No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-02-12 - Agenda Packet FEBRUARY 12, 2020 TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA RAINS ROOM CITY HALL 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE Page 1 of 2 A. 6:00 P.M. –CALL TO ORDER Roll Call: Francisco Oaxaca _____ Tom Tisler (Bicycle) _____ Tony Morales _____ Carol Douglass (Equestrian) _____ Bryan Dopp (Alternate) _____ Mike Smith (Staff Coordinator)_____ B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Trails Advisory Committee on any item listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Trails Advisory Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Staff Coordinator, depending upon the number of individual members of the audience. This is a professional businessmeeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. C. DISCUSSION ITEMS C1. HERITAGE PARK BRIDGES UPDATE - A study has been performed to evaluate the existing conditions of five (5) bridges at Heritage Park. This update will provide information received from the recent engineering study. Heritage Community Park and Equestrian Arena is located on the southwest corner of Hillside Road and Beryl Street. C2. RANDOLPH DAVIS COMMUNITY TRAIL UPDATE - A study has been performed to assess the trail erosion that occurred in 2019 after a heavy storm event. This update will provide information received and the current status of the existing trail. Randolph Davis Community Trail is located at the top of Amethyst Avenue where it turns into Almond Street. D. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR THE NEXT MEETING This is the time for the Trails Advisory Committee to identify the items they wish to discuss at the next meeting. These items will not be discussed at this meeting, only identified for the next meeting. FEBRUARY 12, 2020 TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA RAINS ROOM CITY HALL 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE Page 2 of 2 If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. G. ADJOURNMENT I, Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant II of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on Thursday, February 06, 2020, seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. Page 1 of 6 STAFF REPORT RECOMMENDATION: Staff respectfully suggest that the Trails Advisory Committee review the provided material and provide a suggested recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding the future reconstruction or removal of the existing pedestrian and equestrian bridges located at Heritage Community Park. BACKGROUND: An initial bridge evaluation of seven bridges in and around Heritage Park (Bridges A through G) was completed in March 2011. The initial bridge evaluation recommended replacement of the bridges though it also identified minor repairs for each bridge to extend their useful life. Eight years later, following the timeline from the initial report and noting the current condition of the subject bridges, Engineering staff determined it was prudent to contract with a civil engineering firm to reassess the five bridges at Heritage Park (Bridges C through G). In September 2019, an updated bridge evaluation report was prepared by an independent civil engineering firm and submitted to staff to review. The 2019 report recommended future restoration or replacement measures for each bridge. Various bridge design alternatives were examined in the updated report that involved new concrete bridges, combining bridges (multi-use single bridge), and replacing bridges with in kind construction materials. A rough order magnitude of project costs was provided for each bridge. The cost to replace all five bridges was estimated as high as $1,840,000 which included preliminary engineering, construction drawings, material testing, inspection and permits if done as a single project. Based on that information, City staff recommended to the Public Works Subcommittee that Bridge C and Bridge D be removed at a future point when they reached end of life and Bridge E, Bridge F, and Bridge G be combined into one structure, with different uses separated, and replaced with a new concrete structure, which would have 50% of the cost funded by the Fire District and 50% funded by Park Development District No. 85 (PD-85). Engineering staff shared the updated report with the Public Works Subcommittee at its meeting on October 30, 2019. A copy of the staff report presented to the Public Works Subcommittee is included as Attachment 1. At that meeting, the Subcommittee voted to forward staff’s recommendation as stated in the staff report to the City Council. Following this meeting, staff DATE: February 12, 2020 TO: Trails Advisory Committee Members FROM: Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer INITIATED BY: Gianfranco Laurie, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Heritage Park Bridges Update Page 2 of 6 identified additional potential opportunities for further structural evaluation to better inform the decision-making process. ANALYSIS: On December 18, 2019, the City Council authorized staff to conduct a further structural capacity assessment for the five bridges at Heritage Park. This supplemental engineering study, funded by the PD-85 reserves, consisted of visual and exploratory investigations; structural calculations and load demand analysis; and preliminary cost estimates considering concrete, steel, and timber construction materials. It was conducted by the same independent engineering consulting firm that performed the initial 2019 analysis, to ensure consistency and maximize cost savings. As a result of the December 2019 assessment, the engineering consultant observed significant exterior deterioration at the two westerly bridges (Bridge C and Bridge D) and the main vehicular bridge (Bridge F). Exterior deterioration included cracks in deck planks, delamination of beam supports, fractures in bridge supports, rust stains, and insect activity. Bridge C is located within the westerly portion of Heritage Park and serves pedestrian and equestrian traffic. The bridge dimensions are 10-foot-wide with an 18-foot span. The picture below depicts decayed wood planks at the outer bridge edges and discolored wood planks and beam supports. Bridge C Page 3 of 6 Bridge D also located within the westerly portion of Heritage Park serves pedestrians and equestrians. The bridge dimensions are 10-foot-wide with a 10-foot span. The picture below illustrates deteriorated wood planks at the outer bridge edges, discolored wood planks and beam supports, and longitudinal cracked wood planks. Bridge D Bridge F is one of three main bridges that provide access into the equestrian center. It serves vehicular traffic with dimensions of 27-foot-wide and a 12-foot span. A close-up picture of the deteriorated outer bridge edges is provided below. On the subsequent page, a full picture of the bridge shows discolored and fractures wood planks. Page 4 of 6 Bridge F Replacing the deteriorated bridge decks (along with material beneath it) would require removing the existing asphalt pavement and plywood sheathing that currently cover the planks. The main pedestrian bridge (Bridge E) and main equestrian bridge (Bridge G) at the entrance to the equestrian center exhibit moderate amounts of deterioration that would require replacing in the future. In addition, the consultant determined load demand capacities for Bridge C, Bridge D, and Bridge F. Results calculated by the consultant are presented below:  Bridge C has a load capacity of roughly 2,200 pounds along the existing bridge deck between the beam supports. For reference, a combined weight of a 16-hand horse, tack, and a rider can range between 1,300 pounds and 2,000 pounds.  Bridge D has a load capacity of roughly 1,850 pounds along the existing bridge deck between the beam supports. Using the same reference above, a combined weight of a 16-hand horse, tack, and a rider can range between 1,300 pounds and 2,000 pounds.  Bridge F has a load capacity of roughly 4,300 pounds along the existing bridge deck between the beam supports. Each beam support which is spaced 35 inches apart has a maximum load capacity of 41,000 pounds. For reference, a typical single rear axle fire engine can range 24,000 pounds to 35,000 pounds. Page 5 of 6 Based on the visual inspections and load capacities the engineering study recommends, if the City intends to keep all five bridges for ongoing use by the public, rehabilitating all five bridges; including Bridge E and Bridge G. Preliminary cost estimates have been included in the engineering study that outline ultimate improvements as noted below: Replacing the Existing Bridges In-Kind A total just above $1.4 million is estimated to replace all five bridges with in kind construction materials. This cost includes preliminary engineering, construction drawings, material testing, inspection and permits. Permits will be required from San Bernardino County Flood Control and/or United States Army Corps of Engineers. These permits will take an extended time to acquire and may not be possible. Engineering staff believes it is highly likely the regulatory agencies may not issue permits for the replacements in-kind because the bridge as-built design deviated from the original approved plans, potentially is detrimental to the flood control channel structure, and does not follow current recommended design and practice. If permits are not approved to reuse the existing bridge supports, then the bridges cannot be replaced in kind. New Concrete Bridges A total of $1.8 million is estimated to replace all five bridges either with cast-in-place or precast concrete. This cost also includes preliminary engineering, construction drawings, material testing, inspection and permits. New bridge supports that conform to current recommended designs and best practices would be constructed. Because of the latter change, staff believes it will be much easier and more likely that the City can obtain the required permits from the regulatory agencies. While the ultimate improvements are being considered, the consultant recommends proceeding with temporary improvements to install new signs and curbing (or striping) to delineate a pathway for pedestrians and equestrians to traverse on Bridge C, Bridge D and Bridge F. Engineering staff would coordinate with the Public Works Department to install these interim measures. While initially more expensive, the selection of cast-in-place or precast concrete is recommended as it is anticipated to significantly reduce future maintenance costs and will provide for a significantly longer lifespan. Given the extreme lack of funding in PD-85, because revenue has not changed in over 30 years unlike other landscape districts in the City, reducing maintenance costs is critical to ongoing viability of the district. Further, this material would be consistent with a number of other locations within the City which have a history of performing well. A final report was submitted to the Engineering staff to review on January 30, 2020. A copy of the supplemental engineering study is included as Attachment 2. The report goes into greater detail on each bridge and the condition. FISCAL IMPACT: Replacement of all five bridges under one contract as recommended in the engineering study is estimated to cost between $1.4 million and $1.8 million depending on the selected material. Additional options for bridge replacement such as replacement of the bridges individually or combining of bridges at the equestrian center entrance are detailed in the updated report (Attachment 1). As previously mentioned, staff’s recommendation to the Public Works Subcommittee was to remove the two westerly bridges (Bridge C and Bridge D) when they become unusable and replace the three bridges (Bridge E, Bridge F, and Bridge G) at the equestrian center entrance with a combined, use separated, concrete bridge. The estimated cost Page 6 of 6 for this option is $1.1 million including preliminary engineering, construction drawings, material testing, inspection and permits. It should be noted that funds for replacement of these bridges have not been identified at this time. PD-85 does not have sufficient reserves, once cash flow needs are accounted for, to fund the replacement of all five bridges. Further, because the district is using 30 year old revenue to fund current day costs, and the residents of the district have overwhelmingly rejected any revenue increases, it is impossible for PD-85 to be able to save up additional funds, or repay a loan from the General Fund. The only potentially fiscally viable alternative which is within existing City Council approved policy and direction regarding equitable support for all landscape districts is to remove the two western bridges (Bridge C and Bridge D) and combine the eastern three bridges (Bridge E, Bridge F, and Bridge G) into a single, use separated, bridge which would then be eligible for partial funding by the Fire District. Should a final scope for the project be defined which deviates from the initial staff recommendation, then further work will be necessary to identify funding options for consideration by the City Council. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 – Public Works Subcommittee Staff Report Attachment 2 – Heritage Park Bridge Supplemental Engineering Study Page 1 of 3 STAFF REPORT 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. DATE: October 30, 2019 TO: Public Works Subcommittee 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 Attachment 1 Page 2 of 3 ANALYSIS: Randolph Davis Property Community 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 3 of 3 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 Limited Geotechnical Evaluation Community Equestrian Trail Davis Property Rancho Cucamonga , California City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive | Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 September 10 , 2019 | Project No. 210274008 Geotechnical | Environmental | Construction Inspection & Testing | Forensic Engineering & Expert Witness Geophysics | Engineering Geology | Laboratory Testing | Industrial Hygiene | Occupational Safety | Air Quality | GIS 475 Goddard, Suite 200 | Irvine, California 92618 | p. 949.753.7070 | www.ninyoandmoore.com Limited Geotechnical Evaluation Community Equestrian Trail Davis Property Rancho Cucamonga, California Mr. Gianfranco Laurie City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive | Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 September 10, 2019 | Project No. 210274008 Matthew R. Harrell, PG, CEG Senior Project Geologist Ronald D. Hallum, PG, CEG Project Geologist Garreth M. Saiki, PE, GE Principal Engineer MRH/GMS/RDH/sc Distribution: (1) Addressee (via e-mail) Ninyo & Moore | Community Equestrian Trail, Davis Property, Rancho Cucamonga, California | 210274008 | September 10, 2019 i CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 1 2 SCOPE OF SERVICES 1 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 4 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 2 5 FIELD RECONNAISSANCE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS 3 5.1 Area 1 3 5.2 Area 2 3 5.3 Area 3 3 5.4 Area 4 4 5.5 Area 5 4 5.6 Area 6 4 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECO MMENDATIONS 4 6.1 Area 1 5 6.1.1 Rilling and Gullies 5 6.1.2 Positive Drainage 5 6.1.3 Low Water Crossing 5 6.2 Area 2 5 6.2.1 Rilling, Gullies and Piping 5 6.2.2 Positive Drainage 6 6.2.3 Down Drains 6 6.3 Area 3 6 6.3.1 Rilling 6 6.3.2 Positive Drain age 6 6.4 Area 4 6 6.4.1 Slope Reconstruction 7 6.4.2 Down Drain 7 6.5 Area 5 8 6.5.1 Rilling and Gullies 8 6.5.2 Down Drains 8 6.6 Area 6 8 6.6.1 Low Water Crossing 8 Ninyo & Moore | Community Equestrian Trail, Davis Property, Rancho Cucamonga, California | 210274008 | September 10, 2019 ii 6.6.2 Down Drains 8 6.7 Fill Placement and Compaction 9 7 ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNI CAL EVALUATION 9 8 CONTINUED SLOPE MAINTENANCE 9 9 LIMITATIONS 10 10 REFERENCES 11 FIGURES 1 – Site Location 2 – Site Aerial 3 – Regional Geology 4 – Earthquake Fault Hazard Zones 5 – Keying and Benching Detail APPENDIX A – Photographs Ninyo & Moore | Community Equestrian Trail, Davis Property, Rancho Cucamonga, California | 210274008 | September 10, 2019 1 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 1990s. The trail to the north of Area 4 was previously constructed at an unknown Ninyo & Moore | Community Equestrian Trail, Davis Property, Rancho Cucamonga, California | 210274008 | September 10, 2019 2 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 | Community Equestrian Trail, Davis Property, Rancho Cucamonga, California | 210274008 | September 10, 2019 3 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 | Community Equestrian Trail, Davis Property, Rancho Cucamonga, California | 210274008 | September 10, 2019 4 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 RECO MMENDATIONS 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 | Community Equestrian Trail, Davis Property, Rancho Cucamonga, California | 210274008 | September 10, 2019 5 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 in general accordance with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) design considerations will reduce routine maintenance where rilling and gullies form (see references). 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 Ninyo & Moore | Community Equestrian Trail, Davis Property, Rancho Cucamonga, California | 210274008 | September 10, 2019 6 drainage to maintain drainage on the north side of the trail to the existing swale and culvert to the west. 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 or slope drain, consisting of either corrugated metal pipe, HDPE pipe, corrugated metal ditch or HDPE ditch, in general accordance with the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) California Stormwater BMP Handbook EC-11 detail, 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. Ninyo & Moore | Community Equestrian Trail, Davis Property, Rancho Cucamonga, California | 210274008 | September 10, 2019 7 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 5. 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 5. 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 or slope drain, consisting of either corrugated metal pipe, HDPE pipe, corrugated metal ditch or HDPE ditch, in general accordance with the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) California Stormwater BMP Handbook EC-11 detail, 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. Ninyo & Moore | Community Equestrian Trail, Davis Property, Rancho Cucamonga, California | 210274008 | September 10, 2019 8 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 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 or slope drain, consisting of either corrugated metal pipe, HDPE pipe, corrugated metal ditch or HDPE ditch, in general accordance with the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) California Stormwater BMP Handbook EC-11 detail, 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. 6.6 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 in general accordance with the USDA design considerations 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 Consideration may be given to the construction of a down drain or slope drain, consisting of either corrugated metal pipe, HDPE pipe, corrugated metal ditch or HDPE ditch, in general accordance with the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) California Ninyo & Moore | Community Equestrian Trail, Davis Property, Rancho Cucamonga, California | 210274008 | September 10, 2019 9 Stormwater BMP Handbook EC-11 detail, 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. 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. 7 ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNI CAL 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. Ninyo & Moore | Community Equestrian Trail, Davis Property, Rancho Cucamonga, California | 210274008 | September 10, 2019 10  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 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 | Community Equestrian Trail, Davis Property, Rancho Cucamonga, California | 210274008 | September 10, 2019 11 10 REFERENCES California Stormwater Quality Association, 2011, California Stormwater BMP Handbook, Construction, Slope Drains, EC-11, dated January. 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 Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 2006, Low-Water Crossings: Geomorphic, Biological, and Engineering Design Considerations, dated October, https://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/pdf/LowWaterCrossings/index.shtml. United States Geological Survey, 2019, U.S. Quaternary Faults, https://usgs.maps.arcgis.com. University of California at Santa Barbara, 2019, http://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/ FrameFinder/, Aerial Photograph, dated December 31, 1937, October 21, 1952, September 30, 1969 and October 1, 1995. Ninyo & Moore | Community Equestrian Trail, Davis Property, Rancho Cucamonga, California | 210274008 | September 10, 2019 Appendix A Photographic Documentation FIGURES SITE Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants SITE LOCATION FIGURE 1 NOTE: DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. I REFERENCE: USGS, 2018.0 FEET 2,000 4,000 COMMUNITY EQUESTRIAN TRAIL, DAVIS PROPERTY RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 210274008 I 9/19 N 210274008_SL.dwg 06/04/2019 JP PROPOSED KEYWAY 15' WIDE x 5' DEEP SLOPE REBUILD 8' WIDE LIMIT OF EVALUATION AREA 6 AREA 4 AREA 2 AREA 3 AREA 1 AREA 5 Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants SITE AERIAL FIGURE 2 NOTE: DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. I REFERENCE: GOOGLE EARTH, 2019.0 FEET 80 1600 LEGEND COMMUNITY EQUESTRIAN TRAIL, DAVIS PROPERTY RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 210274008 I 9/19 N 210274008_SA.dwg 06/04/2019 JPAPPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXISTING SURFACE WATER FLOW PROPOSED LOW WATER CROSSING PROPOSED SLOPE DRAIN EXISTING GRAVEL BAG BERM SITE Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants REGIONAL GEOLOGY FIGURE 3 0 FEET 1,000 2,000 COMMUNITY EQUESTRIAN TRAIL, DAVIS PROPERTY RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 210274008 I 9/19 ALLUVIAL GRAVELS LEGEND ALLUVIUM GEOLOGIC CONTACTOLDER ALLUVIUMQoa gnh NOTE: DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. I REFERENCE: THOMAS W. DIBBLEE JR., 2003. FAULT HORNBLENDE GNEISS N 210274008_RG.dwg 06/04/2019 JPQa Qg SITE Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants EARTHQUAKE FAULT HAZARD ZONES FIGURE 4 NOTE: DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.0 FEET 2,000 4,000 COMMUNITY EQUESTRIAN TRAIL, DAVIS PROPERTY RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 210274008 I 9/19 EARTHQAUKE FAULT ZONE BOUNDARIES ACTIVE FAULTS LEGEND THESE ARE DELINEATED AS STRAIGHT-LINE SEGMENTS THAT CONNECT ENCIRCLED TURINING POINT SO AS TO DEFINE EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONE SEGMENTS. SEAWARD PROJECTION OF ZONE BOUNDARY. FAULTS CONSIDERED TO HAVE BEEN ACTIVE DURING HOLOCENE TIME AND TO HAVE POTENTIAL FOR SURFACE RUPTURE; SOLID LINE WHERE ACCURATELY LOCATED, LONG DASH WHERE APPROXIMATELY LOCATED, SHORT DASH WHERE INFERRED, DOTTED WHERE CONCEALED; QUERY (?) INDICATES ADDITIONAL UNCERTAINTY. EVIDENCE OF HISTORIC OFFSET INDICATED BY YEAR OF EARTHQUAKE-ASSOCIATED EVENT OR C FOR DISPLACEMENT CAUSED BY FAULT CREEP. N 210274008_EFHZ.dwg 06/04/2019 JPREFERENCE: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, 1995. Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants210274008_KBD.dwg 06/04/2019 JPKEYING AND BENCHING DETAIL FIGURE 5 COMMUNITY EQUESTRIAN TRAIL, DAVIS PROPERTY RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 210274008 I 9/19 T-CONNECTION OUTLET PIPE OUTLET PIPE NON-PERFORATED T-CONNECTION DETAIL NON-PERFORATED PIPE, 4 INCHES OR 2% OR MORE 12 INCHES OR MORE SUBDRAIN DETAIL WRAPPED IN AN APPROVED GEOFABRIC 3/4-INCH OPEN-GRADED GRAVEL CAP 4 INCHES OR MORE LARGER SCHEDULE 40 PVC OR EQUAL (SEE DETAIL) GEOFABRIC NOTE: AS AN ALTERNATIVE, AN APPROVED GEOCOMPOSITE DRAIN SYSTEM MAY BE USED. 1 1 BENCH INCLINED SLIGHTLY INTO SLOPE (TYPICAL) 4' MIN. 2% MIN. OUTLET PIPE NATURAL GROUND 2% MIN. (KEY) LOWEST BENCH 15' MIN. DEPTH 2' MIN. KEY 1 TO 1 MAXIMUM FROM TOE OF SLOPE TO APPROVED GROUND PROJECTED PLANE FILL SLOPE MATERIAL UNSUITABLE VARIES HEIGHT BENCH REMOVE COMPACTED FILL PERFORATED PIPE, 4 INCHES OR LARGER SCHEDULE 40 PVC OR EQUAL, INSTALLED WITH PERFORATIONS DOWN, SLOPED AT 1% OR MORE TOWARD OUTLET PIPE Ninyo & Moore | Community Equestrian Trail, Davis Property, Rancho Cucamonga, California | 210274008 | September 10, 2019 APPENDIX A Photographs PHOTOGRAPHS COMMUNITY EQUESTRIAN TRAIL, DAVIS PROPERTY RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 210274008 | 9/19 FIGURE A-1 Photograph 1: Area 1 Davis Property graded swale. Photograph 2: Area 1 gully trail erosion. PHOTOGRAPHS COMMUNITY EQUESTRIAN TRAIL, DAVIS PROPERTY RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 210274008 | 9/19 FIGURE A-2 Photograph 3: Area 1 gully and rilling trail erosion. Photograph 4: Area 1 drainage culvert. PHOTOGRAPHS COMMUNITY EQUESTRIAN TRAIL, DAVIS PROPERTY RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 210274008 | 9/19 FIGURE A-3 Photograph 5: Area 2 gully and “piping” erosion. Photograph 6: Area 3 small gully erosion at slope face. PHOTOGRAPHS COMMUNITY EQUESTRIAN TRAIL, DAVIS PROPERTY RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 210274008 | 9/19 FIGURE A-4 Photograph 7: Area 3 rilling trail erosion. Photograph 8: Area 4 deep gully of slope face. PHOTOGRAPHS COMMUNITY EQUESTRIAN TRAIL, DAVIS PROPERTY RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 210274008 | 9/19 FIGURE A-5 Photograph 9: Area 4 deep gully of slope face. Photograph 10: Area 4 drainage from Davis Trail and Davis Property. PHOTOGRAPHS COMMUNITY EQUESTRIAN TRAIL, DAVIS PROPERTY RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 210274008 | 9/19 FIGURE A-6 Photograph 11: Area 5 vehicle access ramp to Thorpe Canyon. Photograph 12: Area 6 existing swale drainage area. Ninyo & Moore | Community Equestrian Trail, Davis Property, Rancho Cucamonga, California | 210274008 | September 10, 2019 3. Description 3. Description 3. Description 475 Goddard, Suite 200 | Irvine, California 92618 | p. 949.753.7070 ARIZONA | CALIFORNIA | COLORADO | NEVADA | TEXAS | UTAH www.ninyoandmoore.com RANCHO CUCAMONGA RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS - AREA 1 SHORT TERM -FILL -COMPACTION -GRADING -LOW WATER CROSSING -NATURAL GRAVEL SWALE -ENERGY DISSIPATOR LONG TERM -CONCRETE V-DITCH -HEADWALL LEGEND RIGHT OF WAY EX. WATER FLOW EX. PIPE PROP GRADING NATURAL GRAVEL SWALE LOW WATER CROSSING ENERGY DISSIPATOR HEADWALL CONCRETE V-DITCH SBCFCD DAVIS PROPERTY CONCEPTUAL PLANS RANCHO CUCAMONGA RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS - AREA 2 SHORT TERM -FILL -COMPACTION -GRADING -NATURAL GRAVEL SWALE -HEADWALL -PVC PIPE -ENERGY DISSIPATOR LONG TERM -CONCRETE V-DITCH LEGEND RIGHT OF WAY EX. WATER FLOW EX. CMP PROP GRADING NATURAL GRAVEL SWALE ARENA SBCFCD DAVIS PROPERTY DAVIS PROPERTY PVC PIPE HEADWALL ENERGY DISSIPATOR CONCRETE V-DITCH CONCEPTUAL PLANS RANCHO CUCAMONGA RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS- AREA 3 SHORT TERM -FILL -COMPACTION -GRADING -NATURAL GRAVEL SWALE LONG TERM -PVC PIPE -HEADWALLS -CONCRETE V-DITCH -ENERGY DISSIPATOR -INLET GRATE LEGEND RIGHT OF WAY EX. WATER FLOW PROP GRADING NATURAL GRAVEL SWALE CONCRETE V-DITCH PVC PIPE HEADWALL INLET GRATE ENERGY DISSIPATOR SBCFCD DAVIS PROPERTY CONCEPTUAL PLANS RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS- AREA 4 SHORT TERM LONG TERM -CONCRETE V-DITCH -SPLASH WALL -RCP PIPE -ENERGY DISSIPATOR -INLET GRATE LEGEND RIGHT OF WAY EX. WATER FLOW NATURAL GRAVEL SWALE PROP GRADING CONCRETE V-DITCH RCP PIPE HEADWALL INLET GRATE ENERGY DISSIPATOR RANCHO CUCAMONGA SBCFCD DAVIS PROPERTY -GRADING -NATURAL GRAVEL SWALE -SLOPE RECONSTRUCTION CONCEPTUAL PLANS RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS- AREA 5 SHORT TERM -FILL -COMPACTION -GRADING LONG TERM -PVC PIPE -HEADWALLS -ENERGY DISSIPATOR -UNGROUTED ROCKS -AC BERM LEGEND RIGHT OF WAY EX. WATER FLOW PROP GRADING PVC PIPE HEADWALL AC BERM ENERGY DISSIPATOR/ UNGROUTED ROCKS RANCHO CUCAMONGA SBCFCD DAVIS PROPERTY CONCEPTUAL PLANS RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS- AREA 6 SHORT TERM -FILL -COMPACTION -GRADING -RESTORE DRAINAGE SWALE LONG TERM -HEADWALLS -LOW WATER CROSSING -ENERGY DISSIPATOR LEGEND RIGHT OF WAY EX. WATER FLOW PROP GRADING EXIST SWALE HEADWALL ENERGY DISSIPATOR LOW WATER CROSSING RANCHO CUCAMONGA SBCFCD DAVIS PROPERTY CONCEPTUAL PLANS Date of Estimate:8/19/2019 Job Number: By:RD ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY (1)UNIT PRICE COST 1 FILL ERODED SURFACE AND COMPACT TO 90% OR PER THE SOILS ENGINEER SATISFACTION 10 CY $200.00 $2,000.00 2 RE-GRADE EXISTING SURFACE TO CREATE NATURAL UN-GROUTED GRAVEL FLOWLINE SURFACE DRAINAGE INSIDE EDGE OF THE TRAIL TO CONVEY RUNOFF TO THE EXISTING SWALE/DIRT AND EXISTING STORM DRAIN AND ENERGY DISSIPATOR, 4 LABORS 24 HRS @ $65 AND 1 SKIP WITH OPERATOR 24 HRS@$120 1 LS $9,100.00 $9,100.00 3 LOW WATER CROSSING DRAINAGE, CONCRETE CROSSING TRAIL 45 DEGREES TOWARDS SOUTH 10' X10', AT 1% FLOW TOWARD CENTER. 