I' e-3* V-1 N/A - - 07 5'-W 4'-6" 04 N/A - 05 2'4 N/A - IBTO d P -P Id -8" TO 12'- TO 1'-d 1'-4" d-11'06 3'-6' W-6" ray r -d 5'-d 114 N/A - +#5 2'-d WA. - 12'-d la' -d 0-0 IO' -6' TO Id -O' 1'-1" 1'-4' U-1 #6 2'-6' 3'-e&6 7'-0' 4'-d 04 N/A - .96 2'-01' WA - t2'-3" R -R 13'-0 TO I8'-01 TO I, -:e i-6' or -10'07 4'-d W -d A'6 9'-1 7'-6r 04 4*4 2'-6' N/A - 04 V -O• 14'-d 20'-8/ AFETY PAYS rran5. '7w" from one 5eetibn to the other within b'-0" or chsnge adr'upt/y with a rw rw type 'B" wall eanatr, j4 v Channel face +. of wall Un/e55 otherwise .?1v)vnr Z0'-0" tr"ifbn ",L" fnam one 5eetron to the oMer within) 20'-0". PLAN _ Dect/an C -C_ tion a -B, rep Of Ad// rrdnsit/an w11 heght from pre 5ecton to the other within 30-x10 ft., un/em otherwrsei/xwn. t - til rralnsrhon 'rs" hGrn Gree _,�eat1on PROFILE to the other within b' -o "• SECTION AT TRANSITION NOT TO SCALE ,f? Channel ,5ymm. Cl>~rr�l Ctarr�e/ � oboElt 3 Invert L &bait w/z I I e.J cJ 0o irq tasting IDENTIFICATION FOR CONCRETE PAYMENT ITEM NOT TO SCALE REFERENCE DRAWINGS: for C?eneral Aotee and Mlbeel/aneouc Detdilc —_,see &'it. 41 Far Lowt/An of 5ech/ y a cee P/an &?d Profile — — -- — -- — — — — --- — -- — 5heet,5 /0 ttrafh,% RECORD DRAWING AS CONSTRUCTED CON REV' I DA` E POSTED CHECXED REVIEWED . U As 34rar etiarrre5 STM�OI Desall►iilOrri DAT! AMOVAL REVISIONS DEPARTMENT OF THE AWY U. 5. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT SACRAMENTO CHSTOM COlrt OF ENGINEERS LOS ANGELES SACLu.LNTO, CALIFOSNIA CORPS OF ENGINEERS DE vqp /Y. SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CALIFORNIA CYCAMONGA CREEK, SAN BERNARDINO 9 RIVERSIDE COUNTIES H. HARANO CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL FOOTHILL ORTH HALFCAIRPO TG CONDUIT BASIN, oluwH ST. DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL AND DEBRIS BASIN C. LEE CHANNEL SECTION de'a1;o rY� STRUCTURAL DETAILS D. WOEHL 5UBhU1TE0 RYA OAPPROVEm SHEET 422 Of 1'Y1L(z5 t'k tJ D15rRlCT FEE Na 25v42 'A' 110 .i: Rev. SHEETS DEsis" r% I.• 02 APPENDIX 2 a��ENs CREEK ION I I f :'SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN CALIFORNIA CUCAMONGA AND DEMENSCREEK SAN BERNAR DING AND. RIVERSIDE COUNTIES ARMY LOS ANGELES k CORPS DISTRICT VALUE ENGINEERING PAYS 0 OF, ENGINEERS "4TH S PROJECT KEY MAP N BERNARDINO FWY NORTH N.T.S. SAFE -TV INDEX OF DRAWINGS SHEET TITLE TITLE SHEET PARK SITE HORIZONTAL CONTROL PARK SITE GRADING PLAN PARK SITE DETAILS GRADING UNDERPASS GRADING 19TH ST. UNDERPASS DETAILS 1.119TH St. DETOUR PLAN ''BASELINE UNDERCROSSING CUCAMONGA CREEK BRIDGE STA. 888 + 24.14 CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL BRIDGE DETAILS/FENCE DETAILS STA. 888 + 00 DE14ENS CREEK CHANNEL BRIDGE STA. " + 20 DEMENS ('.REEK CHANNEL BRIDE STA. 111 + 80 RANCHO WASH BRIDGE STA. 13 + 50 CUCAMON"-DEMENS CREEK BRIDGE STA. 21 + 751 EQUESTRIAN TRAIL EQUESTRIAN TRAIL EQUESTRIAN TRAIL EQUESTRIAN TRAIL EQUESTRIAN TRAIL EQUESTRIAN TRAIL EQUESTRIAN TRAIL EQUESTRIAN TRAIL EQUESTRIAN TRAIL EQUESTRIAN TRAIL EQUESTRIAN TRAIL DETAILS EQUESTRIAN TRAIL DETAILS PARK SITE ,.'DETAILS PARK SITE SIA�� DETAILS SHELTER DETAILS "PARK SITE UTILITIES DEMENS CREEK TRAIL REST RESTROOM. PLUMBING FLOOR PLAN, ELEVATION AND DETAIL'S RESTROOM DETAILS RESTROOM DETAILS RESTROOM DETAILS PARK LANDSCAPE PLAN DEMENS CREEK TRAIL REST PLANTING PLAN -PLANTING DETAILS PARK IRRIGATION PLAN DEMENS CREEK TRAIL REST IRRIGATION PLAN ELECTRICAL PLAN ELECTRICAL DETAILS ABBREVIATIONS SHEET'r1N6, ;, GAL. - Gallon C1 .2 C2 4, C2A 4 .C3 5 C4 6 C5 1 C5A 8 1;6 S 7 10 C7A 11 > 12 C9 13 N BERNARDINO FWY NORTH N.T.S. SAFE -TV INDEX OF DRAWINGS SHEET TITLE TITLE SHEET PARK SITE HORIZONTAL CONTROL PARK SITE GRADING PLAN PARK SITE DETAILS GRADING UNDERPASS GRADING 19TH ST. UNDERPASS DETAILS 1.119TH St. DETOUR PLAN ''BASELINE UNDERCROSSING CUCAMONGA CREEK BRIDGE STA. 888 + 24.14 CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL BRIDGE DETAILS/FENCE DETAILS STA. 888 + 00 DE14ENS CREEK CHANNEL BRIDGE STA. " + 20 DEMENS ('.REEK CHANNEL BRIDE STA. 111 + 80 RANCHO WASH BRIDGE STA. 13 + 50 CUCAMON"-DEMENS CREEK BRIDGE STA. 21 + 751 EQUESTRIAN TRAIL EQUESTRIAN TRAIL EQUESTRIAN TRAIL EQUESTRIAN TRAIL EQUESTRIAN TRAIL EQUESTRIAN TRAIL EQUESTRIAN TRAIL EQUESTRIAN TRAIL EQUESTRIAN TRAIL EQUESTRIAN TRAIL EQUESTRIAN TRAIL DETAILS EQUESTRIAN TRAIL DETAILS PARK SITE ,.'DETAILS PARK SITE SIA�� DETAILS SHELTER DETAILS "PARK SITE UTILITIES DEMENS CREEK TRAIL REST RESTROOM. PLUMBING FLOOR PLAN, ELEVATION AND DETAIL'S RESTROOM DETAILS RESTROOM DETAILS RESTROOM DETAILS PARK LANDSCAPE PLAN DEMENS CREEK TRAIL REST PLANTING PLAN -PLANTING DETAILS PARK IRRIGATION PLAN DEMENS CREEK TRAIL REST IRRIGATION PLAN ELECTRICAL PLAN ELECTRICAL DETAILS ABBREVIATIONS DISCIPLINE SHEET'r1N6, ;, GAL. - Gallon C1 .2 C2 4, DISCIPLINE SHEET'r1N6, ;, GAL. - Gallon C1 .2 C2 3 C2A 4 .C3 5 C4 6 C5 7 C5A 8 1;6 9 C7 10 C7A 11 C8 12 C9 13 CIO 14 C10A 15 C11- 16 C12 17 C13 18 C14 19 C15 20 C16 21 C17 22 C18 23 C19 24 C20 25 C21 26 C21 27 C22 28 C23 29 C24 30 U1 31 U2 32 U3 33 Al 34 A2 35 S1 36 S2 37 L1 38 L2 39 L3 40 I1 41 12 42 El 43 E2 44 A.B. - Aggregate base GAL. - Gallon A.B. - Anchor bolt INV. - Invert . A.C. - Asphaltic cement M.B. - Machine bolt A.C.P. - Asbestos cement pipe MIN. - Minimum B.C. - Beginning of curvature MTD. — Mounted B.C.R. - Beginning of curb return O.C. - On center BLK. - Blocking P.C.C. - Portland Cement Concrete SM - Beam P.E. - Polyethylene pipe C.L. - Chain link P.O.C. - Point of connection C.M.P. - Corrugated metal pipe P.S.I. - Pounds per square inch C.O. - Conduit only P.V.C. - Polyvinylchloride pipe C.Y. - Cubic Yard PL. - Plate CMU - Concrete masonry unit PLY10. - Plywood CONC. - Concrete PVMT. - Pavement CONST. - Construct R.C.P. - Reinforced concrete pipe CONT. - Continuous R/R - Railroad DWG. - Drawing R/W - Rigpt-of-way E.C. - End of curvature REINF. - Reinforcing E.C.R. - End of curb return REQD. - Required EA. - Each SCHED. - Schedule ELEV. - Elevation SHTG. - Sheathing EXIST. - Existing 1 and G - Tonque and groove F.F. - Finish floor T.G. - Top of grate F.L. - Flow Line T.W. - Top of Wall F.S. - Finished Surface V. - Volt FT. - Foot V.C.P. - Vitrified clay pipe FTG. - Footing W.W.F. - Welded wire fabric WD. - Wood 6XC,F,P7- MOP - `1 `AN D8 D,� pE P`0 J1uM/r a o� p,c• Z� ,� ti� eB San Luis Obisp Bakersfield arstow c Santa Barbara LO ngeles� ~ an Bernardino SYMBOL DE$CRIPTIONS DATE APPROVAL ' ---, SGam` REVISIONS - - - -�"—� LANDSCAPE U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT • • • ARCHITECTURE LOS ANGELES CORPS OF ENGINEERS DESIGNED BYs SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN,CALIFORNIA �GCUCAMONGA AND DEMENS CREEK SAN BERNARDINO AND RIVERSIDE COUNTIES VICINITY MAP0 DRAWN BY: CUCAMONGA AND DEMENS CREEK T. G, RECREATION NORTH CUCAMONGA/DEMENS CREEK N.T.S. CHECKED BY# CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA APPROVAL 'APPROVAL RECOMMENDED ,Z TITLE SHEET PARK PLANNER CHIEF, DESIGN BRANCH .- SUBMITTED BY: APPROVE SHEET APP�iOVAL RECOMMENDED CHIEF PLANNING DIVISION SIGNATURES AFFIXED HEREON INDICATE OFFICIAL RECOMMENDATION AND PREPARED UNDER THE DIFfECTION OF SPEC.NO.DACW09 31� OD G1 -e C APPROVAL OF ALL DRAWINGS IN THIS SET AS INDEXED ON THIS SHEET CHIEF, SAFETY OFFICE COL.. CORPS OF ENGINEERS U.S.A. DISTRICT ENGINEER DISTRICT FILE NO. AYS *U. 5 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE•. 1950-784.134 i �d `AN D8 D,� pE P`0 J1uM/r a o� p,c• Z� ,� ti� eB San Luis Obisp Bakersfield arstow c Santa Barbara LO ngeles� ~ an Bernardino SYMBOL DE$CRIPTIONS DATE APPROVAL ' ---, SGam` REVISIONS - - - -�"—� LANDSCAPE U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT • • • ARCHITECTURE LOS ANGELES CORPS OF ENGINEERS DESIGNED BYs SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN,CALIFORNIA �GCUCAMONGA AND DEMENS CREEK SAN BERNARDINO AND RIVERSIDE COUNTIES VICINITY MAP0 DRAWN BY: CUCAMONGA AND DEMENS CREEK T. G, RECREATION NORTH CUCAMONGA/DEMENS CREEK N.T.S. CHECKED BY# CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA APPROVAL 'APPROVAL RECOMMENDED ,Z TITLE SHEET PARK PLANNER CHIEF, DESIGN BRANCH .- SUBMITTED BY: APPROVE SHEET APP�iOVAL RECOMMENDED CHIEF PLANNING DIVISION SIGNATURES AFFIXED HEREON INDICATE OFFICIAL RECOMMENDATION AND PREPARED UNDER THE DIFfECTION OF SPEC.NO.DACW09 31� OD G1 -e C APPROVAL OF ALL DRAWINGS IN THIS SET AS INDEXED ON THIS SHEET CHIEF, SAFETY OFFICE COL.. CORPS OF ENGINEERS U.S.A. DISTRICT ENGINEER DISTRICT FILE NO. AYS *U. 5 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE•. 1950-784.134 i `AN D8 D,� pE P`0 J1uM/r a o� p,c• Z� ,� ti� eB San Luis Obisp Bakersfield arstow c Santa Barbara LO ngeles� ~ an Bernardino SYMBOL DE$CRIPTIONS DATE APPROVAL ' ---, SGam` REVISIONS - - - -�"—� LANDSCAPE U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT • • • ARCHITECTURE LOS ANGELES CORPS OF ENGINEERS DESIGNED BYs SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN,CALIFORNIA �GCUCAMONGA AND DEMENS CREEK SAN BERNARDINO AND RIVERSIDE COUNTIES VICINITY MAP0 DRAWN BY: CUCAMONGA AND DEMENS CREEK T. G, RECREATION NORTH CUCAMONGA/DEMENS CREEK N.T.S. CHECKED BY# CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA APPROVAL 'APPROVAL RECOMMENDED ,Z TITLE SHEET PARK PLANNER CHIEF, DESIGN BRANCH .- SUBMITTED BY: APPROVE SHEET APP�iOVAL RECOMMENDED CHIEF PLANNING DIVISION SIGNATURES AFFIXED HEREON INDICATE OFFICIAL RECOMMENDATION AND PREPARED UNDER THE DIFfECTION OF SPEC.NO.DACW09 31� OD G1 -e C APPROVAL OF ALL DRAWINGS IN THIS SET AS INDEXED ON THIS SHEET CHIEF, SAFETY OFFICE COL.. CORPS OF ENGINEERS U.S.A. DISTRICT ENGINEER DISTRICT FILE NO. AYS *U. 5 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE•. 1950-784.134 R1W 55' 57 ' Rlw VALUE ENGINEERING PAYS I M SEE DQE rA1L- 5 w Q @ /2 " ? g" 3NWE4R/NG SURFACE FAR FSC aW/NG I 10`EX/ST/NG . A -C . EX/ST. G 'N/GN PA VED GWWOL RD. ` `Q ` CWANGE[./NX WffA LOVE EXIST CNA/AI , I /O' UNPA VED LINK FE/VCE . FU[.L . /0-0 PATROL RD x W/OTN OF AWiA 5%E PRO WIDC ROS 7- 45 R�' .TO/A/ EX/ST, EXSTO�I Ak NA T/ VE 6RaINO A.C.AC SV^f Ta iQtTTccmlEGT f eNCE I WODDEAJ fO'ST AAW /4,_O„ � /8 =0' o l4' O., I ' i _ I R•4 /Ls CHANNEL W/DTH pV/,o.E "CGLt,C � •' ' I C9�9 /VEL S T�4 I I 8 9 O R C T Y OOF OFr�'4N E DE 7A -IL 7q UrAMOA16A ST J TT�4GS//NENT I :3 WEAR/NG SURFACE II A.C. PVM'T F R,q / : N030 � CSM TA[- FX2ST rO URf3 To TYo� 4 r. :6 � use ROGK ov�'R i CN.4JViVE_L. W - �� A:)` bV/AE /O' �1 NOV/ /Q' PAVED A4r CV- VSD AAr�x , I Too � a � /' CRUS ED I I CN.4ic/� EL f CRU)SNEO A � �R % I I WA41. . OVER 2 AC -TYR V) J ARES Z ;q�,. _ TYp.) I - , I Q L --- I DEGK 0 .5". CO&C . O 1�AIP/E EL.42./ W 4 . ./ I FTG. Y� SEE DEXA/L Z LICK BRAG/NG l Top of Q rOP o0.4CTGLu-LAM STRl�/GERS CQAAINEL 4.5' � I I I I --.�71SALE / =2 _ II I STA . �9+20 4X-ENM O D/APN,QAS EACH EMD I I I AA �4G�-/ i PP MS MID -SPAN A SLAB A�4B � I I` ax M!D- D/APHRA Ca o O I I4@ z4 I l TOP OF WEARING SURFACE rL METAL F�L.4SN/N6S I 9 4 8" 8" 9'-4" t DGE GIG CNANAIEL WAIL '42 ,q _ Z4, 42. _ ,� TDP OF //EAR/AIG SUR&=ACE rovo' 0= : CN"NE4.WA[lx VA ES Q SEE S C7 70.*v G LAM STRINGER 1 - - 1 _ i \ 3'R�CYSTYRENE 6 8 j'GLULAM A VC 4OR TA GK GpAT _ .. /� / PROt//D � V I � 3 VO/OFORM UA/LWRA/EAr•/ ¢ w xcN AMINAL c6cK rue z °o -K TO 6E SISPEG/F/E 4 1 .j `- W T + C-7 , ' • + ' I . 8Y B�2/GW a MA NU FAGTl1fZER ZZ2 P V/ ' N + / ' W j Fcb DE 6 CONC 3 F/EGET w W ti CURB HAC14 ,N ! 4 Z U W x O 6�ERC/TYG1= lZ4n/C _�_................. i O CUCAMOArSA STD. I D. RAW/NGS Ala. l SuR p - 4� N 2 = O `E%S OF STiP/NG�R > _ I p #4 ev>2 "8ALANCE r--\ z z s o SAW UT O/ /5 W lu F-/VAT/VE C�L.//VO t'() �1 TO • to c� 1Q fX/ST//VG 5 4 _ /'' MOLE @ BAR SPACING A. -C A4 VEO : �F/LL HOLE W/ Tiy ER��CY. lJ�t/O•e( VED AWROL t IV 4 DOJVE45 CQ /Z' J*y' ' RWSWEN EX/ST. CONCRETE--� 2' CLEAR. SURFACE M //4 "AA1.0r1rVZ E Z *40? /Z" APAW BIaNG A*Cw . R/w ' DETAIL, SECURE 45AB IC, TO INTERNED/ATE SCALE /" sS' _ FX�07,5 W/T" //4 kE�C HE.40 SELF 'Q I - i TAP90ING SCIZEWS 3140a1146 3//6' X o' - /,3(4 " ►; SEED TAIL - Jr �p 5LO"MSN C -7A WE DETAIL 7 GLIJL.aM STR/NEERIf 11= 9G4. C14 -41V L/N/<-04SAaR/G CIAICw C 7A - TS 3"x 2' X . /875 ��'Y•� � 2 4 0 0 • - a , c V/BOE 3~ WF.,.4FZ/�l/G AL[.. �3?s) r �� C ,SUA#cACE -FROM Eiuo OF AAOROACH E L S x4 "x zVq'* c -SL v. <2) - �g NO � � I C A T %5"S TO Q4YZja% /T. aorI4 EA10S 0.411=:p�' C• 7 6R/OC-� GR.=40E' $E 4G- 7" O r I I IIII III I $S„EE-H /CK CC/ /CRETEEY CCWTRACMAY, it ENGNEER:25/80 A6APRR04CN SLAB. AC/ GS lrYo J.P. KAPP & A3SOCI4RES N,_ �C. , . , CONSULTNG CIVIL ENGINEERS, i I i 3 ° CL .AR 4, 15892 PASADENA AND PLANNERS `� �•� � .� FACE NO T. COA/CRE TE G?q YUGNT ' ' ' ' ' ERA/EATA/ BEARIAAS AMD. TusTirr, cAur�oR>►�A sssso _ ' 1 I i (71,0 730.5757 1114- lei -.4012S 'Ed- 42.Zs ` / ° *_ almond y bridge RECGwIP.AGT J 3' AO/D icj� _. h i I 1 S i, r site sY a ,60T7-6;A4Z' OF SC•/BGRADE V , t j oes�rno�a a►� A�lovA� T.O .95y (7-I�R1) Z r'A O �Gr REVISIONS 04E T�4 /L. 2 =: b a n• a I I G� a �� U. S. ARMY ENGINEER 1XSntKr EL 30.25 W INV, N.T.S. ID ar '0 / LOS ANGELES EL, /629.95 .- ao CORPS Of ENGINEERS us CNV. Q C�+t�WNEL:'C 1 G G p Br, SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN,CALIFORNIA 9 Ith ' St ; CUCAMONGA AND DEMENS CREEK$ �'a' Cc H 5 x ate• SAN BERNARDINO AND RIVERSIDE COUNTIES NOTE:,y•v� °�� Act`e Mwaby$ CUCAMONGA AND DEMENS CREEK base 1 e , ave. a LL O/MENSIOMS .SNQU[-,D SE' F/EL17 VER/F/EO � _� . p, � RECREATION ,oR/44 TO c,,asT/�v6 OF ,4RA4GL4CN s�,ae SECT/cK/ = z'" —I p pRK CUCAMONGA/DEMENS- C accriny A M4NoR VARiAT/On/S GF WALL O/MENS/O /S AVO �• -� pGE cmaw w, SCALE.