100 SF $20.00 $2,000.00 SUB-TOTAL $13,100.00 1 INSTALL INLET HEADWALL AND CONNECTED TO EXSTING STORM DRAIN AND NEW V- DITCH 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 2 CONCRETE V-DITCH SWALE 2' FEET WIDE 6" DEEP 123 FT $50.00 $6,150.00 SUB-TOTAL $11,150.00 Grand-Total $24,250.00 1 FILL ERODED SURFACE AND COMPACT TO 90% OR PER THE SOILS ENGINEER SATISFACTION. 8 CY $200.00 $1,600.00 2 RE-GRADE EXISTING SURFACE TO CREATE NATURAL UN-GROUTED GRAVEL FLOWLINE SURFACE DRAINAGE INSIDE EDGE OF THE TRAIL TO CONVEY RUNOFF TO THE EXISTING SWALE/DIRT AND CULVERT, 4 LABORS 48 HRS @ $65 AND 1 SKIP WITH OPERATOR 48 HRS@$120 1 LS $18,200.00 $18,200.00 3 INSTALL 12-INCH DIAMETER PVC PIPE WITH INLET HEADWALL AND CONNECTED TO EXISTING CMP, 28 LF 12" PVC@$145/LF, 1 HEADWALL@$4,000/EACH 1 LS $8,000.00 $8,000.00 SUB-TOTAL $27,800.00 AREA 1 LONG TERM Area 2 Community Equestrian Trail ROUGH ESTIMATE CONSTRUCTION COST SHORT TERM SHORT 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 $18,100.00 Grand-Total $45,900.00 1 FILL ERODED SURFACE AND COMPACTED PER THE SOILS ENGINEER SATISFACTION 10 CY $200.00 $2,000.00 2 RE-GRADE EXISTING SURFACE TO CREATE NATURAL UN-GROUTED GRAVEL FLOWLINE SURFACE DRAINAGE INSIDE EDGE OF THE TRAIL TO CONVEY RUNOFF TO THE EXISTING SWALE/DIRT AND CULVERT, 4 LABORS 36 HRS @ $65 AND 1 SKIP WITH OPERATOR 36 HRS@$120 1 LS $13,700.00 $13,700.00 SUB-TOTAL $15,700.00 1 CONCRETE V-DITCH SWALE 2' FEET WIDE 6" DEEP 240 FT $50.00 $12,000.00 2 INSTALL 12-INCH DIAMETER PVC PIPE WITH INLET GRATE AND OUTLET HEADWALL, ENERGY DISSIPATOR, 10 LF 12" PVC@$145/LF, 2 HEADWALL@$4,000/EACH 1 LS $9,450.00 $9,450.00 SUB-TOTAL $12,000.00 Grand-Total $27,700.00 1 RE-GRADE EXISTING SURFACE TO CREATE NATURAL UN-GROUTED GRAVEL FLOWLINE SURFACE DRAINAGE INSIDE EDGE OF THE TRAIL TO CONVEY RUNOFF TO THE EXISTING SWALE/DIRT AND CULVERT, 4 LABORS 24 HRS @ $65 AND 1 SKIP WITH OPERATOR 24 HRS@$120 1 LS $9,100.00 $9,100.00 2 RECONSTRCUT EXISTING SLOPE, 70 FEET DEEP BY 23 FEET WIDE SLOPE AT A 2:1 COMPACTED PER THE SOILS ENGINEER SATISFACTION INCLUDING KEYING, BENCHING AND INSTALLATION OF SUBDRAIN, I BACKHOE WITH COMPACTOR ROLLER, PERFORATED PIPES AND FITTINGS FOR SUBDRAIN, 3 LABORS FOR 48 HOURS 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00 3 IMPORT FILL MATERIALS 300 CY $20.00 $6,000.00 4 HYDROSEED NEW SLOPE TO PROTECT FROM ERODING.1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00 SUB-TOTAL $36,600.00 AREA 3 LONG TERM LONG TERM AREA 4 SHORT TERM SHORT TERM 2 INSTALL 18-INCH DIAMETER PVC PIPE WITH INLET GRATE AND OUTLET HEADWALL, ENERGY DISSIPATOR, 57 LF 18" PVC@$145/LF, 1 HEADWALL@$4,000/EACH 1 LS $16,200.00 $16,200.00 2 CONCRETE V-DITCH SWALE 2' FEET WIDE 6" DEEP 75 FT $50.00 $3,750.00 SUB-TOTAL $19,950.00 GRAND-TOTAL $56,550.00 1 FILL ERODED SURFACE AND COMPACTED PER THE SOILS ENGINEER SATISFACTION 10 CY $200.00 $2,000.00 2 RE-GRADE EXISTING SURFACE TO CREATE DIRT FLOWLINE SURFACE DRAINAGE OUTSIDE TRAIL TO MAINTAIN DRAINAGE ON THE EAST SIDE, 2 LABOR AND 1 SKIP FOR 48 HOURS. OPERATOR 8HRS@$85 PLUS LABOR 8 HRS@$65 1 LS $10,300.00 $10,300.00 SUB-TOTAL $12,300.00 1 CONSTRUCT 18" DIAMETER PVC PIPE, INSTALL INLET HEADWALL AT THE TOP EAST SIDE OF THE TRAIL AND INSTALL OUTLET HEADWALL AT THE WEST SIDE TAIL WITH ENERGY DISSIPATOR. 12 FT OF PVC PIPE. (TWO LOCATIONS) 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 2 RE-GRADE EXISTING DIRT AND INSTALL UNGROUTED ROCKS TO DEFLECT WATER TO NEW INLET HEADWALLS @$4,000/EACH 1 LS $8,000.00 $8,000.00 3 INSTALL AC BERM AT THE EDGE OF AC DRIVEWAY TO ELIMINATE ERODING AT DIRT SLOPE 200 LF $25.00 $5,000.00 SUB-TOTAL $23,000.00 Grand-Total $35,300.00 1 FILL ERODED SURFACE AND COMPACTED PER THE SOILS ENGINEER SATISFACTION 10 CY $200.00 $2,000.00 2 RE-GRADE EXISTING SURFACE TO RESTORE DIRT FLOWLINE SURFACE DRAINAGE SWALE TO MAINTAIN DRAINAGE ON THE EAST SIDE AND CLEAN UP, 2 LABOR AND 1 SKIP FOR 24 HOURS. OPERATOR 24 HRS@$85 PLUS LABOR 24 HRS@$65 1 LS $5,100.00 $5,100.00 SUB-TOTAL $7,100.00 AREA 5 AREA 6 LONG TERM SHORT TERM SHORT TERM LONG TERM 1 LOW WATER CROSSING DRAINAGE, CONCRETE CROSSING TRAIL 45 DEGREES TOWARDS SOUTH 20 FEET WIDE X10 FEET, 1% FLOW TOWARD CENTER AND INSTALL OUTLET HEADWALL AND ENERGY DISSIPATOR. 1 LS $6,000.00 $6,000.00 SUB-TOTAL $6,000.00 Grand-Total $13,100.00 SHORT TERM TOTAL COST $112,600.00 25% CONTINGENCY $28,150.00 $140,750.00 SHORT TERM ADMIN COST AND CONSULTANT COST A1 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 $216,125.00 $356,875.00 $202,800.00 25% CONTINGENCY $50,700.00 LONG TERM TOTAL COST $253,500.00 LONG TERM ADMIN COST AND CONSULTANT COST A1 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 $385,250.00 $638,750.00 LONG TERM SUB-TOTAL COST (INC. SHORT TERM COST) SHORT TERM GRAND-TOTAL COST LONG TERM LONG TERM ADMIN AND CONSULTANT COST (A1-A8) LONG TERM GRAND-TOTAL COST SHORT TERM TOTAL COST SHORT TERM ADMIN AND CONSULTANT COST (A1-A8) PREPARED BY: Aufbau Corp. SEPTEMBER 2019 Aufbau 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. ____________________________ _________________________ Vartan Vartanians Date: Registered Civil Engineer Aufbau Corporation September 9, 2019 1 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. 2 Aufbau 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 – Spanning over Demens Creek Channel – Serves only equestrian traffic at this time Bridge C – Looking South Bridge C – Looking West 3 Aufbau Bridge D - Spanning over Rancho Wash Channel – Serves only equestrian traffic at this time Bridge C – Looking North Bridge D – Looking East Bridge D – Looking West 4 Aufbau Bridge E - Spanning over Demens Creek Channel – Serves only pedestrian traffic Bridge E – Looking South Bridge E – Looking North Bridge D – Looking Southeast 5 Aufbau Bridge F - Spanning over Demens Creek Channel – Serves vehicular traffic Bridge F – Looking North Bridge E – Looking South Bridge F – Looking North 6 Aufbau Bridge G - Spanning over Demens Creek Channel – Serves only equestrian traffic Bridge F – Looking South Bridge G – Looking South 7 Aufbau 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. Bridge G – Looking North 8 Aufbau 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 9 Aufbau 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 Community Park: Reference is made to Appendix 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 Community 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: 10 Aufbau 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 bridges situated within the Heritage Community 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 11 Aufbau Pertinent information regarding the above-noted bridges are as follows: Bridge ID Bridge Spans Over Centerline of Bridge at Approximate Channel Station Channel Width (ft) Approx. Bridge Span (ft) Approx. Bridge Deck Width (ft) Approx. Clear Bridge Deck Width (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. 12 Aufbau Existing Bridge 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. 13 Aufbau 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. 14 Aufbau 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 – Rejected 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 15 Aufbau 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 – Rejected 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 – Rejected 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. 16 Aufbau 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. 17 Aufbau 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. 18 Aufbau 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: Estimated Construction Cost of Bridges Only Bridge ID Bridge Type Cast-In-Place Concrete Deck (Option 1) Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck (Option 2) C Equestrian/ Utility Vehicles $115,000 $125,000 D Equestrian/ Utility Vehicles $95,000 $100,000 E Pedestrian $95,000 $100,000 F Vehicular $190,000 $205,000 G Equestrian $100,000 $105,000 Falsework $80,000 $0 Totals Alternative 1: $675,000 $635,000 19 Aufbau Alternative 2: Estimated Construction Cost of Bridges Only Bridge ID Bridge Type Cast-In-Place Concrete Deck (Option 1) Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck (Option 2) C Equestrian/ Utility Vehicles $115,000 $125,000 D Equestrian/ Utility Vehicles $95,000 $100,000 E and F Pedestrian and Vehicular Combined Bridge Width of 38 feet $230,000 $245,000 G Equestrian $100,000 $105,000 Falsework $70,000 $0 Totals Alternative 2: $610,000 $575,000 Alternative 3: Estimated Construction Cost of Bridges Only Bridge ID Bridge Type Cast-In-Place Concrete Deck (Option 1) Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck (Option 2) C Equestrian/ Utility Vehicles $115,000 $125,000 D Equestrian/ Utility Vehicles $95,000 $100,000 E, F, and G Pedestrian, Vehicular, and Equestrian Combined Bridge Width of 50 feet $295,000 $315,000 Falsework $60,000 $0 Totals Alternative 3 $565,000 $540,000 Alternative 4: Estimated Construction Cost of Bridge Only Bridge ID Bridge Type Cast-In-Place Concrete Deck (Option 1) Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck (Option 2) E, F, and G Pedestrian, Vehicular, and Equestrian Combined Bridge Width of 42.5 feet $240,000 $270,000 Falsework $40,000 $0 Totals Alternative 4: $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). 20 Aufbau 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: $1,020,000 $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 $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 $935,000 21 Aufbau Alternative 4: 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 $280,000 $270,000 5 Approach Pathway Modifications $200,000 $200,000 6 Bridge Lighting $20,000 $20,000 Totals Alternative 4: $620,000 $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 22 Aufbau 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, Engineering 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. 23 Aufbau 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. LEGENDCOMMUNITY TRAILS - https://www.cityofrc.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=7020SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT PATROL ROAD. ALSO, CLASS I SHARED-USE PATH - PER FIGURE 4-6- RANCHOCUCAMONGA FINAL CIRCULATION MASTER PLAN FOR BICYCLISTS AND PEDESTRIANSEXHIBIT ABRIDGE C - EQUESTRIANBRIDGE TYPESBRIDGE D - EQUESTRIANBRIDGE E - PEDESTRIANBRIDGE F - VEHICULARBRIDGE G - EQUESTRIANHILLSIDE ROADEQUESTRIANACCESS POINTSTO HERITAGE PARKEQUESTRIAN CENTER1BERYL STREET NORTH2BERYL STREET SOUTH3MUSTANG ROAD4RANCHO STREET5SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT PATROL ROADHILLSIDE ROADBERYL STREET HERITAGEPARKEQUESTRIANCENTERHILLSIDE TRAILDEMENS CREEK CHANNELWASHBRIDGE DBERYL TRAIL RANCHOBRIDGE CBRIDGE FBRIDGE EHERITAGECOMMUNITYPARKBRIDGE GARABIAN DRIVE RANCHO STREET12354 EXHIBIT BAPN: 1061-631-01-0000:PROPERTY OWNERSHIPAPN: 1061-641-07-0000:APN: 1061-641-06-0000:APN: 1061-641-09-0000:CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGACITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGASAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOODCONTROL DISTRICTCOX COMMUNICATIONSLEGENDPROPERTY LINEDRAINAGE CHANNELBRIDGE CROSSINGAPN: 1061-631-01-0000APN: 1061 -641 -06 -0000APN: 1061-641-07-0000APN: 1061-641-09-0000HILLSIDE ROADBERYL STREET RANCHOWASHDEMENS CREEK CHANNELBRIDGE DBRIDGE CBRIDGE FBRIDGE EBRIDGE G HERITAGE COMMUNITY PARKAND EQUESTRIAN CENTEREXHIBIT CHILLSIDE ROADBERYL STREETDEMENS CREEK CHANNELRANCHOWASHHERITAGECOMMUNITYPARKSHOW OFFICECONCESSION STANDSRESTROOMSWESTERNARENADRESSAGEARENAPARKINGLUNGINGARENALUNGINGARENABRIDGE DBRIDGE CBRIDGE FBRIDGE EBRIDGE G APPENDIX 1 APPENDIX 2 APPENDIX 3 BRIDGE C - EQUESTRIANNOT TO SCALEBRIDGE D - EQUESTRIANNOT TO SCALEBRIDGE C - EQUESTRIANPLAN VIEWNOT TO SCALEBRIDGE D - EQUESTRIANPLAN VIEWNOT TO SCALEEXISTING BRIDGES BRIDGE E - PEDESTRIANNOT TO SCALEBRIDGE F - VEHICULARNOT TO SCALEBRIDGE G - EQUESTRIANNOT TO SCALEBRIDGE F - VEHICULARPLAN VIEWNOT TO SCALEBRIDGE E - PEDESTRIANPLAN VIEWNOT TO SCALEBRIDGE G - EQUESTRIANPLAN VIEWNOT TO SCALEEXISTING BRIDGES APPENDIX 4 BRIDGE F - VEHICULARNOT TO SCALEOPTIONAL FENCINGNOT TO SCALEBRIDGE E - PEDESTRIANNOT TO SCALEBRIDGES C, D, AND G - EQUESTRIANNOT TO SCALEOPTIONAL FENCINGNOT TO SCALEALTERNATIVE 1 - CONSTRUCTION OPTION 1: CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE DECKCONCEPTUAL BRIDGE F - VEHICULARNOT TO SCALEOPTIONAL FENCINGNOT TO SCALEBRIDGE E - PEDESTRIANNOT TO SCALEBRIDGES C, D, AND G - EQUESTRIANNOT TO SCALEOPTIONAL FENCINGNOT TO SCALEALTERNATIVE 1 - CONSTRUCTION OPTION 2: PRECAST PRESTRESSED CONCRETE DECK PANELSCONCEPTUAL OPTIONAL FENCINGNOT TO SCALEBRIDGE F - VEHICULARNOT TO SCALEBRIDGE E - PEDESTRIANNOT TO SCALEBRIDGES C, D, AND G - EQUESTRIANNOT TO SCALEOPTIONAL FENCINGNOT TO SCALEALTERNATIVE 1 - CONSTRUCTION OPTION 3: STEEL GIRDERS, CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE DECKCONCEPTUAL BRIDGE E - PEDESTRIANNOT TO SCALEBRIDGES C, D, AND G - EQUESTRIANNOT TO SCALESIDE VIEW - EQUESTRIAN BRIDGENOT TO SCALEALTERNATIVE 1 - OPTION 4: STEEL TRUSS BRIDGE WITH WOOD PLANK DECKINGCONCEPTUAL BRIDGE E - PEDESTRIANNOT TO SCALEBRIDGES C, D, AND G - EQUESTRIANNOT TO SCALEBRIDGE F - VEHICULARNOT TO SCALEALTERNATIVE 1 - OPTIONS 1, 2, AND 3 - ABUTMENTS AND FOOTINGSCONCEPTUAL BRIDGES C, D, AND G - EQUESTRIANNOT TO SCALEOPTIONAL FENCINGNOT TO SCALEBRIDGES E AND F - COMBINED PEDESTRIAN & VEHICULARNOT TO SCALEOPTIONAL FENCINGNOT TO SCALECONCEPTUALALTERNATIVE 2 - CONSTRUCTION OPTION 1: CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE DECK BRIDGES C, D, AND G - EQUESTRIANNOT TO SCALEOPTIONAL FENCINGNOT TO SCALEBRIDGES E AND F - COMBINED PEDESTRIAN & VEHICULARNOT TO SCALEOPTIONAL FENCINGNOT TO SCALEALTERNATIVE 2 - OPTION 2: PRECAST PRESTRESSED CONCRETE DECK PANELSCONCEPTUAL OPTIONAL FENCINGNOT TO SCALEBRIDGES E AND F - COMBINED PEDESTRIAN & VEHICULARNOT TO SCALEBRIDGES C, D, AND G - EQUESTRIANNOT TO SCALEOPTIONAL FENCINGNOT TO SCALEALTERNATIVE 2 - CONSTRUCTION OPTION 3: STEEL GIRDERS, CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE DECKCONCEPTUAL BRIDGES E AND F - COMBINED PEDESTRIAN & VEHICULARNOT TO SCALEBRIDGES C, D, AND G - EQUESTRIANNOT TO SCALEALTERNATIVE 2 - OPTIONS 1, 2, AND 3 - ABUTMENTS AND FOOTINGSCONCEPTUAL BRIDGES C AND D - EQUESTRIANNOT TO SCALEBRIDGES E, F, AND G - COMBINED PEDESTRIAN, VEHICULAR, AND EQUESTRIANNOT TO SCALECONCEPTUALALTERNATIVE 3 - CONSTRUCTION OPTION 1: CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE DECK BRIDGES E, F, AND G - COMBINED PEDESTRIAN, VEHICULAR, AND EQUESTRIANNOT TO SCALEBRIDGES C AND D - EQUESTRIANNOT TO SCALEALTERNATIVE 3 - CONSTRUCTION OPTION 2: PRECAST PRESTRESSED CONCRETE DECK PANELSCONCEPTUAL BRIDGES E, F, AND G - COMBINED PEDESTRIAN, VEHICULAR, AND EQUESTRIANNOT TO SCALEBRIDGES C AND D - EQUESTRIANNOT TO SCALEALTERNATIVE 3 - CONSTRUCTION OPTION 3: STEEL GIRDERS, CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE DECKCONCEPTUAL BRIDGES E, F AND G - COMBINED PEDESTRIAN, VEHICULAR, AND EQUESTRIANNOT TO SCALEBRIDGES C AND D - EQUESTRIANNOT TO SCALEALTERNATIVE 3 - OPTIONS 1, 2, AND 3 - ABUTMENTS AND FOOTINGSCONCEPTUAL BRIDGES E, F, AND G - VEHICULAR AND SHARED EQUESTRIAN AND PEDESTRIANNOT TO SCALECONCEPTUALALTERNATIVE 4 - CONSTRUCTION OPTION 1: CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE DECK BRIDGES E, F, AND G - VEHICULAR AND SHARED EQUESTRIAN AND PEDESTRIANNOT TO SCALEALTERNATIVE 4 - CONSTRUCTION OPTION 2: PRECAST PRESTRESSED CONCRETE DECK PANELSCONCEPTUAL BRIDGES E, F, AND G - VEHICULAR AND SHARED EQUESTRIAN AND PEDESTRIANNOT TO SCALEALTERNATIVE 4 - CONSTRUCTION OPTION 3: STEEL GIRDERS, CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE DECKCONCEPTUAL BRIDGES E, F, AND G - VEHICULAR AND SHARED EQUESTRIAN AND PEDESTRIANNOT TO SCALEALTERNATIVE 4 - OPTIONS 1, 2, AND 3 - ABUTMENTS AND FOOTINGSCONCEPTUAL    APPENDIX  5  Cast‐In‐Place Reinforced Concrete Deck Unit Cost   Cost          6' High Chain Link Fencing Length (ft) = 52 $150 $7,800 Decorative Reinforced Concrete Barrier Length (ft) = 52 $500 $26,000 Concrete Wearing Slab Width (ft) = 10 Length (ft) = 26 Area (ft2)= 260 $35 $9,100 Reinforced Concrete Deck   Width (ft) = 13 Span (ft) = 26 Thickness (inch) = 16 Volume (ft3)= 451 Volume (yd3)= 17 $1,200 $20,030 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area (ft2)=7 Length (ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft3)= 196 Volume (yd3)= 7 $1,200 $8,711 Reinforced Concrete Piles 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 Equestrian Bridge C:  Deck Width = 13', Deck Span =26' Alternative 1 ‐ Construction Option 1 Cast‐In‐Place Reinforced Concrete Deck Unit Cost   Cost          6' High Chain Link Fencing Length (ft) = 36 $150 $5,400 Decoratiive Reinforced Concrete Barrier Length (ft) = 36 $500 $18,000 Concrete Wearing Slab Width (ft) = 10 Length (ft) = 18 Area (ft2)= 180 $35 $6,300 Reinforced Concrete Deck   Width (ft) = 13 Span (ft) = 18 Thickness (inch) = 16 Volume (ft3)= 312 Volume (yd3)= 12 $1,200 $13,867 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area (ft2)=7 Length (ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft3)= 196 Volume (yd3)= 7 $1,200 $8,711 Reinforced Concrete Piles 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 Equestrian Bridge D:  Deck Width = 13', Deck Span = 18' Alternative 1 ‐ Construction Option 1 Cast‐In‐Place Reinforced Concrete Deck Unit Cost   Cost          6' High Chain Link Fencing Length (ft) = 40 $150 $6,000 Decorative Reinforced Concrete Barrier Length (ft) = 40 $500 $20,000 Concrete Wearing Slab Width (ft) = 8 Length (ft) = 20 Area (ft2)= 160 $35 $5,600 Reinforced Concrete Deck   Width (ft) = 11 Span (ft) = 20 Thickness (inch) = 16 Volume (ft3)= 293 Volume (yd3)= 11 $1,200 $13,037 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area (ft2)=7 Length (ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft3)= 196 Volume (yd3)= 7 $1,200 $8,711 Reinforced Concrete Piles 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 Pedestrian Bridge E:  Deck Width = 11', Deck Span = 20' Alternative 1 ‐ Construction Option 1 Cast‐In‐Place Reinforced Concrete Deck Unit Cost   Cost          6' High Chain Link Fencing Length (ft) = 40 $150 $6,000 Decorative Reinforced Concrete Barrier Length (ft) = 40 $600 $24,000 Concrete Wearing Slab Width (ft) = 26 Length (ft) = 20 Area (ft2)= 520 $35 $18,200 Reinforced Concrete Deck   Width (ft) = 31 Span (ft) = 20 Thickness (inch) = 16 Volume (ft3)= 827 Volume (yd3)= 31 $1,200 $36,741 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area (ft2)=7 Length (ft) = 35 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft3)= 490 Volume (yd3)= 18 $1,200 $21,778 Reinforced Concrete Piles 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 Vehicular Bridge F:  Deck Width = 31', Deck Span = 20' Alternative 1 ‐ Construction Option 1 Cast‐In‐Place Reinforced Concrete Deck Unit Cost   Cost          6' High Chain Link Fencing Length (ft) = 40 $150 $6,000 Decorative Reinforced Concrete Barrier Length (ft) = 40 $500 $20,000 Concrete Wearing Slab Width (ft) = 10 Length (ft) = 20 Area (ft2)= 200 $35 $7,000 Reinforced Concrete Deck   Width (ft) = 13 Span (ft) = 20 Thickness (inch) = 16 Volume (ft3)= 347 Volume (yd3)= 13 $1,200 $15,407 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area (ft2)=7 Length (ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft3)= 196 Volume (yd3)= 7 $1,200 $8,711 Reinforced Concrete Piles 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 1 Equestrian Bridge G:  Deck Width = 13', Deck Span = 20' Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck Panels Unit Cost   Cost          6' High Chain Link Fencing Length (ft) = 52 $150 $7,800 Decorative Reinforced Concrete Barrier Length (ft) = 52 $500 $26,000 Concrete Wearing Slab Width (ft) = 10 Length (ft) = 26 Area (ft2)= 260 $35 $9,100 Reinforced Concrete Deck   Width (ft) = 13 Span (ft) = 26 Thickness (inch) = 12 Area (ft2)= 338 $80 $27,040 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area (ft2)=7 Length (ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft3)= 196 Volume (yd3)= 7 $1,200 $8,711 Reinforced Concrete Piles 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 Equestrian Bridge C:  Deck Width = 13', Deck Span =26' Alternative 1 ‐ Construction Option 2 Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck Panels Unit Cost   Cost          6' High Chain Link Fencing Length (ft) = 36 $150 $5,400 Decorative Reinforced Concrete Barrier Length (ft) = 36 $500 $18,000 Concrete Wearing Slab Width (ft) = 10 Length (ft) = 18 Area (ft2)= 180 $35 $6,300 Reinforced Concrete Deck   Width (ft) = 13 Span (ft) = 18 Thickness (inch) = 12 Area (ft2)= 234 $80 $18,720 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area (ft2)=7 Length (ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft3)= 196 Volume (yd3)= 7 $1,200 $8,711 Reinforced Concrete Piles 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 Equestrian Bridge D:  Deck Width = 13', Deck Span = 18' Alternative 1 ‐ Construction Option 2 Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck Panels Unit Cost   Cost          6' High Chain Link Fencing Length (ft) = 40 $150 $6,000 Decorative Reinforced Concrete Barrier Length (ft) = 40 $500 $20,000 Concrete Wearing Slab Width (ft) = 8 Length (ft) = 20 Area (ft2)= 160 $35 $5,600 Reinforced Concrete Deck   Width (ft) = 11 Span (ft) = 20 Thickness (inch) = 12 Area (ft2)= 220 $80 $17,600 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area (ft2)=7 Length (ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft3)= 196 Volume (yd3)= 7 $1,200 $8,711 Reinforced Concrete Piles 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 Pedestrian Bridge E:  Deck Width = 11', Deck Span = 20' Alternative 1 ‐ Construction Option 2 Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck Panels Unit Cost   Cost          6' High Chain Link Fencing Length (ft) = 40 $150 $6,000 Decorative Reinforced Concrete Barrier Length (ft) = 40 $600 $24,000 Concrete Wearing Slab Width (ft) = 26 Length (ft) = 20 Area (ft2)= 520 $35 $18,200 Reinforced Concrete Deck   Width (ft) = 31 Span (ft) = 20 Thickness (inch) = 12 Area (ft2)= 620 $80 $49,600 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area (ft2)=7 Length (ft) = 35 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft3)= 490 Volume (yd3)= 18 $1,200 $21,778 Reinforced Concrete Piles 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 Vehicular Bridge F:  Deck Width = 31', Deck Span = 20' Alternative 1 ‐ Construction Option 2 Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck Panels Unit Cost   Cost          6' High Chain Link Fencing Length (ft) = 40 $150 $6,000 Decorative Reinforced Concrete Barrier Length (ft) = 40 $500 $20,000 Concrete Wearing Slab Width (ft) = 10 Length (ft) = 20 Area (ft2)= 200 $35 $7,000 Reinforced Concrete Deck   Width (ft) = 13 Span (ft) = 20 Thickness (inch) = 12 Volume (yd3)= 260 $80 $20,800 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area (ft2)=7 Length (ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft3)= 196 Volume (yd3)= 7 $1,200 $8,711 Reinforced Concrete Piles 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 1 ‐ Construction Option 2 Equestrian Bridge G:  Deck Width = 13', Deck Span = 20' Alternative 2 ‐ Construction Option 1 Cast‐In‐Place Reinforced Concrete Deck Unit Cost   Cost          6' High Chain Link Fencing Length (ft) = 52 $150 $7,800 Decorative Reinforced Concrete Barrier Length (ft) = 52 $500 $26,000 Concrete Wearing Slab Width (ft) = 10 Length (ft) = 26 Area (ft2)= 260 $35 $9,100 Reinforced Concrete Deck   Width (ft) = 13 Span (ft) = 26 Thickness (inch) = 16 Volume (ft3)= 451 Volume (yd3)= 17 $1,200 $20,030 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area (ft2)=7 Length (ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft3)= 196 Volume (yd3)= 7 $1,200 $8,711 Reinforced Concrete Piles 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 Equestrian Bridge C:  Deck Width = 13', Deck Span =26' Alternative 2 ‐ Construction Option 1 Cast‐In‐Place Reinforced Concrete Deck Unit Cost   Cost          6' High Chain Link Fencing Length (ft) = 36 $150 $5,400 Decorative Reinforced Concrete Barrier Length (ft) = 36 $500 $18,000 Concrete Wearing Slab Width (ft) = 10 Length (ft) = 18 Area (ft2)= 180 $35 $6,300 Reinforced Concrete Deck   Width (ft) = 13 Span (ft) = 18 Thickness (inch) = 16 Volume (ft3)= 312 Volume (yd3)= 12 $1,200 $13,867 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area (ft2)=7 Length (ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft3)= 196 Volume (yd3)= 7 $1,200 $8,711 Reinforced Concrete Piles 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 Equestrian Bridge D:  Deck Width = 13', Deck Span = 18' 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 Length (ft) = 40 $150 $6,000 Decorative Reinforced Concrete Barrier Length (ft) = 40 $500 $20,000 Width (ft) = 11 Length (ft) = 20 Area (ft2)= 220 $35 $7,700 Concrete Wearing Slab Width (ft) = 26 Length (ft) = 20 Area (ft2)= 520 $35 $18,200 Reinforced Concrete Deck   Width (ft) = 38 Span (ft) = 20 Thickness (inch) = 16 Volume (ft3)= 1013 Volume (yd3)= 38 $1,200 $45,037 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area (ft2)=7 Length (ft) = 46 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft3)= 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 Concrete Sidewalk/ Barrrier Protection Slab Alternative 2 ‐ Construction Option 1 Cast‐In‐Place Reinforced Concrete Deck Unit Cost   Cost          6' High Chain Link Fencing Length (ft) = 40 $150 $6,000 Decorative Reinforced Concrete Barrier Length (ft) = 40 $500 $20,000 Concrete Wearing Slab Width (ft) = 10 Length (ft) = 20 Area (ft2)= 200 $35 $7,000 Reinforced Concrete Deck   Width (ft) = 13 Span (ft) = 20 Thickness (inch) = 16 Volume (ft3)= 347 Volume (yd3)= 13 $1,200 $15,407 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area (ft2)=7 Length (ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft3)= 196 Volume (yd3)= 7 $1,200 $8,711 Reinforced Concrete Piles 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 Equestrian Bridge G:  Deck Width = 13', Deck Span = 20' Alternative 2 ‐ Construction Option 2 Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck Panels Unit Cost   Cost          6' High Chain Link Fencing Length (ft) = 52 $150 $7,800 Decorative Reinforced Concrete Barrier   Length (ft) = 52 $500 $26,000 Concrete Wearing Slab Width (ft) = 10 Length (ft) = 26 Area (ft2)= 260 $35 $9,100 Reinforced Concrete Deck   Width (ft) = 13 Span (ft) = 26 Thickness (inch) = 12 Area (ft2)= 338 $80 $27,040 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area (ft2)=7 Length (ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft3)= 196 Volume (yd3)= 7 $1,200 $8,711 Reinforced Concrete Piles 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 Equestrian Bridge C:  Deck Width = 13', Deck Span =26' Alternative 2 ‐ Construction