* — ELEVA7'1Cws AfAY OccUR_ _ HER fOQh • v tl DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL BRIDGE STA. 99+20 X11 d, . .I �I , I �p - - - - SU6MITTED 6Y: SPEC. NO. DAC A 09- _AID . 9.925 SHEET DRAWING N0. C�8 VICINITY MAP LOCATION MAP DATE: DISTRICT RILE N0. SAFETYPAYS _o \ �� �S /B ~ Tib//GK SNDE ! �� • � � • IrZy57yR ivE VOMAORM - tt 4 U @ /2" N "0" �t 5 /5 FOR /NFO. NOT WOWAI SEE OE'rAAL / o • A. •DETA/L 3 N.T.S. 0) 't It, DE TAIL v CLASH/NG G4.Gr4LV. OE TA / L rS'"� N.T.3. WEAR//VG SUR.=ACE / "CRIJSWE.D IM ROCK o v,ER 2",4.c.) • 0 a ! 2"CER 3"POL YS`TY�QE/VE ` • L(D/DFORM. ro ' /ONSECTIOA1 D # 4 POWEG5 @/Z,. v, ou s Yq�wN•�r.,.....ursFe A , 0 3, v, ou s Yq�wN•�r.,.....ursFe 6'. 2 J Q H Z W Z W Z a W O OZW Z ir 22= WWII j11M»«w«,.w VALUE ENGINEERING PAYS BR/GGE @ CNA/V/VEL- MOVE U0 ` ' � onC /A1 2 7' 0" W � � RE EXIST T NA O L I AI/ < Z-EA1C E . FULL 6„ PROV/AE F 0.57- AS RSD WOiDDF. ,�V ,•p• WN S PE �\ : 3 "A.0 LINE ITE TR/ \ 1MYS7YAENE /D EX/5T ( Z 111 w 1 �D EX/ST, I I SLY CIdANNEL ) VOID, ORM 1. I,- P.4 Vc D V �1 � � ''C UNG?4 VED � � PATROL. F<D.i V TROL R / I ALL_ S4WCUT JO/IV,TO//V EX/ST ' ----- EX/ST. A.C. PVMr V Q r� J NAT/VE G&<)UAID BRAC/A W�v jW Q Q V _ DECK SEE' DETA/L B ,o/Q17✓rnE U SEE DET /L 2 GL -U -LAM STR//VEER 6TYP. Fp,Q .4TT.4C,�ME�tlT' 7A O "A 7A p COMPACTED /VA VE OF MET/-�l. R��'T 7� r q� SOiL i W�piE/V P057- 00 AST (3` ONLy� W N E TI B t' u2 uj PRO V/DE 8" CC C. CURB SCA LE: 3N EACH_S/QE - PE GTY 0= - W' 4 -4 )'? O C 1CA1�GA sTo. DW<S S • No • 30/ - ¢x END D/APHRAM•S 67A EwO. ••M/05PAN Ci 4 X M/DD/APHR%M �' SLAB -- - - - � I APPR04C TVI o` II *t 24 TOP OF WEARING SURFACE rA � I _ i _� Z �8" • METAL AUSAI/NG -- _ — — I I OGE OF C/•/ANNEL. WALL I STA Co "Prl /NTE -so H/ I I I m TOP OF lVEAR/NG SURFACE SEE SECT/OiV G LUZ-AM STR/LAGER waL K— , Q u B„ys7YiQE 8 .8 GLUCAN ANCrUO CT✓P, 6 o) 6-YF)--)- -TYF )� T✓R 3" YO/DFORAY /� PAO7/W TACK GOAT COA C 14 0 UN4ERNEATN 4XCo"N01W/NAL DEGk SLAB I THE SLA)KI "K 3 �O' i74V j 7`1 ' % ' . DEOTH 70 BE SPECIFIED i••Get/5/•I- �. BY &NODE MA,VC/ FA C rURDR .c. - TI 1 � ,TO/N �X�S T. RC�Eit/ED T I CNA/VNEIr W/DTH NA -rI VE GROU"D SURFACE zN� • , "�' _SA•WCU t� .TO//V I 'D A5Xi57'. A C.,44 VE EJIIT.EX/sT. /OEX/ST. /O • i ` , • C.PAV / IPA VED 5#4_4-4G)?/l.L /�/04X @ BAR SPACING TROL D, PATROL O. • . I. J �F/GL HOLE W/ Tip/ ER�x y / /O fi061C EN EX/ST. comcwETE —/ Z" 2', CLEAR. SURFACE ro //4 "AMOT/Tv,DE *40 /a" • APGLY ,B4WZVAAG AGE/1l7� f SEE aErA/L.\EZA DETAIL / SECURE FAIR/C TO //VTERMEQ/ATE P0.STS W/TM //4" 0 NEX AlEAD SELF �� 45 MAX TAA0/NG SCR4C IS 3/4 X O -/*SPACWG �-A44s/,lEie B A4" � M9. of S G4 . CAWAY G/A/K FABR/C U PROV/OE 3" WEAR/NG SURFACE A0PA0AGA-1 54AS TO LKYL/GtiT. eOr4q IL E�t/OS oma / E M 8B 5 ES rABUS�ED � ay CG I rRACTolt �1.76 D o AIAX /O- _ a4Y/-/&/4r C. -r YR.) �J RECOMPACT ��� J J Bomm z' cam- sua ?Aa W 4j � A STEEL W/RE SRAGIAIGS CrY.40) SEE AC ETA/L 7 G7 GLULAAf ST -RINGER ALLPosrs) w r4G ,. L 3x4 "x 3/g" SSL V. (0) _ 4/43•/ N8 8" TN/GK CONCRETEnil - APPRGLACN SI -AB <Z� 5te' /8110 A SEE DET�4/ ' NEit/ EX/ST. COA/CRE rE CSR SURFACE UNDERA/EATy BEAR/NG PAD. TAl FORM %WCT/CW A SCALE / "=5' NOTE: ALL O/MEMS/CWS SAA ULD ZE F/ELO VER/,=/EO PR/CR Tb CAST/NG CW- APPR+O,4CI 5 LA B SECT/ON. M/.4/OR VARIA-r10"S O� WALL Q/MEit/S/GLt/S AA10 E1-EVA-r1C VS' MAY 00CC . DET�4 /L SEE DETAIL. FOY4 A, ASAI/AIG I jjjjjj��::�''8000: EL ASrcWMERg1C-GAD FOR /NFO. NOT SA/O�c/N .SEE OETAU- DETA/L 3 N.T.S. SAFETY PAYS W .._ bridge site ch° a Ov% 004 oao ave. foo. hill %I Ca► VICINITY MAP 3"WEAR/NG SURFACE 2 .0-4 --, /Z" /5 rA AL(0400� rs. WEAR/NG SURFAJE -C 3'; A.CwGWLV) N. T.S. -&4 co') /G LOCATION MAP /O'• 0 ' 6.1 4 3 "Pay5 Ygo5A/E Irt 1'or-ofZM SEC A/ r5. ENGINEER: J.P. KAPP dt ASSOCIATES INC. CONSULTfNG CML ENGN"UMS, SURVEYORS AND PLANNERS 15892 PASADENA AVENUE TU&TIN, CALIFORNIA 95880 (714) 710.5757 # 4 DOWEL5 @/Z/, :7U f GORM,YEMP PWIMG OFFICE 19W-184.134 d0 N W M W z W � 1 W V h v zi 6'. 2 J Q H Z W Z W Z a W O OZW Z ir 22= WWII j11M»«w«,.w VALUE ENGINEERING PAYS BR/GGE @ CNA/V/VEL- MOVE U0 ` ' � onC /A1 2 7' 0" W � � RE EXIST T NA O L I AI/ < Z-EA1C E . FULL 6„ PROV/AE F 0.57- AS RSD WOiDDF. ,�V ,•p• WN S PE �\ : 3 "A.0 LINE ITE TR/ \ 1MYS7YAENE /D EX/5T ( Z 111 w 1 �D EX/ST, I I SLY CIdANNEL ) VOID, ORM 1. I,- P.4 Vc D V �1 � � ''C UNG?4 VED � � PATROL. F<D.i V TROL R / I ALL_ S4WCUT JO/IV,TO//V EX/ST ' ----- EX/ST. A.C. PVMr V Q r� J NAT/VE G&<)UAID BRAC/A W�v jW Q Q V _ DECK SEE' DETA/L B ,o/Q17✓rnE U SEE DET /L 2 GL -U -LAM STR//VEER 6TYP. Fp,Q .4TT.4C,�ME�tlT' 7A O "A 7A p COMPACTED /VA VE OF MET/-�l. R��'T 7� r q� SOiL i W�piE/V P057- 00 AST (3` ONLy� W N E TI B t' u2 uj PRO V/DE 8" CC C. CURB SCA LE: 3N EACH_S/QE - PE GTY 0= - W' 4 -4 )'? O C 1CA1�GA sTo. DW<S S • No • 30/ - ¢x END D/APHRAM•S 67A EwO. ••M/05PAN Ci 4 X M/DD/APHR%M �' SLAB -- - - - � I APPR04C TVI o` II *t 24 TOP OF WEARING SURFACE rA � I _ i _� Z �8" • METAL AUSAI/NG -- _ — — I I OGE OF C/•/ANNEL. WALL I STA Co "Prl /NTE -so H/ I I I m TOP OF lVEAR/NG SURFACE SEE SECT/OiV G LUZ-AM STR/LAGER waL K— , Q u B„ys7YiQE 8 .8 GLUCAN ANCrUO CT✓P, 6 o) 6-YF)--)- -TYF )� T✓R 3" YO/DFORAY /� PAO7/W TACK GOAT COA C 14 0 UN4ERNEATN 4XCo"N01W/NAL DEGk SLAB I THE SLA)KI "K 3 �O' i74V j 7`1 ' % ' . DEOTH 70 BE SPECIFIED i••Get/5/•I- �. BY &NODE MA,VC/ FA C rURDR .c. - TI 1 � ,TO/N �X�S T. RC�Eit/ED T I CNA/VNEIr W/DTH NA -rI VE GROU"D SURFACE zN� • , "�' _SA•WCU t� .TO//V I 'D A5Xi57'. A C.,44 VE EJIIT.EX/sT. /OEX/ST. /O • i ` , • C.PAV / IPA VED 5#4_4-4G)?/l.L /�/04X @ BAR SPACING TROL D, PATROL O. • . I. J �F/GL HOLE W/ Tip/ ER�x y / /O fi061C EN EX/ST. comcwETE —/ Z" 2', CLEAR. SURFACE ro //4 "AMOT/Tv,DE *40 /a" • APGLY ,B4WZVAAG AGE/1l7� f SEE aErA/L.\EZA DETAIL / SECURE FAIR/C TO //VTERMEQ/ATE P0.STS W/TM //4" 0 NEX AlEAD SELF �� 45 MAX TAA0/NG SCR4C IS 3/4 X O -/*SPACWG �-A44s/,lEie B A4" � M9. of S G4 . CAWAY G/A/K FABR/C U PROV/OE 3" WEAR/NG SURFACE A0PA0AGA-1 54AS TO LKYL/GtiT. eOr4q IL E�t/OS oma / E M 8B 5 ES rABUS�ED � ay CG I rRACTolt �1.76 D o AIAX /O- _ a4Y/-/&/4r C. -r YR.) �J RECOMPACT ��� J J Bomm z' cam- sua ?Aa W 4j � A STEEL W/RE SRAGIAIGS CrY.40) SEE AC ETA/L 7 G7 GLULAAf ST -RINGER ALLPosrs) w r4G ,. L 3x4 "x 3/g" SSL V. (0) _ 4/43•/ N8 8" TN/GK CONCRETEnil - APPRGLACN SI -AB <Z� 5te' /8110 A SEE DET�4/ ' NEit/ EX/ST. COA/CRE rE CSR SURFACE UNDERA/EATy BEAR/NG PAD. TAl FORM %WCT/CW A SCALE / "=5' NOTE: ALL O/MEMS/CWS SAA ULD ZE F/ELO VER/,=/EO PR/CR Tb CAST/NG CW- APPR+O,4CI 5 LA B SECT/ON. M/.4/OR VARIA-r10"S O� WALL Q/MEit/S/GLt/S AA10 E1-EVA-r1C VS' MAY 00CC . DET�4 /L SEE DETAIL. FOY4 A, ASAI/AIG I jjjjjj��::�''8000: EL ASrcWMERg1C-GAD FOR /NFO. NOT SA/O�c/N .SEE OETAU- DETA/L 3 N.T.S. SAFETY PAYS W .._ bridge site ch° a Ov% 004 oao ave. foo. hill %I Ca► VICINITY MAP 3"WEAR/NG SURFACE 2 .0-4 --, /Z" /5 rA AL(0400� rs. WEAR/NG SURFAJE -C 3'; A.CwGWLV) N. T.S. -&4 co') /G LOCATION MAP /O'• 0 ' 6.1 4 3 "Pay5 Ygo5A/E Irt 1'or-ofZM SEC A/ r5. ENGINEER: J.P. KAPP dt ASSOCIATES INC. CONSULTfNG CML ENGN"UMS, SURVEYORS AND PLANNERS 15892 PASADENA AVENUE TU&TIN, CALIFORNIA 95880 (714) 710.5757 # 4 DOWEL5 @/Z/, :7U f GORM,YEMP PWIMG OFFICE 19W-184.134 r L. z J cr H- MW IZWZ W Z 0 z W ZZ= W W I.- n ` VALUE ­ ENGINEERING PAYS i� I EX/ST/NG p 8Cr4LE: I ' 5 c-� SECURE FABRIC TO INTERMEDIATE S �NM/N POSTS W/TAI //4 "0 /,/EX AtEAO .SELF 8'-&N/VAX' TAPP//VG SCR,=_WS SAC//VG 4 -WASHER @ 14" 14AX. Com' RATS Q SEE zx=- zvL 7 a CRL4. C-AIA/N LINK FABRIC U _7 C -7A / "MESH. �T.S- 3 xZ"X ./875"erVP, PROWZoE .3~ WEAR/NG .AZ4 AaaSTS) SURFACE — P END OF AOORQ4C„H E SLAB TO A4 YVGNT_ ,BOTiy &Al aS 0)= C -7A ISR106E GR440E TO BE EST SNFD 6Y dbi /rRAGTG� /0;/o MA k' 8'Ti41CK CONCRETE STEEL lac//RE � � APGRO4Gf4 SLAB. E3RAG/�GS �TYP� SEE TA/L C 77 L 4YLIG1aT1 401T /L 4 ,. 'oop RECOMA4C7r- —, V 34, VOID An" earrom z, cow sv ,D,E 3 W To 95% f 7YRi) STAIL3 SEE DETAIL / V 1�9�r1r 71K tiL 8 SECTioN A sca�E �-=s� �J M SEE DETA/L 5 #'��/ZN Z 8 N. 3"WEARING SURFACE FtR 042 ASS!• AIC, / °. . 1�7 RxYSTYREVE °• , r REMOVE EX/ST C` VAIN 0 + YO/DFORM - # �4 U @ /Z" 4/NK FENCE FULL IO / O" r 6 ` I _ �' W/OTN Off• ,BR/!XaE _ //Z �� ASM14 RIC �.�D. oRokl/o,E �sr AS -0• Rte' .I _ �,.X�„ �, .. .OA /A . PELAGE. i /5 �3 dt 5 WOODEAl FOR /NFO. A/DT S�,/D!�/N POST ANO SEE OET•4 /Lr7� ° ♦, C�/AN/VEL -STA i R�4 /LS _ 3 f� -f (I2- SEE DETA/L S I\9 I FCV? ATTACHMENT 7A I QFME�aL F0ST TO 3 � WEARING SURFACE � � I k/GUG�EN R'�IST. ( I ,CRUS4-J ROCK OVER META /L.r4 7 0P O)c ME7"AL GGAS�4/NG ' CAVAMMiS� DETAIL 3C-ATGA�V WAL / L WGY�DE/V DEQ DeCK E3R4C/NG SEE DETA/L Z -- GLU --LAM STR /LAGERS SCA L,E / l' w z 4X ENO 0/AP11,9AMS EACH ENO DAE;rAlL. S 4"X MID- D/APHAAM @ MIOSPAAI N.T.S. TOP OF WEARI/VG SURFACE METAL AAaAIIAI&s D�CaE OF C"AAWEL. WALL WEAR/NG SURFACE ­00 got 2"A.C. TDP G'1�' //EAR/NG SL/RFACE / # 4 D�Dk�ELS 8,. M LAM STRINGER . •, /0__ T, „ o /z 3 RZYSTYRENE . N // e �GLIlLAM ANC�•�O 4 .. -e .. • D'_ O 1�0/OFORM PROVIDE rACk COAT UNL�ERNEA774 Ilolp F'd�eM We � / / ¢ " X & " /1lOM//vA L DECK � . SECTION (oc ljjjj!!li�11:11� {D ° DEPTH TO BE S1'ECIFIF-D SCALE=/" ' O 1 I Cay BRIDGE. MAI�IUFACI-UPF-F- =2 N. T.S. Q S�/RFy4CE41.o • - �4G�' " 2 ' o" Els of SrR��vGER C0lNGRE72S:7 � : • 4 G17h/E.5 ale" f/GNEN EX/ST CONC/?E TE --._/ 2' 2" BAR • s Y SURFACE TO 114" AMAT/TL/,GIE AAQW . �aACi °4GENT "1t4 Q /Z ' T - k'L Fc r DETAIL GLUL�IM. STR//V6ER SHOE L s xa "x /8a 0 A6 RaAS'/•1EN EX/ST. CONCRETE Cl EAR •�t/RFACE IJNOERNEAT/•/ ,BEAR/NG R4D. TA/L N.rs. NOTE ,IALL GIME AS/at/S S.40[uc_ 0 eE F/ELO VER/F/EO PRIOR TO C 4ST/NG 0= A,OP/241CN SLAB SST/01V. MIAIOR VAA?Z4T/ONS o.41= 1c/ALL 0/tilEitlS10A S A,,VO EL EVA T/gtilS A4A V OCCUR. SAFETY PAYS aim yj ,._ bridge site o r �Gh a � ?�► 0 �. get x � ave. GE p ARK HER1T A blvd• LOCATION MAP VICINITY MAP o a , A6151 �6 C,n: AFTF" EN GINE J.P. KAPP dt ASSOCIATES INC. CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS AND PLANNERS 15882 PASADENA AVENUE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92880 61 (714) 730-5757 r *U i "WINNI EW nwM" o"a 1M0-10-136 �. .; SYMWI "In A1910VAu REVISIONS J.P. KAPP • ASSOCIATES U. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT LOS ANGELES CORPS OF ENGINEERS Wilom Byl SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN,CALtFORNIA CUCAMONGA AND DEMENS CREEK, SAN BERNARDINO AND RIVERSIDE COUNTIES CUCAMONGA AND DEMENS CREEK RECREATION CUCAMONGA/DEMENS CREEK MAWN IlYs Mow IY, RANCHO WASH BRIDGE STA. 13+50 SUl1MITTED EYe DATE: SPEC. NO. DAC A 09- __kQ D. Q.QA5 SHEET A DRAWING N0. DISTRICT FILE N0. r *U i "WINNI EW nwM" o"a 1M0-10-136 �. .; APPENDIX 3 BRIDGE C - EQUESTRIAN NOT TO SCALE BRIDGE C - EQUESTRIAN PLAN VIEW NOT TO SCALE BRIDGE WIDTH = 10' APPROX. CLEAR WIDTH = 8' APPROX. 22" APPROX. BRIDGE D - EQUESTRIAN NOT TO SCALE BRIDGE D - EQUESTRIAN PLAN VIEW NOT TO SCALE EXISTING BRIDGES BRIDGE WIDTH = 8.5' APPROX. CLEAR WIDTH = 8" APPROX. 21" APPROX. BRIDGE E - PEDESTRIAN NOT TO SCALE BRIDGE E - PEDESTRIAN PLAN VIEW NOT TO SCALE BRIDGE F - VEHICULAR NOT TO SCALE I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I N I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I BRIDGE F - VEHICULAR PLAN VIEW NOT TO SCALE 0 BRIDGE WIDTH = 10.5" APPROX. CLEAR WIDTH = 10' APPROX. 22" APPROX. BRIDGE G - EQUESTRIAN NOT TO SCALE BRIDGE G - EQUESTRIAN PLAN VIEW NOT TO SCALE EXISTING BRIDGES APPENDIX 4 CLEAR WIDTH = 8'-0" CLEAR WIDTH = 10'-0" = CD o " o o o 12" 6" 22" 0 CO a- o d ~ 12" 7 ~ 12" 6" 6" N � N 11'- o 13,-o" BRIDGE E - PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES C, D, AND G - EQUESTRIAN OPTIONAL FENCING NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE CLEAR WIDTH 28'-0" o � I � o12 26'-0" 12 o I 0 CO d I � OPTIONAL FENCING BRIDGE F - VEHICULAR NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE ALTERNATIVE 1 - CONSTRUCTION OPTION 1: CAST -IN-PLACE CONCRETE DECK CONCEPTUAL = " " 12" 6" 22" 31'-0" CLEAR WIDTH - 8' CLEAR WIDTH - 10' o o o 12" 12" 6" 6" :0 '01 E BRIDGE E - PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES C, D, AND G - EQUESTRIAN OPTIONAL FENCING NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE CLEAR WIDTH = 28' CD o 12" 26' 12" 0 I 0 CO d I � 12" 6" 4 18" BRIDGE F - VEHICULAR OPTIONAL FENCING NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE ALTERNATIVE 1 - CONSTRUCTION OPTION 2: PRECAST PRESTRESSED CONCRETE DECK PANELS CONCEPTUAL CLEAR WIDTH = 8'-0" CLEAR WIDTH - 10'-0" o o o o o o Q0 o a_ 9" EQ EQ EQ 9" 9" EQ EQ F Q 9- L 13'-0" OPTIONAL FENCING BRIDGE E - PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES C, D, AND G - EQUESTRIAN NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE CLEAR WIDTH = 28'-0" o o 26'-0" 12" �I 0 6" 8" 22" 9" EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ 9" 31'-0" OPTIONAL FENCING NOT TO SCALE BRIDGE F - VEHICULAR NOT TO SCALE ALTERNATIVE 1 - CONSTRUCTION OPTION 3: STEEL GIRDERS, CAST -IN-PLACE CONCRETE DECK CONCEPTUAL CLEAR WIDTH = 10'-0" CLEAR WIDTH = 8'-0" 0 I 0 0 I 0 22 22" N N I I N N BRIDGE E - PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES C, D, AND G - EQUESTRIAN NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE O I 0 r --I r--1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SIDE VIEW - EQUESTRIAN BRIDGE NOT TO SCALE ALTERNATIVE 1 - OPTION 4: STEEL TRUSS BRIDGE WITH WOOD PLANK DECKING CONCEPTUAL 12" (TYP) (TYP) 9,—o" 9,—o" 11'-2" 1, 5„ 6„ 13'-2„ (TYP) (TYP) BRIDGE E - PEDESTRIAN NOT TO SCALE BRIDGES C, D, AND G - EQUESTRIAN NOT TO SCALE 12" (TYP) 9'o„ (TYP) 31'2" (TYP) BRIDGE F - VEHICULAR NOT TO SCALE ALTERNATIVE 1 - OPTIONS 1, 2, AND 3 - ABUTMENTS