Option 2 Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck Panels Unit Cost   Cost          6' High Chain Link Fencing Length (ft) = 36 $150 $5,400 Decorative Reinforced Concrete Barrier   Length (ft) = 36 $500 $18,000 Concrete Wearing Slab Width (ft) = 10 Length (ft) = 18 Area (ft2)= 180 $35 $6,300 Reinforced Concrete Deck   Width (ft) = 13 Span (ft) = 18 Thickness (inch) = 12 Area (ft2)= 234 $80 $18,720 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area (ft2)=7 Length (ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft3)= 196 Volume (yd3)= 7 $1,200 $8,711 Reinforced Concrete Piles 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 Equestrian Bridge D:  Deck Width = 13', Deck Span = 18' Alternative 2 ‐ Construction Option 2 Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck Panels Pedestrian Bridge E and Vehicular Bridge F Combined :  Deck Width = 38', Deck Span = 20' Unit Cost   Cost          6' High Chain Link Fencing Length (ft) = 40 $150 $6,000 Decorative Reinforced Concrete Barrier   Length (ft) = 40 $500 $20,000 Width (ft) = 11 Length (ft) = 20 Area (ft2)= 220 $35 $7,700 Concrete Wearing Slab Width (ft) = 26 Length (ft) = 20 Area (ft2)= 520 $35 $18,200 Reinforced Concrete Deck   Width (ft) = 38 Span (ft) = 20 Thickness (inch) = 16 Area (ft2)= 760 $80 $60,800 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area (ft2)=7 Length (ft) = 46 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft3)= 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 =  $244,822 USE $245,000 Concrete Sidewalk/ Barrrier Protection Slab Alternative 2 ‐ Construction Option 2 Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck Panels Unit Cost   Cost          6' High Chain Link Fencing Length (ft) = 40 $150 $6,000 Decorative Reinforced Concrete Barrier Length (ft) = 40 $500 $20,000 Concrete Wearing Slab Width (ft) = 10 Length (ft) = 20 Area (ft2)= 200 $35 $7,000 Reinforced Concrete Deck   Width (ft) = 13 Span (ft) = 20 Thickness (inch) = 16 Area (ft2)= 260 $80 $20,800 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area (ft2)=7 Length (ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft3)= 196 Volume (yd3)= 7 $1,200 $8,711 Reinforced Concrete Piles 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 Equestrian Bridge G:  Deck Width = 13', Deck Span = 20' Alternative 3 ‐ Construction Option 1 Cast‐In‐Place Reinforced Concrete Deck Unit Cost   Cost          6' High Chain Link Fencing Length (ft) = 52 $150 $7,800 Decorative Reinforced Concrete Barrier Length (ft) = 52 $500 $26,000 Concrete Wearing Slab Width (ft) = 10 Length (ft) = 26 Area (ft2)= 260 $35 $9,100 Reinforced Concrete Deck   Width (ft) = 13 Span (ft) = 26 Thickness (inch) = 16 Volume (ft3)= 451 Volume (yd3)= 17 $1,200 $20,030 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area (ft2)=7 Length (ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft3)= 196 Volume (yd3)= 7 $1,200 $8,711 Reinforced Concrete Piles 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 Equestrian Bridge C:  Deck Width = 13', Deck Span =26' Alternative 3 ‐ Construction Option 1 Cast‐In‐Place Reinforced Concrete Deck Unit Cost   Cost          6' High Chain Link Fencing Length (ft) = 36 $150 $5,400 Decorative Reinforced Concrete Barrier Length (ft) = 36 $500 $18,000 Concrete Wearing Slab Width (ft) = 10 Length (ft) = 18 Area (ft2)= 180 $35 $6,300 Reinforced Concrete Deck   Width (ft) = 13 Span (ft) = 18 Thickness (inch) = 16 Volume (ft3)= 312 Volume (yd3)= 12 $1,200 $13,867 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area (ft2)=7 Length (ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft3)= 196 Volume (yd3)= 7 $1,200 $8,711 Reinforced Concrete Piles 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 Equestrian Bridge D:  Deck Width = 13', Deck Span = 18' 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' Unit Cost   Cost          6' High Chain Link Fencing Length (ft) = 60 $150 $9,000 Decorative Reinforced Concrete Barrier Length (ft) = 60 $500 $30,000 Width (ft) = 11 Length (ft) = 20 Area (ft2)= 220 $35 $7,700 Concrete Wearing Slab Width (ft) = 36 Length (ft) = 20 Area (ft2)= 720 $35 $25,200 Reinforced Concrete Deck   Width (ft) = 50 Span (ft) = 20 Thickness (inch) = 16 Volume (ft3)= 1333 Volume (yd3)= 49 $1,200 $59,259 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area (ft2)=7 Length (ft) = 58 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft3)= 812 Volume (yd3)= 30 $1,200 $36,089 Reinforced Concrete Piles Pile Diameter (inch) = 18 Pile Length (ft) = 11.5 Number of Piles = 12 Total Pile Length (ft) = 138 $900 $124,200 Total =  $291,448 Use $295,000 Concrete Sidewalk/ Barrrier Protection Slab Alternative 3 ‐ Construction Option 2 Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck Panels Unit Cost   Cost          6' High Chain Link Fencing Length (ft) = 52 $150 $7,800 Decorative Reinforced Concrete Barrier Length (ft) = 52 $500 $26,000 Concrete Wearing Slab Width (ft) = 10 Length (ft) = 26 Area (ft2)= 260 $35 $9,100 Reinforced Concrete Deck   Width (ft) = 13 Span (ft) = 26 Thickness (inch) = 12 Area (ft2)= 338 $80 $27,040 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area (ft2)=7 Length (ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft3)= 196 Volume (yd3)= 7 $1,200 $8,711 Reinforced Concrete Piles 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 Equestrian Bridge C:  Deck Width = 13', Deck Span =26' Alternative 3 ‐ Construction Option 2 Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck Panels Unit Cost   Cost          6' High Chain Link Fencing Length (ft) = 36 $150 $5,400 Decorative Reinforced Concrete Barrier   Length (ft) = 36 $500 $18,000 Concrete Wearing Slab Width (ft) = 10 Length (ft) = 18 Area (ft2)= 180 $35 $6,300 Reinforced Concrete Deck   Width (ft) = 13 Span (ft) = 18 Thickness (inch) = 12 Area (ft2)= 234 $80 $18,720 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area (ft2)=7 Length (ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft3)= 196 Volume (yd3)= 7 $1,200 $8,711 Reinforced Concrete Piles 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 Equestrian Bridge D:  Deck Width = 13', Deck Span = 18' 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' Unit Cost   Cost          6' High Chain Link Fencing Length (ft) = 60 $150 $9,000 Decorative Reinforced Concrete Barrier Length (ft) = 60 $500 $30,000 Width (ft) = 11 Length (ft) = 20 Area (ft2)= 220 $35 $7,700 Concrete Wearing Slab Width (ft) = 36 Length (ft) = 20 Area (ft2)= 720 $35 $25,200 Reinforced Concrete Deck   Width (ft) = 50 Span (ft) = 20 Thickness (inch) = 12 Volume (yd3)= 1000 $80 $80,000 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area (ft2)=7 Length (ft) = 58 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft3)= 812 Volume (yd3)= 30 $1,200 $36,089 Reinforced Concrete Piles Pile Diameter (inch) = 18 Pile Length (ft) = 11.5 Number of Piles = 12 Total Pile Length (ft) = 138 $900 $124,200 Total =  $312,189 USE  $315,000 Concrete Sidewalk/ Barrrier Protection Slab Alternative 4 ‐ Construction Option 1 Cast‐In‐Place Reinforced Concrete Deck Single Bridge Serving Pedestrian, Equestrian, and Vehicular Traffic Unit Cost   Cost          6' High Chain Link Fencing Length (ft) = 60 $150 $9,000 Decorative Reinforced Concrete Barrier Length (ft) = 60 $500 $30,000 Width (ft) = 3 Length (ft) = 20 Area (ft2)= 60 $35 $2,100 Concrete Wearing Slab Width (ft) = 26 Length (ft) = 20 Area (ft2)= 520 $35 $18,200 Reinforced Concrete Deck   Width (ft) = 42.5 Span (ft) = 20 Thickness (inch) = 16 Volume (ft3)= 1133 Volume (yd3)= 42 $1,200 $50,370 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area (ft2)=7 Length (ft) = 42.5 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft3)= 595 Volume (yd3)= 22 $1,200 $26,444 Reinforced Concrete Piles Pile Diameter (inch) = 18 Pile Length (ft) = 11.5 Number of Piles = 10 Total Pile Length = 115 $900 $103,500 Total =  $239,615 Use $240,000 Concrete Sidewalk/ Barrrier Protection Slab 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' Unit Cost   Cost          6' High Chain Link Fencing Length (ft) = 60 $150 $9,000 Decorative Reinforced Concrete Barrier   Length (ft) = 60 $500 $30,000 Width (ft) = 3 Length (ft) = 20 Area (ft2)= 60 $35 $2,100 Concrete Wearing Slab Width (ft) = 36 Length (ft) = 20 Area (ft2)= 720 $35 $25,200 Reinforced Concrete Deck   Width (ft) = 42.5 Span (ft) = 20 Thickness (inch) = 16 Area (ft2)= 850 $80 $68,000 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area (ft2)=7 Length (ft) = 50 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume (ft3)= 700 Volume (yd3)= 26 $1,200 $31,111 Reinforced Concrete Piles Pile Diameter (inch) = 18 Pile Length (ft) = 11.5 Number of Piles = 10 Total Pile Length = 115 $900 $103,500 Total =  $268,911 USE $270,000 Concrete Sidewalk/ Barrrier Protection Slab PREPARED BY: Aufbau Corp. JANUARY 2020 BRIDGE F BRIDGE G BRIDGE E BRIDGE D BRIDGE C Attachment 2 This 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. ____________________________ Vartan Vartanians Registered Civil Engineer Aufbau Corporation 01-29-2020 _________________________ Date: 1 1 AUFBAU EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to document the physical conditions of Bridge C, Bridge D, Bridge E, Bridge F, and Bridge G within the Heritage Community Park, to estimate the load carrying capacity of said bridges at the time of their original construction, and to assess their serviceability and load carrying capacities at their present condition - using data obtained from the construction drawings of said bridges, as supplemented by information gathered during field observations and investigations. The above noted bridges are timber bridges consisting of two basic components, the superstructure and the substructure. The superstructure being the framework of the bridge span which includes the deck planks, glued-laminated girders, glued laminated stringers and beams, and other incidental components. The substructure – the bridge abutments - being those portions of the bridge that transmits loads from the superstructure to the supporting soil materials. The primary focus of this report is to evaluate the condition of the bridge superstructures. Observation of the bridge superstructures were conducted in December of 2019. Visual inspections of the bridge superstructures were primarily for determination of exterior deterioration of bridge deck planks, glued-laminated girders, glued-laminated stringers, glued-laminated beams, and other load- carrying timber members, with limited investigation of the interior deterioration of same. Observations for the exterior deteriorations included: o Observations of fractures of deck planks. o Observations for checks (splits and cracks) on deck planks and other load-carrying timber members. o Observations for fractures or delamination of the glued-laminated girders, glued- laminated stringers, and glued-laminated beams. o Observations for concrete failures at the bridge abutment seats. o Observations for staining and discoloration of glued-laminated beams, glued-laminated stringers, glued-laminated beams, timber members, and deck planks - checking whether the wood members have been subjected to water and potentially high moisture contents as necessary to support decay. o Observations for rust stains on connecting hardware – checking for indications of wetting. o Observations for insect activity - visually characterized by holes, frass, and powder posting. Inspection for interior deterioration of the wood members was limited to: o Probing – using a pointed tool to reveal excessive softness of the wood or a lack of resistance to probe penetration. o Sounding – striking the wood members with hammer and listening to the tonal quality of the ensuing sounds - dull or hollow sounds indicating possible presence of interior voids or decay. Our filed observations and investigation revealed a number of deficiencies which are reflected in Appendix C, some requiring prompt mitigation measures. 2 AUFBAU Pictures taken at the time of our field observations and investigations are included in Appendix A. BRIDGE CONFIGURATIONS Reference is made to Appendix B for the below discussions: Bridge C – See Sheets 1 and 6 of Appendix B Bridge C spans over Demens Creek Channel within the westerly portion of the Heritage Community Park – it is the first bridge crossing over Demens Creek Channel downstream of the confluence of Rancho Wash Channel and Demens Creek Channel. Bridge C serves pedestrian and equestrian traffic. Posted signs at bridge entry points presently prohibit utilization of the bridge by motor vehicles. The bridge has an approximate width of ten (10) feet and an approximate span of eighteen (18) feet. The primary load-carrying members of the bridge are two (2) 8 ¾ x 15 glued-laminated girders which are supported at their ends on reinforced concrete corbels, which serve as the abutment seats for the bridge superstructure. The corbels were incorporated into the sidewalls of Demens Creek Channel in connection with the construction of the bridge superstructure – subsequent to the construction of Demens Creek Channel. The connection of the girders to the corbels is with fabricated steel connections and bolts. The glued-laminated girders are approximately sixty-eight (68) inches apart – being the clear horizontal distance between the two girders. The structural members transferring the loads imposed on the bridge deck to the glued-laminated girders are 3.5” x 9” sawn lumber planks. The planks are placed flatwise and span perpendicular to the girders. The planks cantilever out approximately sixteen (16) inches over the bridge girders – creating the bridge deck overhangs. The planks are first covered by a layer of plywood sheathing then by a layer of asphaltic concrete pavement which serves as the wearing surface of the bridge deck. The asphaltic concrete pavement does not cover the entire width of the bridge – it stops at about one foot from the outside edge of the bridge overhangs. The additional structural members of the bridge superstructure provide blocking between the glued- laminated girders and support for the railings along the outside edges of the bridge. Bridge D – See Sheets 2 and 6 of Appendix B Bridge D spans over Rancho Wash Channel upstream of the confluence of Rancho Wash Channel and Demens Creek Channel. Bridge D serves pedestrian and equestrian traffic. Posted signs at bridge entry points presently prohibit utilization of the bridge by motor vehicles. The bridge has an approximate width of ten (10) feet and an approximate span of ten (10) feet. The primary load-carrying members of the bridge are two (2) 6 ¾ x 15 glued-laminated girders which are supported at their ends on reinforced concrete corbels, which serve as the abutment seats for the bridge superstructure. The corbels were incorporated into the sidewalls of Rancho Wash Channel in connection with the construction of the bridge superstructure – subsequent to the construction of Rancho Wash Channel. The connection of the girders to the corbels is with fabricated steel connections and bolts. The glued-laminated girders are approximately seventy (70) inches apart – being the clear horizontal distance between the two girders. The structural members transferring the loads imposed on the bridge 3 AUFBAU deck to the glued-laminated girders are 3.5” x 9” sawn lumber planks. The planks are placed flatwise and span perpendicular to the girders. The planks cantilever out approximately sixteen (16) inches over the bridge girders – creating the bridge deck overhangs. The planks are first covered by a layer of plywood sheathing then by a layer of asphaltic concrete pavement which serves as the wearing surface of the bridge deck. The asphaltic concrete pavement does not cover the entire width of the bridge – it stops at about one foot from the outside edge of the bridge overhangs. The additional structural members of the bridge superstructure provide blocking between the glued- laminated girders and support for the railings along the outside edges of the bridge. Bridge E – See Sheets 3 and 6, Appendix B Bridge E spans over Demens Creek Channel – it is the first bridge crossing over Demens Creek Channel upstream of the confluence of Rancho Wash Channel and Demens Creek Channel. Bridge E was designed to serve only pedestrian traffic. Posted signs at bridge entry points prohibit utilization of the bridge by motor vehicles. The bridge has an approximate width of eight and a half (8.5) feet and an approximate span of twenty (20) feet. At the location of crossing of the bridge over Demens Creek Channel, the Channel is approximately twelve (12) feet wide. The primary load carrying members of the bridge are two (2) 5 ⅛ x 16 ½ glued-laminated girders which are located at the outer edges of the bridge structure. The girders are supported at their ends on reinforced concrete abutments which are distant and independent of the Demens Creek Channel sidewalls. The glued-laminated girders are approximately ninety-one (91) inches apart – being the clear horizontal distance between the two girders. In addition to the two girders noted above, there are two (2) 5 x 5 ½ glued-laminated stringers, situated between the girders, which provide intermediate support for the bridge deck planks. The stringers are then supported by four (4) 3 x 11 glued-laminated floor beams. The floor beams transfer the loads imposed on the bridge deck to exterior girders of the bridge. The bridge deck consists of 2” x 7.5” sawn lumber planks spanning perpendicular to the stringers and girders. The sawn lumber planks serve as the wearing surface of the bridge deck. The railings along outside edges of the bridge are connected directly to the outside faces of the glued- laminated beams. Bridge F – See Sheets 4 and 6, Appendix B Bridge F spans over Demens Creek Channel – it is the vehicular bridge crossing over Demens Creek Channel upstream of the confluence of Rancho Wash Channel and Demens Creek Channel. The bridge has an approximate width of twenty-seven (27) feet and an approximate span of twelve (12) feet. The primary load carrying members of the bridge are nine (9) 8 ¾ x 15 glued-laminated girders which are supported at their ends on reinforced concrete corbels, which serve as the abutment seats for the bridge superstructure. The corbels were incorporated into the sidewalls of Demens Creek Channel in connection with the construction of the bridge superstructure – subsequent to the construction of Demens Creek Channel. The connection of the girders to the corbels is with fabricated steel connections and bolts. 4 AUFBAU The glued-laminated girders are approximately thirty (30) inches apart – being the clear horizontal distance between the two neighboring girders. The structural members transferring the vertical loads imposed on the bridge to the glued-laminated girders are 3.5” x 9” sawn lumber planks spanning perpendicular to the girders. The planks cantilever out approximately fourteen (14) inches over the exterior girders – creating the bridge deck overhangs. The planks are first covered by a layer of plywood sheathing then by a layer of asphaltic concrete pavement which serves as the wearing surface of the bridge deck. The asphaltic concrete pavement does not cover the entire width of the bridge – it stops at about one foot from the outside edge of the bridge overhangs. The additional structural members of the bridge superstructure provide blocking between the glued- laminated girders and provide support for the railings along the outside edges of the bridge. Bridge G – See Sheets 5 and 6, Appendix B Bridge G spans over Demens Creek Channel. Bridge G was designed to serve only pedestrian and equestrian traffic. Posted signs at bridge entry points presently prohibit utilization of the bridge by motor vehicles. The bridge has an approximate width of ten and a half (10.5) feet and an approximate span of twenty (20) feet. The primary load carrying members of the bridge are two (2) 5 ⅛ x 18 glued-laminated girders which are located at the outer edges of the bridge structure. The girders are supported at their ends on reinforced concrete abutments which are distant and independent of the Demens Creek Channel sidewalls. The glued-laminated girders are approximately hundred and fifteen (115) inches apart – being the clear horizontal distance between the two girders. In addition to the two girders noted above, there are three (3) 5 x 5 ½ glued-laminated stringers, situated between the girders, which provide intermediate support for the bridge deck plans. The stringers are then supported by four (4) 3 x 11 glued-laminated floor beams. The floor beams transfer the loads imposed on the bridge deck to exterior girders of the bridge. The bridge deck consists of 2” x 7.5” sawn lumber planks spanning perpendicular to the stringers and girders. The sawn lumber planks serve as the wearing surface of the bridge deck. The railings along outside edges of the bridge are connected directly to the outside faces of the glued- laminated beams. BRIDGE CONDITIONS Reference is made to Appendix A for the pictures taken from the undersides of Bridge C, Bridge D, Bridge E, Bridge F, and Bridge G. Reference is made to Appendix C for the discussions presented below. Bridge C – See Sheet 1 of 5 of Appendix C The wood planks comprising the bridge deck, particularly the bridge overhangs, are deteriorated and are in need of replacement. The wood planks are continuous members – extending from one edge of the bridge deck to the other edge of the bridge deck. All planks comprising the bridge deck exhibit deterioration. Replacement of the deteriorated wood planks will require removal of the asphaltic concrete pavement and the plywood sheathing which cover the planks. 5 AUFBAU Other prominent deficiencies in the members supporting the wood planks are noted on Sheet 1 of 5 of Appendix C. Bridge D – See Sheet 2 of 5 of Appendix C The wood planks comprising the bridge deck, particularly the bridge overhangs, are deteriorated and are in need of replacement. The wood planks are continuous members – extending from one edge of the bridge deck to the other edge of the bridge deck. All planks comprising the bridge deck exhibit deterioration. Replacement of the deteriorated wood planks will require removal of the asphaltic concrete pavement and the plywood sheathing which cover the planks. Other prominent deficiencies in the members supporting the wood planks are noted on Sheet 2 of 5 of Appendix C. Bridge E – See Sheet 3 of 5 of Appendix C The wood planks comprising the bridge deck exhibit moderate amount of splitting and deterioration and are in need of replacement. Other prominent deficiencies in the members supporting the wood planks are noted on Sheet 3 of 5 of Appendix C. Bridge F – See Sheet 4 of 5 of Appendix C The wood planks which comprise the bridge deck, particularly the bridge overhangs, are deteriorated and are in need of replacement. The majority of the planks comprising the bridge deck exhibit deterioration. Replacement of the deteriorated wood planks will require removal of the asphaltic concrete pavement and the plywood sheathing which cover the planks. Other prominent deficiencies in the members supporting the wood planks are noted on Sheet 4 of 5 of Appendix C. Bridge G – See Sheet 5 of 5 of Appendix C The wood planks comprising the bridge deck exhibit moderate amount of splitting and deterioration and are in need of replacement. Other prominent deficiencies in the members supporting the wood planks are noted on Sheet 5 of 5 of Appendix C. MECHANICAL AND STRENGTH PROPERTIES OF BRIDGE BUILDING MATERIALS The construction plans of the bridge structures do not provide the mechanical and strength properties for the various building materials that were used during construction of the bridges, including the mechanical and strength properties of the planks, the glued-laminated girders, the glued-laminated stringers, and the glued-laminated beams. The construction specification and special provisions for the bridge construction were also not available to obtain the mechanical and strength properties of the various bridge building 6 AUFBAU materials. Additionally, no trademarks were found on the glued-laminated members at the time of our field investigations to identify the layup combination and the lumber grade of the glued-laminated girders, stringers, and beams. For the purpose of determination of the bridge load carrying capacities, the following mechanical and strength properties were assumed and used. The assumptions for the mechanical and strength properties of the planks, timber members, and the glued-laminated members are conservative values and reflect the timber and glued-laminated members commonly used for timber bridge construction in west coast and southern California. The assumed strength values for concrete and reinforcement steel used for capacity calculations of the bridge abutments are conservative values as well. Planks: Douglas Fir-Larch, Dense No. 2 – pressure treated lumber Fiber stress in bending Fb – tension zone in tension = 900 psi Horizontal shear Fv = 180 psi Tension parallel to grain Ft = 575 psi Compression perpendicular to grain FC = 625 psi Compression parallel to grain FC = 1,350 psi Modulus of Elasticity = 1,600,000 psi Density = 31.2 pcf Glued- Laminated Members Wood Grade 24F-V4, Wood Species DF/DF Fiber stress in bending Fb - tension zone in tension = 2,400 psi Horizontal shear Fv = 265 psi Tension parallel to grain Ft = 1,100 psi Compression perpendicular to grain FC = 650 psi Compression parallel to grain FC = 1,650 psi Modulus of Elasticity = 1,800,000 psi Density = 31.2 pcf Reinforcement Steel Fy = 40,000 psi (Grade 40 rebar with a minimum yield strength of 40,000 psi) Concrete f’c = 3,000 psi (28-day compressive strength of 3,000 psi) BRIDGE ABUTMENT CAPACITIES The bridge abutments and abutment seats constructed as part of Bridge C, Bridge D, and Bridge F vary from what are shown on the construction drawings for said bridges. The bridge abutments for Bridge E and Bridge G however appear to have been constructed in accordance with the construction drawings of said bridges. Reference is made to Sheet 6 of 6 of Appendix B. 7 AUFBAU The construction drawings for Bridge C, Bridge D, and Bridge F provide a detail for construction of the abutments utilizing the sidewalls of the Demens Creek Channel and Rancho Wash Channel – see Detail A. The drawings call out for construction of reinforced concrete corbels at the back side of the channel sidewalls to serve as the bridge abutment seats. For the construction of the corbels, rebars are called out to be installed and epoxied into drilled holes on the back side of the sidewalls of the channels. The abutment seats at Bridge C, Bridge D, and Bridge F, as constructed, appear similar to what is shown on the details of said construction drawings – the difference being that the corbels are constructed on the front side of the sidewalls of Demens Creek Channel and Rancho Wash Channel, as shown on Detail B and Detail C. During field investigations, there were observations of horizontal and vertical concrete overcuts on the front faces of the channel sidewalls at the bottom corners of corbels of all of the bridges discussed in this report, including a saw cut line along the bottom lines of the corbels – see picture below for the concrete overcuts. The horizontal and vertical overcuts extend out from the bottom corner of the corbel shown. We are of the opinion that these overcuts were made in connection with the construction of the bridge abutments and corbels. Overcuts are the result of using a round blade to cut through a flat surface – the sidewalls of the channels in this case. For the round blade to get to the boundary of the desired recess within the sidewalls, or alternatively the desired opening on the back side of the sidewalls, the saw, on the front side of the walls, will need to go past the desired recess within the walls or alternatively the desired opening on the back side of the walls. The thicker the desired cut in the walls, the longer the overcuts turn out to be. See