AND FOOTINGS CONCEPTUAL CLEAR WIDTH = 10'-0" o a o I � I o ~ o 'o d 7 ~ 12" 6" N 13'0" OPTIONAL FENCING BRIDGES C, D, AND G - EQUESTRIAN NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE CLEAR WIDTH = 35-0" o � I � o 8'0" 26'0" 12" o I PEDESTRIAN VEHICULAR o o a_ I � r7 12" 6" 22" 38'-0" BRIDGES E AND F - COMBINED PEDESTRIAN & VEHICULAR OPTIONAL FENCING NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE ALTERNATIVE 2 - CONSTRUCTION OPTION 1: CAST -IN-PLACE CONCRETE DECK CONCEPTUAL CLEAR WIDTH = 10' o o � o I o o � ~ 12" 6" J IF N 13' BRIDGES C, D, AND G - EQUESTRIAN OPTIONAL FENCING NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE CLEAR WIDTH = 35' o � _ � o 8'-0" 26' 12'' o PEDESTRIAN VEHICULAR I � 12" 6" 18" BRIDGES E AND F - COMBINED PEDESTRIAN & VEHICULAR OPTIONAL FENCING NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE ALTERNATIVE 2 - OPTION 2: PRECAST PRESTRESSED CONCRETE DECK PANELS CONCEPTUAL 0 0 O O 9" EO EQ EQ 9" 13' - 0" OPTIONAL FENCING BRIDGES C, D, AND G - EQUESTRIAN NOT TO SCALE BRIDGES E AND F - COMBINED PEDESTRIAN & VEHICULAR NOT TO SCALE OPTIONAL FENCING NOT TO SCALE ALTERNATIVE 2 - CONSTRUCTION OPTION 3: STEEL GIRDERS, CAST -IN-PLACE CONCRETE DECK 10010rol:92r11111Y_ll 6" (TYP) 12 11 13'-2" BRIDGES C, D, AND G - EQUESTRIAN NOT TO SCALE (TYP) BRIDGES E AND F - COMBINED PEDESTRIAN & VEHICULAR NOT TO SCALE ALTERNATIVE 2 - OPTIONS 1, 21 AND 3 - ABUTMENTS AND FOOTINGS CONCEPTUAL (TYP) 9'0„ (TYP) 3'-8„ 38'2" (TYP) BRIDGES E AND F - COMBINED PEDESTRIAN & VEHICULAR NOT TO SCALE ALTERNATIVE 2 - OPTIONS 1, 21 AND 3 - ABUTMENTS AND FOOTINGS CONCEPTUAL CLEAR WIDTH = 10'-0" CD o � � cl� 412" 6" N N � 13'0" BRIDGES C AND D - EQUESTRIAN NOT TO SCALE CLEAR WIDTH = 35-0" CLEAR WIDTH = 10'-0" o EQUESTRIAN CD 8'-0" 26'-0" 12" 0 PEDESTRIAN VEHICULAR � 1 12" (TYP) 8" (TYP) 6" 22"6 22" 'I j 50'-0" BRIDGES E, F, AND G - COMBINED PEDESTRIAN, VEHICULAR, AND EQUESTRIAN NOT TO SCALE ALTERNATIVE 3 - CONSTRUCTION OPTION 1: CAST -IN-PLACE CONCRETE DECK CONCEPTUAL CLEAR WIDTH = 10' o � I � o � I � 6" 13' APPROX. BRIDGES C AND D - EQUESTRIAN NOT TO SCALE CLEAR WIDTH = 35' CLEAR WIDTH = 10' o EQUESTRIAN Q0 o 8'-0" 26' 12"I 0 PEDESTRIAN VEHICULAR I � 12TYP) 18" (TYP) " ( 6" 18 18" 6" 50 BRIDGES E, F, AND G - COMBINED PEDESTRIAN, VEHICULAR, AND EQUESTRIAN NOT TO SCALE ALTERNATIVE 3 - CONSTRUCTION OPTION 2: PRECAST PRESTRESSED CONCRETE DECK PANELS CONCEPTUAL CLEAR WIDTH = 10'-0" c, o ~ 1g„ 7„ 9" EQ EQ EQ 9" 13'-0" BRIDGES C AND D - EQUESTRIAN NOT TO SCALE CLEAR WIDTH = 35-0" CLEAR WIDTH = 10'-0" CD EQUESTRIAN Q0 26'-0" 12"1 0 PEDESTRIAN VEHICULAR CO a- I � 12" (TYP) 6" (TYP) 8" 22„ 22„ 8" 9" --------------------- W1 W1 W1 W1 W1 W1 W1 W1 W2 W2 W2 (TYP) 49'-6" BRIDGES E, F, AND G - COMBINED PEDESTRIAN, VEHICULAR, AND EQUESTRIAN NOT TO SCALE ALTERNATIVE 3 - CONSTRUCTION OPTION 3: STEEL GIRDERS, CAST -IN-PLACE CONCRETE DECK CONCEPTUAL V-1" (TYP) 9'0„ 6" 13'-2„ (TYP) BRIDGES C AND D - EQUESTRIAN NOT TO SCALE 12" (TYP) 9'-4" (TYP) 3'8" 50'-2,> (TYP) BRIDGES E, F AND G - COMBINED PEDESTRIAN, VEHICULAR, AND EQUESTRIAN NOT TO SCALE ALTERNATIVE 3 - OPTIONS 1, 2, AND 3 - ABUTMENTS AND FOOTINGS CONCEPTUAL CD CD Q0 a_ I � 12" (TYP) CLEAR WIDTH — 28'-0" VEHICULAR CLEAR WIDTH — 10'-0" SHARED EQUESTRIAN & PEDESTRIAN 18" (TYP) 6" r22" I F 17 r 6" r22„ 42'-6" BRIDGES E, F, AND G - VEHICULAR AND SHARED EQUESTRIAN AND PEDESTRIAN NOT TO SCALE ALTERNATIVE 4 - CONSTRUCTION OPTION 1: CAST -IN-PLACE CONCRETE DECK Q0 I 0 rK61,01rm=3II1AI CLEAR WIDTH = 28'-0" CLEAR WIDTH = 10'-0" o SHARED EQUESTRIAN & PEDESTRIAN _ o 12" 26'0" 12" 0 VEHICULAR 18" (TYP) 12" (TYP) 6" 18 F 6" 18" cV 42'- 6" BRIDGES E, F, AND G - VEHICULAR AND SHARED EQUESTRIAN AND PEDESTRIAN NOT TO SCALE ALTERNATIVE 4 - CONSTRUCTION OPTION 2: PRECAST PRESTRESSED CONCRETE DECK PANELS CONCEPTUAL CLEAR WIDTH - 28'-0" CLEAR WIDTH = 10'-0" o SHARED EQUESTRIAN & PEDESTRIAN Q0 o 12" 26'-0" 12" 0 VEHICULAR 6" (TYP) 12" (TYP) 8" 22" F 22" 8" 9" 1 W1 W1 W1 W1 W1 W1 W2 W2 W2 (TYP) 42'-6" BRIDGES E, F, AND G - VEHICULAR AND SHARED EQUESTRIAN AND PEDESTRIAN NOT TO SCALE ALTERNATIVE 4 - CONSTRUCTION OPTION 3: STEEL GIRDERS, CAST -IN-PLACE CONCRETE DECK CONCEPTUAL 12" (TYP) (TYP) 10'2" (TYP) 42'8" BRIDGES E, F, AND G - VEHICULAR AND SHARED EQUESTRIAN AND PEDESTRIAN NOT TO SCALE ALTERNATIVE 4 - OPTIONS 1, 2, AND 3 - ABUTMENTS AND FOOTINGS APPENDIX 5 Alternative 1- Construction Option 1 Cast -In -Place Reinforced Concrete Deck Equestrian Bridge C: Deck Width = 13', Deck Span =26' 6' High Chain Link Fencing Decorative Reinforced Concrete Barrier Concrete Wearing Slab Reinforced Concrete Deck Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Reinforced Concrete Piles Unit Cost Cost Length (ft) = 52 $150 $7,800 Length (ft) = 52 $500 $26,000 Width (ft) = 10 Length (ft) = 26 Area (ft) = 260 $35 $9,100 Width (ft) = 13 Span (ft) = 26 Thickness (inch) = 16 Volume (ft) = 451 Volume (yd3)= 17 $1,200 1 $20,030 Cross Sectional Area (ft) = 7 Length (ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft) = 196 Volume (yd3)= 7 $1,200 1 $8,711 Pile Diameter (inch) = 18 Pile Length (ft) = 12 Number of Piles = 4 Total Pile Length = 48 $900 $43,200 Total = $114,841 Use $115,000 Alternative 1- Construction Option 1 Cast -In -Place Reinforced Concrete Deck Equestrian Bridge D: Deck Width = 13', Deck Span = 18' 6' High Chain Link Fencing Decoratiive Reinforced Concrete Barrier Concrete Wearing Slab Reinforced Concrete Deck Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Reinforced Concrete Piles Unit Cost Cost Length (ft) = 36 $150 $5,400 Length (ft) = 36 $500 $18,000 Width (ft) = 10 Length (ft) = 18 Area (ft) = 180 $35 $6,300 Width (ft) = 13 Span (ft) = 18 Thickness (inch) = 16 Volume (ft) = 312 Volume (yd3)= 12 $1,200 1 $13,867 Cross Sectional Area (ft) = 7 Length (ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft) = 196 Volume (yd3)= 7 $1,200 1 $8,711 Pile Diameter (inch) = 18 Pile Length (ft) = 11 Number of Piles = 4 Total Pile Length = 44 $900 $39,600 Total = $91,878 Use $95.,000 Alternative 1- Construction Option 1 Cast -In -Place Reinforced Concrete Deck Pedestrian Bridge E: Deck Width = 11', Deck Span = 20' 6' High Chain Link Fencing Decorative Reinforced Concrete Barrier Concrete Wearing Slab Reinforced Concrete Deck Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Reinforced Concrete Piles Unit Cost Cost Length (ft) = 40 $150 $6,000 Length (ft) = 40 $500 $20,000 Width (ft) = 8 Length (ft) = 20 Area (ft) = 160 $35 $5,600 Width (ft) = 11 Span (ft) = 20 Thickness (inch) = 16 Volume (ft) = 293 Volume (yd3)= 11 $1,200 1 $13,037 Cross Sectional Area (ft) = 7 Length (ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft) = 196 Volume (yd3)= 7 $1,200 1 $8,711 Pile Diameter (inch) = 18 Pile Length (ft) = 