Sheet 6 of 6 of Appendix B – Detail B and Detail C. The details depict possible methods for the construction of the bridge abutments/corbels. Detail B indicates a shallow sawcut within the sidewall of the channel, along the perimeter of the corbel, to create a recess as part of development of a roughened surface between the sidewall of the channel and the corbel. Detail B, assumes use of dowels, similar to what is shown on Detail A, to connect the corbels to the sidewalls of the channel. Detail C assumes removal of top portions of the sidewalls of the channels and construction of the corbels monolithic with the bridge abutments. The lengths of the overcuts observed suggest that the saw cut at the sidewalls of the channels extend to the back of the sidewalls, suggesting that corbels were constructed somewhat similar to and in accordance with Detail C. “As-Built” drawings of the bridge construction were not available to verify this assumption. For the purpose of determination of the corbel capacities, the reinforcement steel shown on Details A and B were used to establish the shear capacities of the corbels. It is anticipated that at the locations where 8 AUFBAU the glued-laminated girders rest on corbels, a minimum of four (4) #4 reinforcement bars are available at the interface of the reinforced concrete corbels and the sidewalls of the channels. Neglecting any shear capacity that may be provided by concrete, the shear capacity of the corbels at their interface with the sidewalls of the Demens Creek Channel and Rancho Wash Channel, as provided by said #4 reinforcement bars, can be assumed to be in the magnitude of 18,816 pounds (4 x .196 in2 x .6 x 40,000 pounds/in2) – approximated at 18,000 pounds. BRIDGE LOAD CAPACITIES Bridge C: Reference is made to Appendix B (Sheet 1 of 6), and Appendix D regarding the below discussions. The load capacity of the wood planks for Bridge C was calculated under the loading condition of a utility vehicle with a track width of approximately 4’-8” being driven along the centerline of the bridge. Track width is the distance between the centerline of the two wheels on the same axle of any given vehicle. Under this loading condition, the centers of the wheels of the utility vehicle will be situated approximately six inches from the inside faces of the glued-laminated girders which support the plank. Under this loading condition, the flexural failure of the plank, as governed by applicable codes, is anticipated to take place under a wheel load of just above 2,200 pounds and the shear failure of the plank under a wheel load of just above 2,800 pounds. The flexural failure governs - therefore, the maximum permissible wheel load under the above loading condition would be approximately 2,200 pounds, resulting in a maximum allowable axle load of approximately 4,400 pounds for a given vehicle. It is to be noted that the typical track widths of standard cars and standard pickup trucks are larger than the track width of a typical utility vehicle. The track width of a typical car is about 5’-0”, the track width of a typical sport utility vehicle, minivan, and pickup truck is approximately 5’-6”. The horizontal separation between the glued-laminated girders of Bridge C is 5’-8”. Therefore, the wheel loads of typical cars, sports utility vehicles, minivans, and pickup trucks, driven over the bridge, would in most likelihood load the wood planks first, before such loads are transferred to the glued-laminated girders which support the planks. A vehicle would need to have a track width of approximately 6’-4” in order to impose its wheel loads directly on top of the glued-laminated girders without engaging the planks that are on the load path. It is to be noted that the failure of the planks under a utility vehicle with a track width of less than 4’-8” can take place under a wheel load of less than 2,200 pounds. As the track width of the utility vehicle decreases, the wheel load capacity of the plank decreases as well. For example, a single wheel load of approximately 770 pounds, applied at the centerline of the bridge, would cause flexural failure of the planks. For instance, the wheel load of a touring motorcycle as it is ridden over the bridge can introduce wheel loads approaching 770 pounds. Regarding equestrian traffic - the combined weight of a 16-hand horse, tack, and a rider can range between 1,300 pounds and 2,000 pounds. The bridge, upon completion of the necessary repairs, can continue to serve equestrian traffic. The bridge shall not be used by any motorized vehicle, including motorcycles. The use of the bridge shall be limited to pedestrian and equestrian traffic only. 9 AUFBAU Bridge D: Reference is made to Appendix B (Sheet 2 of 6), and Appendix D regarding the below discussions. Similar to the loading condition considered for Bridge C, the load capacity of the wood planks for Bridge D was calculated under the loading condition of a utility vehicle with a track width of approximately 4’-8” being driven along the centerline of the bridge. Under this loading condition, the centers of the wheels of the utility vehicle will be situated approximately seven inches from the inside faces of the glued-laminated girders which support the planks. Under this loading condition, the flexural failure of the plank, as governed by applicable codes, is anticipated to take place under a wheel load of just above 1,850 pounds and the shear failure of the plank takes place under a wheel load of just above 2,950 pounds. The flexural failure governs - therefore, the maximum permissible wheel load under the above loading condition would be approximately 1,850 pounds, resulting in a maximum allowable axle load of approximately 3,700 pounds for a given vehicle. The horizontal separation between the glued-laminated girders of Bridge D is 5’-10”. Therefore, the wheel loads of typical cars, sports utility vehicles, minivans, and pickup trucks, driven over the bridge, would in most likelihood load the wood planks first, before such loads are transferred to the glued-laminated girders which support the planks. A vehicle would need to have a track width of approximately 6’-4” in order to impose its wheel loads directly on top of the glued-laminated girders without engaging the planks that are on the load path. It is to be noted that the failure of the planks under a utility vehicle with a track width of less than 4’-8” can take place under a wheel load of less than 1,850 pounds. As the track width of the utility vehicle decreases, the wheel load capacity of the plank decreases as well. For example, a single wheel load of approximately 750 pounds, applied at the centerline of the bridge, would cause flexural failure of the plank. For instance, the wheel load of a touring motorcycle as it is ridden over the bridge can introduce a wheel load approaching 750 pounds. Regarding equestrian traffic - the combined weight of a 16-hand horse, tack, and a rider can range between 1,300 pounds and 2,000 pounds. The bridge, upon completion of the necessary repairs, can continue to serve equestrian traffic. The bridge shall not be used by any motorized vehicle, including motorcycles. The use of the bridge shall be limited to pedestrian and equestrian traffic only. Bridge F Reference is made to Appendix B (Sheet 4 of 6), and Appendix D regarding the below discussions. The load capacity of a 3.5-inch-deep wood plank, spanning perpendicular to the glued-laminated girders, was calculated under the below two loading conditions: a. A wheel load applied at 3.5 inches from the inside face of the nearest glued-laminated girder which supports the plank. Under this loading condition, the shear failure of the 10 AUFBAU plank, as governed by the applicable codes, takes place under a wheel load of just above 3,400 pounds. b.A wheel load applied at 15 inches from the inside face of the nearest glued-laminated girder which supports the plank – the wheel load being applied at the middle of the centerlines of two neighboring glued-laminated girders. Under this loading condition, the flexural failure of the plank, as governed by the applicable codes, takes place prior to the shear failure of the plank. The flexural failure of the plank takes place under a wheel load of just above 2,150 pounds. In consideration of the above-noted flexural failure of the planks under a wheel load of 2,150 pounds, the maximum allowable vehicle axle load on the bridge would be about 4,300 pounds. It is to be noted that the presence of the plywood sheathing over the timber planks may create a composite section providing a higher load carrying capacity. However, the increase in load carrying capacity of the deck due to this possible composite action is neglected as it is deemed to be insignificant. The load capacities of the glued-laminated girders for Bridge F were then calculated under the below two loading conditions. It is to be noted that the load carrying capacities of the girders noted below need to be reduced as necessary to reflect their current deteriorated conditions: a.A wheel load applied directly on top of the glued-laminated girder, at 15 inches from the end of the girder - corresponding to the depth of the glued-laminated beam. Under this loading condition, the shear failure of the glued-laminated girder, as governed by the applicable codes, takes place under a wheel load of just above 25,000 pounds. This corresponds to a vehicle having a maximum axle load of approximately 50,000 pounds. b.A wheel load applied directly on top of the glued-laminated girder, at the mid span of the glued-laminated girder. Under this loading condition, the flexural failure of the glued- laminated girder, as governed by the applicable codes, takes place under a wheel load of just above 20,500 pounds. This corresponds to a vehicle having a maximum axle load of approximately 41,000 pounds. It is to be noted that due to relatively short span of the bridge, two axle loads of significant magnitudes are not anticipated to be imposed on any of the glued-laminated girders. BEARING CAPACITY OF GIRDERTS AT THEIR END SUPPORTS For a vertical reaction of 18,000 pounds at the end support – as controlled by the capacity of the bridge abutment, considering an allowable compressive strength of 650 pounds/inch2 for the glued-laminated girder, a bearing area of approximately 28 square inches (18,000 pounds/ 650 pounds/in2) is required. This required bearing area is provided at the fabricated steel connections at the abutment seats. 11 AUFBAU RECOMMENDATIONS/ CONCLUSIONS Bridge C: Bridge C needs to be rehabilitated in order for it to continue to be in service. Upon completion of the necessary repairs, use of the bridge shall be limited for pedestrian and equestrian traffic only. Use of the bridge by motorized vehicles, including motorcycles shall be prohibited. Bridge D: Bridge D needs to be rehabilitated in order for it to continue to be in service. Upon completion of the necessary repairs, use of the bridge shall be limited for pedestrian and equestrian traffic only. Use of the bridge by motorized vehicles, including motorcycles shall be prohibited. Bridge E: Bridge E needs to be rehabilitated in order for it to continue to be in service. Upon completion of the necessary repairs, use of the bridge shall be limited for pedestrian traffic only. Use of the bridge by motorized vehicles, including motorcycles shall be prohibited. Bridge F: Use of Bridge F, after its in-kind rehabilitation, shall be limited to vehicles having a maximum axle load of 4,300 pounds. This is determined based on the lowest maximum axle load capacity of the following bridge elements. Maximum axle load as governed by the deck planks = 4,300 pounds Maximum axle load as governed by the glued-laminated girders = 41,000 pounds Maximum axle load as governed by the bridge abutment = 18,000 pounds In order for the bridge to accommodate vehicles with axial loads exceeding 4,300 pounds, the bridge will need to be removed and reconstructed under an alternative construction method. Bridge G: Bridge G needs to be rehabilitated in order for it to continue to be in service. Upon completion of the necessary repairs, use of the bridge shall be limited for pedestrian and equestrian traffic only. Use of the bridge by motorized vehicles, including motorcycles shall be prohibited. 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. 