11.5 Number of Piles = 4 Total Pile Length = 46 $900 $41,400 Total = $94,748 Use $95,000 Alternative 1- Construction Option 1 Cast -In -Place Reinforced Concrete Deck Vehicular Bridge F: Deck Width = 31', Deck Span = 20' 6' High Chain Link Fencing Decorative Reinforced Concrete Barrier Concrete Wearing Slab Reinforced Concrete Deck Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Reinforced Concrete Piles Unit Cost Cost Length (ft) = 40 $150 $6,000 Length (ft) = 40 $600 $24,000 Width (ft) = 26 Length (ft) = 20 Area (ft) = 520 $35 $18,200 Width (ft) = 31 Span (ft) = 20 Thickness (inch) = 16 Volume (ft) = 827 Volume (yd3)= 31 $1,200 1 $36,741 Cross Sectional Area (ft) = 7 Length (ft) = 35 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft) = 490 Volume (yd3)= 18 $1,200 1 $21,778 Pile Diameter (inch) = 18 Pile Length (ft) = 11.5 Number of Piles = 8 Total Pile Length = 92 $900 $82,800 Total = $189,519 Use $190,000 Alternative 1- Construction Option 1 Cast -In -Place Reinforced Concrete Deck Equestrian Bridge G: Deck Width = 13', Deck Span = 20' 6' High Chain Link Fencing Decorative Reinforced Concrete Barrier Concrete Wearing Slab Reinforced Concrete Deck Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Reinforced Concrete Piles Unit Cost Cost Length (ft) = 40 $150 $6,000 Length (ft) = 40 $500 $20,000 Width (ft) = 10 Length (ft) = 20 Area (ft) = 200 $35 $7,000 Width (ft) = 13 Span (ft) = 20 Thickness (inch) = 16 Volume (ft) = 347 Volume (yd3)= 13 $1,200 1 $15,407 Cross Sectional Area (ft) = 7 Length (ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft) = 196 Volume (yd3)= 7 $1,200 1 $8,711 Pile Diameter (inch) = 18 Pile Length (ft) = 11.5 Number of Piles = 4 Total Pile Length = 46 $900 $41,400 Total = $98,519 Use $100,000 Alternative 1- Construction Option 2 Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck Panels Equestrian Bridge C: Deck Width = 13', Deck Span =26' 6' High Chain Link Fencing Decorative Reinforced Concrete Barrier Concrete Wearing Slab Reinforced Concrete Deck Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Reinforced Concrete Piles Unit Cost Cost Length (ft) = 52 $150 $7,800 Length (ft) = 52 $500 $26,000 Width (ft) = 10 Length (ft) = 26 Area (ft) = 260 $35 $9,100 Width (ft) = 13 Span (ft) = 26 Thickness (inch) = 12 Area (ft) = 338 $80 $27,040 Cross Sectional Area (ft) = 7 Length (ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft) = 196 Volume (yd3)= 7 $1,200 1 $8,711 Pile Diameter (inch) = 18 Pile Length (ft) = 12 Number of Piles = 4 Total Pile Length = 48 $900 $43,200 Total = $121,851 USE $125,000 Alternative 1- Construction Option 2 Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck Panels Equestrian Bridge D: Deck Width = 13', Deck Span = 18' 6' High Chain Link Fencing Decorative Reinforced Concrete Barrier Concrete Wearing Slab Reinforced Concrete Deck Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Reinforced Concrete Piles Unit Cost Cost Length (ft) = 36 $150 $5,400 Length (ft) = 36 $500 $18,000 Width (ft) = 10 Length (ft) = 18 Area (ft) = 180 $35 $6,300 Width (ft) = 13 Span (ft) = 18 Thickness (inch) = 12 Area (ft) = 234 $80 $18,720 Cross Sectional Area (ft) = 7 Length (ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft) = 196 Volume (yd3)= 7 $1,200 1 $8,711 Pile Diameter (inch) = 18 Pile Length (ft) = 11 Number of Piles = 4 Total Pile Length = 44 $900 $39,600 Total = $96,731 USE $100,000 Alternative 1- Construction Option 2 Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck Panels Pedestrian Bridge E: Deck Width = 11', Deck Span = 20' 6' High Chain Link Fencing Decorative Reinforced Concrete Barrier Concrete Wearing Slab Reinforced Concrete Deck Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Reinforced Concrete Piles Unit Cost Cost Length (ft) = 40 $150 $6,000 Length (ft) = 40 $500 $20,000 Width (ft) = 8 Length (ft) = 20 Area (ft) = 160 $35 $5,600 Width (ft) = 11 Span (ft) = 20 Thickness (inch) = 12 Area (ft) = 220 $80 $17,600 Cross Sectional Area (ft) = 7 Length (ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft) = 196 Volume (yd3)= 7 $1,200 1 $8,711 Pile Diameter (inch) = 18 Pile Length (ft) = 11.5 Number of Piles = 4 Total Pile Length = 46 $900 $41,400 Total = $99,311 USE $100,000 Alternative 1- Construction Option 2 Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck Panels Vehicular Bridge F: Deck Width = 31', Deck Span = 20' 6' High Chain Link Fencing Decorative Reinforced Concrete Barrier Concrete Wearing Slab Reinforced Concrete Deck Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Reinforced Concrete Piles Unit Cost Cost Length (ft) = 40 $150 $6,000 Length (ft) = 40 $600 $24,000 Width (ft) = 26 Length (ft) = 20 Area (ft) = 520 $35 $18,200 Width (ft) = 31 Span (ft) = 20 Thickness (inch) = 12 Area (ft) = 620 $80 $49,600 Cross Sectional Area (ft) = 7 Length (ft) = 35 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft) = 490 Volume (yd3)= 18 $1,200 1 $21,778 Pile Diameter (inch) = 18 Pile Length (ft) = 11.5 Number of Piles = 8 Total Pile Length = 92 $900 $82,800 Total = $202,378 USE $205,000 Alternative 1- Construction Option 2 Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck Panels Equestrian Bridge G: Deck Width = 13', Deck Span = 20' 6' High Chain Link Fencing Decorative Reinforced Concrete Barrier Concrete Wearing Slab Reinforced Concrete Deck Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Reinforced Concrete Piles Unit Cost Cost Length (ft) = 40 $150 $6,000 Length (ft) = 40 $500 $20,000 Width (ft) = 10 Length (ft) = 20 Area (ft) = 200 $35 $7,000 Width (ft) = 13 Span (ft) = 20 Thickness (inch) = 12 Volume (yd3)= 260 $80 $20,800 Cross Sectional Area (ft) = 7 Length (ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft) = 196 Volume (yd3)= 7 $1,200 1 $8,711 Pile Diameter (inch) = 18 Pile Length (ft) = 11.5 Number of Piles = 4 Total Pile Length = 46 $900 $41,400 Total = $103,911 USE $105,000 Alternative 2 - Construction Option 1 Cast -In -Place Reinforced Concrete Deck Equestrian Bridge C: Deck Width = 13', Deck Span =26' 6' High Chain Link Fencing Decorative Reinforced Concrete Barrier Concrete Wearing Slab Reinforced Concrete Deck Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Reinforced Concrete Piles Unit Cost Cost Length (ft) = 52 $150 $7,800 Length (ft) = 52 $500 $26,000 Width (ft) = 10 Length (ft) = 26 Area (ft) = 260 $35 $9,100 Width (ft) = 13 Span (ft) = 26 Thickness (inch) = 16 Volume (ft) = 451 Volume (yd3)= 17 $1,200 1 $20,030 Cross Sectional Area (ft) = 7 Length (ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft) = 196 Volume (yd3)= 7 $1,200 1 $8,711 Pile Diameter (inch) = 18 Pile Length (ft) = 12 Number of Piles = 4 Total Pile Length = 48 $900 $43,200 Total = $114,841 Use $115,000 Alternative 2 - Construction Option 1 Cast -In -Place Reinforced Concrete Deck Equestrian Bridge D: Deck Width = 13', Deck Span = 18' 6' High Chain Link Fencing Decorative Reinforced Concrete Barrier Concrete Wearing Slab Reinforced Concrete Deck Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Reinforced Concrete Piles Unit Cost Cost Length (ft) = 36 $150 $5,400 Length (ft) = 36 $500 $18,000 Width (ft) = 10 Length (ft) = 18 Area (ft) = 180 $35 $6,300 Width (ft) = 13 Span (ft) = 18 Thickness (inch) = 16 Volume (ft) = 312 Volume (yd3)= 12 $1,200 1 $13,867 Cross Sectional Area (ft) = 7 Length (ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft) = 196 Volume (yd3)= 7 $1,200 1 $8,711 Pile Diameter (inch) = 18 Pile Length (ft) = 11 Number of Piles = 4 Total Pile Length = 44 $900 $39,600 Total = $91,878 Use $95,000 Alternative 2 - Construction Option 1 Cast -In -Place Reinforced Concrete Deck Pedestrian Bridge E and Vehicular Bridge F Combined : Deck Width = 38', Deck Span = 20' Unit Cost Cost 6' High Chain Link Fencing Total = $229,059 Use $230,000 Length (ft) = 40 $150 $6,000 Decorative Reinforced Concrete Barrier Length (ft) = 40 $500 $20,000 Concrete Sidewalk/ Barrrier Protection Slab Width (ft) = 11 Length (ft) = 20 Area (ft) = 220 $35 $7,700 Concrete Wearing Slab Width (ft) = 26 Length (ft) = 20 Area (ft) = 520 $35 $18,200 Reinforced Concrete Deck Width (ft) = 38 Span (ft) = 20 Thickness (inch) = 16 Volume (ft) = 1013 Volume (yd3)= 38 $1,200 $45,037 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area (ft) = 7 Length (ft) = 46 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft) = 644 Volume (yd3)= 24 $1,200 $28,622 Reinforced Concrete Piles Pile Diameter (inch) = 18 Pile Length (ft) = 11.5 Number of Piles = 10 Total Pile Length = 115 $900 $103,500 Total = $229,059 Use $230,000 Alternative 2 - Construction Option 1 Cast -In -Place Reinforced Concrete Deck Equestrian Bridge G: Deck Width = 13', Deck Span = 20' 6' High Chain Link Fencing Decorative Reinforced Concrete Barrier Concrete Wearing Slab Reinforced Concrete Deck Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Reinforced Concrete Piles Unit Cost Cost Length (ft) = 40 $150 $6,000 Length (ft) = 40 $500 $20,000 Width (ft) = 10 Length (ft) = 20 Area (ft) = 200 $35 $7,000 Width (ft) = 13 Span (ft) = 20 Thickness (inch) = 16 Volume (ft) = 347 Volume (yd3)= 13 $1,200 1 $15,407 Cross Sectional Area (ft) = 7 Length (ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft) = 196 Volume (yd3)= 7 $1,200 1 $8,711 Pile Diameter (inch) = 18 Pile Length (ft) = 11.5 Number of Piles = 4 Total Pile Length = 46 $900 $41,400 Total = $98,519 Use $100,000 Alternative 2 - Construction Option 2 Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck Panels Equestrian Bridge C: Deck Width = 13', Deck Span =26' 6' High Chain Link Fencing Decorative Reinforced Concrete Barrier Concrete Wearing Slab Reinforced Concrete Deck Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Reinforced Concrete Piles Unit Cost Cost Length (ft) = 52 1 $150 1 $7,800 Length (ft) = 52 1 $500 1 $26,000 Width (ft) = 10 Length (ft) = 26 Area (ft) = 260 $35 $9,100 Width (ft) = 13 Span (ft) = 26 Thickness (inch) = 12 Area (ft) = 338 $80 $27,040 Cross Sectional Area (ft) = 7 Length (ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft) = 196 Volume (yd3)= 7 $1,200 1 $8,711 Pile Diameter (inch) = 18 Pile Length (ft) = 12 Number of Piles = 4 Total Pile Length = 48 $900 $43,200 Total = $121,851 USE $125,000 Alternative 2 - Construction Option 2 Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck Panels Equestrian Bridge D: Deck Width = 13', Deck Span = 18' 6' High Chain Link Fencing Decorative Reinforced Concrete Barrier Concrete Wearing Slab Reinforced Concrete Deck Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Reinforced Concrete Piles Unit Cost Cost Length (ft) = 36 1 $150 1 $5,400 Length (ft) = 36 1 $500 1 $18,000 Width (ft) = 10 Length (ft) = 18 Area (ft) = 180 $35 $6,300 Width (ft) = 13 Span (ft) = 18 Thickness (inch) = 12 Area (ft) = 234 $80 $18,720 Cross Sectional Area (ft) = 7 Length (ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft) = 196 Volume (yd3)= 7 $1,200 1 $8,711 Pile Diameter (inch) = 18 Pile Length (ft) = 11 Number of Piles = 4 Total Pile Length = 44 $900 $39,600 Total = $96,731 USE $100,000 Alternative 2 - Construction Option 2 Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck Panels Pedestrian Bridge E and Vehicular Bridge F Combined : Deck Width = 38', Deck Span = 20' 6' High Chain Link Fencing Decorative Reinforced Concrete Barrier Concrete Sidewalk/ Barrrier Protection Slab Concrete Wearing Slab Reinforced Concrete Deck Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Reinforced Concrete Piles Unit Cost Cost Length (ft) = 40 1 $150 1 $6,000 Length (ft) = 40 1 $500 1 $20,000 Width (ft) = 11 Length (ft) = 20 Area (ft) = 220 $35 $7,700 Width (ft) = 26 Length (ft) = 20 Area (ft) = 520 $35 $18,200 Width (ft) = 38 Span (ft) = 20 Thickness (inch) = 16 Area (ft) = 760 $80 $60,800 Cross Sectional Area (ft) = 7 Length (ft) = 46 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft) = 644 Volume (yd3)= 24 $1,200 1 $28,622 Pile Diameter (inch) = 18 Pile Length (ft) = 11.5 Number of Piles = 10 Total Pile Length = 115 $900 $103,500 Total = $244,822 USE $245,000 Alternative 2 - Construction Option 2 Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck Panels Equestrian Bridge G: Deck Width = 13', Deck Span = 20' 6' High Chain Link Fencing Decorative Reinforced Concrete Barrier Concrete Wearing Slab Reinforced Concrete Deck Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Reinforced Concrete Piles Length (ft) = 40 Length (ft) = 40 Width (ft) = 10 Length (ft) = 20 Area (ft) = 200 Width (ft) = 13 Span (ft) = 20 Thickness (inch) = 16 Area (ft) = 260 Cross Sectional Area (ft) = 7 Length (ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft) = 196 Volume (yd3)= 7 Pile Diameter (inch) = 18 Pile Length (ft) = 11.5 Number of Piles = 4 Total Pile Length = 46 Unit Cost Cost $150 1 $6,000 $500 1 $20,000 $35 1 $7,000 $80 1 $20,800 $1,200 1 $8,711 $900 1 $41,400 Total = $103,911 USE $105,000 Alternative 3 - Construction Option 1 Cast -In -Place Reinforced Concrete Deck Equestrian Bridge C: Deck Width = 13', Deck Span =26' 6' High Chain Link Fencing Decorative Reinforced Concrete Barrier Concrete Wearing Slab Reinforced Concrete Deck Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Reinforced Concrete Piles Unit Cost Cost Length (ft) = 52 $150 $7,800 Length (ft) = 52 $500 $26,000 Width (ft) = 10 Length (ft) = 26 Area (ft) = 260 $35 $9,100 Width (ft) = 13 Span (ft) = 26 Thickness (inch) = 16 Volume (ft) = 451 Volume (yd3)= 17 $1,200 1 $20,030 Cross Sectional Area (ft) = 7 Length (ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft) = 196 Volume (yd3)= 7 $1,200 1 $8,711 Pile Diameter (inch) = 18 Pile Length (ft) = 12 Number of Piles = 4 Total Pile Length = 48 $900 $43,200 Total = $114,841 Use $115,000 Alternative 3 - Construction Option 1 Cast -In -Place Reinforced Concrete Deck Equestrian Bridge D: Deck Width = 13', Deck Span = 18' 6' High Chain Link Fencing Decorative Reinforced Concrete Barrier Concrete Wearing Slab Reinforced Concrete Deck Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Reinforced Concrete Piles Unit Cost Cost Length (ft) = 36 $150 $5,400 Length (ft) = 36 $500 $18,000 Width (ft) = 10 Length (ft) = 18 Area (ft) = 180 $35 $6,300 Width (ft) = 13 Span (ft) = 18 Thickness (inch) = 16 Volume (ft) = 312 Volume (yd3)= 12 $1,200 1 $13,867 Cross Sectional Area (ft) = 7 Length (ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft) = 196 Volume (yd3)= 7 $1,200 1 $8,711 Pile Diameter (inch) = 18 Pile Length (ft) = 11 Number of Piles = 4 Total Pile Length = 44 $900 $39,600 Total = $91,878 Use $95,000 Alternative 3 - Construction Option 1 Cast -In -Place Reinforced Concrete Deck Pedestrian Bridge E, Vehicular Bridge F, and Equestrian Bridge G Combined Deck Width = 50', Deck Span = 20' 6' High Chain Link Fencing Length (ft) = 60 Decorative Reinforced Concrete Barrier Length (ft) = 60 Concrete Sidewalk/ Barrrier Protection Slab Concrete Wearing Slab Reinforced Concrete Deck Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Reinforced Concrete Piles Width (ft) = 11 Length (ft) = 20 Area (ft) = 220 Width (ft) = 36 Length (ft) = 20 Area (ft) = 720 Width (ft) = 50 Span (ft) = 20 Thickness (inch) = 16 Volume (ft) = 1333 Volume (yd3)= 49 Cross Sectional Area (ft) = 7 Length (ft) = 58 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft) = 812 Volume (yd3)= 30 Pile Diameter (inch) = 18 Pile Length (ft) = 11.5 Number of Piles = 12 Total Pile Length (ft) = 138 Unit Cost Cost $150 $9,000 $500 $30,000 $35 1 $7,700 $35 1 $25,200 $1,200 1 $59,259 $1,200 1 $36,089 $900 $124,200 Total = $291,448 Use $295,000 Alternative 3 - Construction Option 2 Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck Panels Equestrian Bridge C: Deck Width = 13', Deck Span =26' 6' High Chain Link Fencing Decorative Reinforced Concrete Barrier Concrete Wearing Slab Reinforced Concrete Deck Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Reinforced Concrete Piles Unit Cost Cost Length (ft) = 52 1 $150 1 $7,800 Length (ft) = 52 1 $500 1 $26,000 Width (ft) = 10 Length (ft) = 26 Area (ft) = 260 $35 $9,100 Width (ft) = 13 Span (ft) = 26 Thickness (inch) = 12 Area (ft) = 338 $80 $27,040 Cross Sectional Area (ft) = 7 Length (ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft) = 196 Volume (yd3)= 7 $1,200 1 $8,711 Pile Diameter (inch) = 18 Pile Length (ft) = 12 Number of Piles = 4 Total Pile Length = 48 $900 $43,200 Total = $121,851 USE $125,000 Alternative 3 - Construction Option 2 Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck Panels Equestrian Bridge D: Deck Width = 13', Deck Span = 18' 6' High Chain Link Fencing Decorative Reinforced Concrete Barrier Concrete Wearing Slab Reinforced Concrete Deck Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Reinforced Concrete Piles Unit Cost Cost Length (ft) = 36 1 $150 1 $5,400 Length (ft) = 36 1 $500 1 $18,000 Width (ft) = 10 Length (ft) = 18 Area (ft) = 180 $35 $6,300 Width (ft) = 13 Span (ft) = 18 Thickness (inch) = 12 Area (ft) = 234 $80 $18,720 Cross Sectional Area (ft) = 7 Length (ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft) = 196 Volume (yd3)= 7 $1,200 1 $8,711 Pile Diameter (inch) = 18 Pile Length (ft) = 11 Number of Piles = 4 Total Pile Length = 44 $900 $39,600 Total = $96,731 USE $100,000 Alternative 3 - Construction Option 2 Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck Panels Pedestrian Bridge E, Vehicular Bridge F, and Equestrian Bridge G Combined Deck Width = 50', Deck Span = 20' 6' High Chain Link Fencing Decorative Reinforced Concrete Barrier Concrete Sidewalk/ Barrrier Protection Slab Concrete Wearing Slab Reinforced Concrete Deck Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Reinforced Concrete Piles Length (ft) = 60 Length (ft) = 60 Width (ft) = 11 Length (ft) = 20 Area (ft) = 220 Width (ft) = 36 Length (ft) = 20 Area (ft) = 720 Width (ft) = 50 Span (ft) = 20 Thickness (inch) = 12 Volume (yd3)= 1000 Cross Sectional Area (ft) = 7 Length (ft) = 58 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft) = 812 Volume (yd3)= 30 Pile Diameter (inch) = 18 Pile Length (ft) = 11.5 Number of Piles = 12 Total Pile Length (ft) = 138 Unit Cost Cost $150 1 $9,000 $500 1 $30,000 $35 1 $7,700 $35 1 $25,200 $80 1 $80,000 $1,200 1 $36,089 $900 $124,200 Total = $312,189 USE $315,000 Alternative 4 - Construction Option 1 Cast -In -Place Reinforced Concrete Deck Single Bridge Serving Pedestrian, Equestrian, and Vehicular Traffic 6' High Chain Link Fencing Length (ft) = 60 Decorative Reinforced Concrete Barrier Length (ft) = 60 Concrete Sidewalk/ Barrrier Protection Slab Concrete Wearing Slab Reinforced Concrete Deck Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Reinforced Concrete Piles Width (ft) = 3 Length (ft) = 20 Area (ft) = 60 Width (ft) = 26 Length (ft) = 20 Area (ft) = 520 Width (ft) = 42.5 Span (ft) = 20 Thickness (inch) = 16 Volume (ft) = 1133 Volume (yd3)= 42 Cross Sectional Area (ft) = 7 Length (ft) = 42.5 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft) = 595 Volume (yd3)= 22 Pile Diameter (inch) = 18 Pile Length (ft) = 11.5 Number of Piles = 10 Total Pile Length = 115 Unit Cost Cost $150 $9,000 $500 $30,000 $35 1 $2,100 $35 1 $18,200 $1,200 1 $50,370 $1,200 1 $26,444 $900 $103,500 Total = $239,615 Use $240,000 Alternative 4 - Construction Option 2 Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck Panels Pedestrian Bridge E, Vehicular Bridge F, and Equestrian Bridge G Combined Deck Width = 42.5', Deck Span = 20' 6' High Chain Link Fencing Decorative Reinforced Concrete Barrier Concrete Sidewalk/ Barrrier Protection Slab Concrete Wearing Slab Reinforced Concrete Deck Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Reinforced Concrete Piles Length (ft) = 60 Length (ft) = 60 Width (ft) = 3 Length (ft) = 20 Area (ft) = 60 Width (ft) = 36 Length (ft) = 20 Area (ft) = 720 Width (ft) = 42.5 Span (ft) = 20 Thickness (inch) = 16 Area (ft) = 850 Cross Sectional Area (ft) = 7 Length (ft) = 50 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft) = 700 Volume (yd3)= 26 Pile Diameter (inch) = 18 Pile Length (ft) = 11.5 Number of Piles = 10 Total Pile Length = 115 Unit Cost Cost $150 1 $9,000 $500 1 $30,000 $35 1 $2,100 $35 1 $25,200 $80 1 $68,000 $1,200 1 $31,111 $900 $103,500 Total = $268,911 USE $270,000