12 AUFBAU 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. Page 12 of 20 © Fire Apparatus Manufacturers’ Association TC009-1 - Emergency Vehicle Size and Weight Guide 171130 Emergency Vehicle Size and Weight Guide Appendix A – Typical Fire Apparatus Configurations COMMERCIAL CHASSIS PUMPER – SINGLE REAR AXLE Minimum Maximum Front GAWR (lbs) 12000 18000 Rear GAWR (lbs) 21000 31000 Width (in.) 98 100 Height (in.) 9 12 Length (ft.) 24 35 CUSTOM CHASSIS PUMPER – SINGLE REAR AXLE Minimum Maximum Front GAWR (lbs) 18000 24000 Rear GAWR (lbs) 24000 31000 Width (in.) 98 100 Height (in.) 9 12 Length (ft.) 30 34 Page 13 of 20 © Fire Apparatus Manufacturers’ Association TC009-1 - Emergency Vehicle Size and Weight Guide 171130 Emergency Vehicle Size and Weight Guide COMMERCIAL CHASSIS TANKER – TANDEM REAR AXLE Minimum Maximum Front GAWR (lbs) 12000 18000 Rear GAWR (lbs) 34000 56000 Width (in.) 98 100 Height (in.) 10 12 Length (ft.) 30 40 CUSTOM CHASSIS TANKER – TANDEM REAR AXLE Minimum Maximum Front GAWR (lbs) 18740 22800 Rear GAWR (lbs) 40000 56000 Width (in.) 98 100 Height (in.) 10 12 Length (ft.) 34 40 Page 14 of 20 © Fire Apparatus Manufacturers’ Association TC009-1 - Emergency Vehicle Size and Weight Guide 171130 Emergency Vehicle Size and Weight Guide INDUSTRIAL FOAM PUMPER – SINGLE REAR AXLE Minimum Maximum Front GAWR (lbs) 20000 24000 Rear GAWR (lbs) 24000 31000 Width (in.) 98 100 Height (in.) 10 12 Length (ft.) 30 36 INDUSTRIAL FOAM PUMPER – TANDEM REAR AXLE Minimum Maximum Front GAWR (lbs) 20000 24000 Rear GAWR (lbs) 40000 46000 Width (in.) 98 100 Height (in.) 10 12 Length (ft.) 36 40 Page 15 of 20 © Fire Apparatus Manufacturers’ Association TC009-1 - Emergency Vehicle Size and Weight Guide 171130 Emergency Vehicle Size and Weight Guide AERIAL LADDER – SINGLE REAR AXLE Minimum Maximum Front GAWR (lbs) 20000 22800 Rear GAWR (lbs) 24000 35000 Width (in.) 98 100 Height (in.) 10.5 12.5 Length (ft.) 36 43 AERIAL LADDER – TANDEM REAR AXLE Minimum Maximum Front GAWR (lbs) 20000 22800 Rear GAWR (lbs) 34000 54000 Width (in.) 98 100 Height (in.) 10.5 12.5 Length (ft.) 39 43 Page 16 of 20 © Fire Apparatus Manufacturers’ Association TC009-1 - Emergency Vehicle Size and Weight Guide 171130 Emergency Vehicle Size and Weight Guide AERIAL PLATFORM MID MOUNT – TANDEM REAR AXLE Minimum Maximum Front GAWR (lbs) 21500 24000 Rear GAWR (lbs) 40000 62000 Width (in.) 98 100 Height (in.) 9.5 11.5 Length (ft.) 46 51 AERIAL PLATFORM REAR MOUNT – TANDEM REAR AXLE Minimum Maximum Front GAWR (lbs) 21500 24000 Rear GAWR (lbs) 46000 62000 Width (in.) 98 100 Height (in.) 11.5 13 Length (ft.) 46 48 Page 17 of 20 © Fire Apparatus Manufacturers’ Association TC009-1 - Emergency Vehicle Size and Weight Guide 171130 Emergency Vehicle Size and Weight Guide AERIAL LADDER – TILLER SINGLE REAR TRACTOR AXLE Minimum Maximum Front GAWR (lbs) 21500 24000 Rear GAWR (lbs) 27000 31000 Tiller GAWR (lbs) 21500 24000 Width (in.) 98 100 Height (in.) 10.5 11.5 Length (ft.) 56 63 AERIAL LADDER – TILLER TRACTOR TANDEM REAR AXLE Minimum Maximum Front GAWR (lbs) 21500 24000 Rear GAWR (lbs) 34000 44000 Tiller GAWR (lbs) 21500 24000 Width (in.) 98 100 Height (in.) 10.5 11.5 Length (ft.) 56 63 Page 18 of 20 © Fire Apparatus Manufacturers’ Association TC009-1 - Emergency Vehicle Size and Weight Guide 171130 Emergency Vehicle Size and Weight Guide Appendix B – State Fire Apparatus Size and Weight Regulations WEIGHT General Exemption Specific Emergency Vehicle Regulations Special Permits Allowed No Data Alabama California Connecticut Alaska Arkansas New York Arizona Colorado Oregon District of Columbia Delaware Washington Florida Illinois Georgia Indiana Hawaii Iowa Idaho Kansas Massachusetts Kentucky Montana Louisiana Nebraska Maine New Jersey Maryland North Carolina Michigan North Dakota Minnesota Rhode Island Mississippi South Carolina Missouri South Dakota Nevada Tennessee New Hampshire Texas New Mexico Vermont Ohio Virginia Oklahoma Wyoming Pennsylvania Utah West Virginia Wisconsin 25 4 1 21 Page 19 of 20 © Fire Apparatus Manufacturers’ Association TC009-1 - Emergency Vehicle Size and Weight Guide 171130 Emergency Vehicle Size and Weight Guide WIDTH Exempt 96 Inches 102 Inches No Data Arkansas Kentucky Alabama Alaska Delaware Colorado Arizona Illinois Connecticut California Indiana Florida District of Columbia Kansas Georgia Iowa Maryland Hawaii Nebraska Michigan Idaho South Carolina Minnesota Louisiana Mississippi Maine Missouri Massachusetts New Mexico Montana Ohio Nevada Oklahoma New Hampshire Pennsylvania New Jersey Utah New York Virginia North Carolina West Virginia North Dakota Oregon Rhode Island South Dakota Tennessee Texas Vermont Washington Wisconsin Wyoming 17 1 26 7 Page 20 of 20 © Fire Apparatus Manufacturers’ Association TC009-1 - Emergency Vehicle Size and Weight Guide 171130 Emergency Vehicle Size and Weight Guide HEIGHT Exempt Less Than 162 in. (13.5 ft) 162 in. (13.5 ft) 168 in. (14 ft) No Data Arkansas Kentucky Alabama Hawaii Alaska Delaware Colorado Connecticut Idaho Arizona Illinois Florida Montana California Indiana Georgia Nevada District of Columbia Kansas Louisiana North Dakota Iowa Maryland Maine Oregon Nebraska Michigan Massachusetts Washington South Carolina Minnesota New Hampshire Wyoming Mississippi New Jersey Missouri New York New Mexico North Carolina Ohio Rhode Island Oklahoma Tennessee Pennsylvania Texas South Dakota Vermont Utah Wisconsin Virginia West Virginia 18 2 16 8 7 APPENDIX A Bridge C - Figure 1 – Looking upstream - Underside of bridge deck Bridge C - Figure 2- Girder 1- A termite pocket near the wood surface is detected by sounding with a hammer. 1 Bridge C - Figure 3- Underside of bridge deck and corbel at north wall Bridge C - Figure 4 –Underside of bridge deck and corbel at south wall 2 Bridge C - Figure 5 - Looking South – Girder 1 and Beam 1 - Decay on the underside of deck plank at the deck-girder interface Bridge C - Figure 6 – Corbel at south wall, Girder 2, and deck planks 3 Bridge C - Figure 8- Observation of fractures at deck planks Bridge C - Figure 7- Frass from deck planks above Beam 5 4 Bridge D - Figure 1 - Underside of bridge deck – Looking downstream Bridge D - Figure 2 - Corbel at south wall 5 Bridge D - Figure 3- Girder 1 Bridge D - Figure 4- Girder 1 and overhanging deck planks 6 Bridge D - Figure 5- Girder 2 and overhanging deck planks Bridge D - Figure 6- Corbel at north wall 7 Bridge D - Figure 7- Deck planks between Beam 1 and 2 Bridge D - Figure 8- Visible cracks on Girder 1 8 Bridge D - Figure 9 – Frass above corbel at south abutment 9 Bridge E - Figure 1 - Looking upstream - Underside of bridge deck Bridge E - Figure 2 - Bridge abutments 10 Bridge F - Figure 1- Looking upstream - Girder 1 and overhanging deck planks Bridge F - Figure 2- Looking upstream- Girder 1 and overhanging deck planks 11 Bridge F - Figure 3 – Underside of bridge structure – between Girder 2 and 3 - Observation of fractures of deck planks Bridge F - Figure 4 – Corbel at north wall, Girder 1, and deck planks 12 Bridge F - Figure 5 – Underside of bridge - Observation of fractures of deck planks Bridge F - Figure 6 – Corbel at north wall 13 Bridge G - Figure 1- Underside of bridge deck Bridge G - Figure 2- Bridge abutments 14 APPENDIX B SECTION A-ANOT TO SCALEPLANNOT TO SCALEAABBSECTION B-BNOT TO SCALESEE DETAIL 2 THIS SHEETAND DETAILS A, B, AND C ON SHEET 6FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONSEE DETAIL 1 THIS SHEETFOR ADDITIONALINFORMATIONDETAIL 2NOT TO SCALEDETAIL 1NOT TO SCALEAPPENDIX "B" - SHEET 1 OF 61212GLUED-LAMINATED GIRDER ID*BRIDGE C - DEMENS CREEK CHANNELFLOOR BEAM ID12345*12345 SECTION B-BNOT TO SCALESEE DETAIL 1 THIS SHEETFOR ADDITIONALINFORMATIONSEE DETAIL 2 THIS SHEETAND DETAILS A, B, ANDC ON SHEET 6FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONPLANNOT TO SCALESECTION A-ANOT TO SCALEBAABDETAIL 2NOT TO SCALEDETAIL 1NOT TO SCALE1212APPENDIX "B" - SHEET 2 OF 6BRIDGE D - RANCHO WASH CHANNEL321132GLUED-LAMINATED GIRDER ID*FLOOR BEAM ID* DETAIL 1NOT TO SCALESECTION B-BNOT TO SCALESEE DETAIL 1 THIS SHEETFOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONSECTION A-ANOT TO SCALENOT TO SCALEAAPLANBB1221APPENDIX "B" - SHEET 3 OF 6BRIDGE E - DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL*GLUED-LAMINATED GIRDER ID*4321GLUED-LAMINATED FLOOR BEAM ID*21GLUED-LAMINATED STRINGER ID124321 SECTION B-BNOT TO SCALESEE DETAIL 2 THIS SHEETAND DETAILS A, B, AND C ON SHEET 6FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONSEE DETAIL 1 THIS SHEETFOR ADDITIONALINFORMATIONSECTION A-ANOT TO SCALEPLANNOT TO SCALEAABBDETAIL 2NOT TO SCALEDETAIL 1NOT TO SCALE123456789123456789APPENDIX "B" - SHEET 4 OF 6BRIDGE F - DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL14795236810111213141517161819201112GLUED-LAMINATED GIRDER ID*FLOOR BEAM ID* AAPLANNOT TO SCALESECTION A-ANOT TO SCALEBBSECTION B-BNOT TO SCALESEE DETAIL 1 THIS SHEETFOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONDETAIL 1NOT TO SCALE1212APPENDIX "B" - SHEET 5 OF 6BRIDGE G - DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL12312341234321*GLUED-LAMINATED GIRDER ID*GLUED-LAMINATED FLOOR BEAM ID*GLUED-LAMINATED STRINGER ID DETAIL ANOT TO SCALEDETAIL CNOT TO SCALEDETAIL BNOT TO SCALEAPPENDIX "B" - SHEET 6 OF 6DETAILSDETAIL A -PER ORIGINAL BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGSNOTES:DETAIL B -POSSIBLE CONSTRUCTION METHODDETAIL C -POSSIBLE CONSTRUCTION METHOD APPENDIX C SECTION A-ANOT TO SCALEPLANNOT TO SCALEAABRIDGE CAPPENDIX "C" - SHEET 1 OF 5121212345BRIDGE C - DEMENS CREEK CHANNELGLUED-LAMINATED GIRDER ID*FLOOR BEAM ID*PORTIONS OF THE WOOD PLANKS THAT ARE SEVERELY DECAYEDAND DETERIORATEDLEGEND - CONDITION OF PLANKS - SEE PLANLEGEND - CONDITION OF GIRDERS - SEE SECTION A-APORTIONS OF THE WOOD PLANKS THAT EXHIBIT MODERATE AMOUNT OFDECAY AND DETERIORATIONPORTIONS OF THE WOOD PLANKS THAT EXHIBIT MODERATE AMOUNT OFSPLITTING LENGTHWISE12GIRDERS THAT ARE HEAVILY DETERIORATED -HAVE COMPROMISED STRENGTHGIRDERS THAT ARE MODERATELY DETERIORATED -HAVE COMPROMISED STRENGTHTERMITE DAMAGE.BOLT HOLES IN MOMENT-MODERATE ZONE/ TENSION ZONE RESULT IN LOAD CAPACITY REDUCTION.GIRDER EXHIBITS MODERATE HORIZONTAL FRACTURE DUE TO POSSIBLE OVERSTRESS IN BENDING.BOLT HOLES IN MOMENT-MODERATE ZONE/ TENSION ZONE RESULT IN LOAD CAPACITY REDUCTION.GIRDER EXHIBITS MODERATE HORIZONTAL FRACTURE DUE TO POSSIBLE OVERSTRESS IN BENDING. PLANNOT TO SCALESECTION A-ANOT TO SCALEAABRIDGE DAPPENDIX "C" - SHEET 2 OF 51212321BRIDGE D - RANCHO WASH CHANNELGLUED-LAMINATED GIRDER ID*FLOOR BEAM ID*PORTIONS OF THE WOOD PLANKS THAT ARE SEVERELY DECAYEDAND DETERIORATEDLEGEND - CONDITION OF PLANKS - SEE PLANLEGEND - CONDITION OF GIRDERS - SEE SECTION A-APORTIONS OF THE WOOD PLANKS THAT EXHIBIT MODERATE AMOUNT OFDECAY AND DETERIORATIONPORTIONS OF THE WOOD PLANKS THAT EXHIBIT MODERATE AMOUNT OFSPLITTING LENGTHWISEGIRDERS THAT ARE HEAVILY DETERIORATED -HAVE COMPROMISED STRENGTHGIRDERS THAT ARE MODERATELY DETERIORATED -HAVE COMPROMISED STRENGTH2BOLT HOLES IN MOMENT-MODERATE ZONE/ TENSION ZONE RESULT IN LOAD CAPACITY REDUCTION.GIRDER EXHIBITS MODERATE HORIZONTAL FRACTURE DUE TO POSSIBLE OVERSTRESS IN BENDING.1 SECTION A-ANOT TO SCALENOT TO SCALEAAPLANBRIDGE E1221APPENDIX "C" - SHEET 3 OF 5BRIDGE E - DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL43212112GLUED-LAMINATED GIRDER ID*GLUED-LAMINATED FLOOR BEAM IDGLUED-LAMINATED STRINGER IDPORTIONS OF THE GIRDERS AND STRINGERS THAT ARE HEAVILY DETERIORATED -REQUIRES REPLACEMENT OF GIRDERS AND STRINGERSPORTIONS OF THE GIRDERS AND STRINGERS THAT ARE MODERATELY DETERIORATEDPORTIONS OF THE WOOD PLANKS THAT ARE SEVERELY DECAYEDAND DETERIORATEDPORTIONS OF THE WOOD PLANKS THAT EXHIBIT MODERATE AMOUNT OFDECAY AND DETERIORATIONPORTIONS OF THE WOOD PLANKS THAT EXHIBIT MODERATE AMOUNT OFSPLITTING LENGTHWISELEGEND - CONDITION OF GIRDERS AND STRINGERS - SEE SECTION A-A*LEGEND - CONDITION OF PLANKS - SEE PLANDISCOLORATION DUE TO PRESENCE OF MOISTURE.GIRDER EXHIBITS MODERATE HORIZONTAL FRACTURE DUE TO POSSIBLE OVERSTRESS IN BENDING.1DISCOLORATION DUE TO PRESENCE OF MOISTURE.2DISCOLORATION DUE TO PRESENCE OF MOISTURE.DISCOLORATION DUE TO PRESENCE OF MOISTURE.4321*12 SECTION A-ANOT TO SCALEPLANNOT TO SCALEBRIDGE FAA123456789123456789APPENDIX "C" - SHEET 4 OF 5BRIDGE F - DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL1479523681011121314151716181920GLUED-LAMINATED GIRDER ID*FLOOR BEAM ID*DISCOLORATION DUE TO PRESENCE OF MOISTURE - POSSIBLE SURFACE FUNGI.BOLT HOLES IN MOMENT-CRITICAL ZONE/ TENSION ZONE RESULT IN LOAD CAPACITY REDUCTION.GIRDER EXHIBITS SIGNIFICANT HORIZONTAL FRACTURE DUE TO POSSIBLE OVERSTRESS IN BENDING.1DISCOLORATION DUE TO PRESENCE OF MOISTURE - POSSIBLE SURFACE FUNGI.BOLT HOLES IN MOMENT-CRITICAL ZONE/ TENSION ZONE RESULT IN LOAD CAPACITY REDUCTION.LENGTHWISE CRACK AT THE BOTTOM LAYER OF THE LAMINATION.23DISCOLORATION DUE TO PRESENCE OF MOISTURE - POSSIBLE SURFACE FUNGI.LENGTHWISE CRACK AT THE BOTTOM LAYER OF THE LAMINATION.45DISCOLORATION DUE TO PRESENCE OF MOISTURE - POSSIBLE SURFACE FUNGI.6789DISCOLORATION DUE TO PRESENCE OF MOISTURE - POSSIBLE SURFACE FUNGI.BOLT HOLES IN MOMENT-CRITICAL ZONE/ TENSION ZONE RESULT IN LOAD CAPACITY REDUCTION.LENGTHWISE CRACK AT THE BOTTOM LAYER OF THE LAMINATION.DISCOLORATION DUE TO PRESENCE OF MOISTURE - POSSIBLE SURFACE FUNGI.BOLT HOLES IN MOMENT-CRITICAL ZONE/ TENSION ZONE RESULT IN LOAD CAPACITY REDUCTION.GIRDER EXHIBITS MODERATE HORIZONTAL FRACTURE DUE TO POSSIBLE OVERSTRESS IN BENDING.PORTIONS OF THE WOOD PLANKS THAT ARE SEVERELY DECAYEDAND DETERIORATEDPORTIONS OF THE WOOD PLANKS THAT EXHIBIT MODERATE AMOUNT OFDECAY AND DETERIORATIONPORTIONS OF THE WOOD PLANKS THAT EXHIBIT MODERATE AMOUNT OFSPLITTING LENGTHWISEGIRDERS THAT ARE MODERATELY DETERIORATEDGIRDERS THAT ARE HEAVILY DETERIORATED -HAVE COMPROMISED STRENGTHLEGEND - CONDITION OF PLANKS - SEE PLANLEGEND - CONDITION OF GIRDERS - SEE SECTION A-A AAPLANNOT TO SCALESECTION A-ANOT TO SCALEBRIDGE G1212APPENDIX "C" - SHEET 5 OF 5BRIDGE G - DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL1231234123PORTIONS OF THE GIRDERS AND STRINGERS THAT ARE HEAVILY DETERIORATED -REQUIRES REPLACEMENT OF GIRDERS AND STRINGERSPORTIONS OF THE GIRDERS AND STRINGERS THAT ARE MODERATELY DETERIORATEDPORTIONS OF THE WOOD PLANKS THAT ARE SEVERELY DECAYEDAND DETERIORATEDPORTIONS OF THE WOOD PLANKS THAT EXHIBIT MODERATE AMOUNT OFDECAY AND DETERIORATIONPORTIONS OF THE WOOD PLANKS THAT EXHIBIT MODERATE AMOUNT OFSPLITTING LENGTHWISELEGEND - CONDITION OF PLANKS - SEE PLANLEGEND - CONDITION OF GIRDERS AND STRINGERS - SEE SECTION A-AGLUED-LAMINATED GIRDER ID*GLUED-LAMINATED FLOOR BEAM IDGLUED-LAMINATED STRINGER ID**DISCOLORATION DUE TO PRESENCE OF MOISTURE.2DISCOLORATION DUE TO PRESENCE OF MOISTURE.DISCOLORATION DUE TO PRESENCE OF MOISTURE.43212131 APPENDIX D Multiple Simple Beam Licensee : AUFBAU CORPORATIONLic. # : KW-06004972 Heritage Park Bridge Capacities Rancho Cucamonga, CA Description : BEAM Size :9.0 X 3.50, Sawn, Fully Braced Using Allowable Stress Design with ASCE 7-10 Load Combinations, Major Axis Bending Wood Beam Design : Calculations per NDS 2015, IBC 2018, CBC 2016, ASCE 7-10 Douglas Fir-Larch No.2 900.0 900.0 1,350.0 625.0 1,600.0 580.0 180.0 575.0 31.20 Eminbend - xx ksi Wood Species :Wood Grade : Fb - Tension psi psi Fv psi Fb - Compr Ft psi Fc - Prll psi psiFc - Perp Ebend- xx ksi Density pcf Bridge C - Plank Shear Capacity - Two point loads applied at 6 inches from both supports Applied Loads Beam self weight calculated and added to loads Unif Load: D = 0.020 k/ft, Trib= 1.0 ft Point: L = 2.80 k @ 0.50 ft Point: L = 2.80 k @ 5.167 ft .Design Summary Max fb/Fb Ratio =1.243 : 1 Max Reactions (k)HEWSLrL +D+L+HLoad Comb : Span # 1 Left Support D in 2.834 inft 136.59 psi Fb : Allowable :792.00 psi Right Support Fv : Allowable :Span # 1 Load Comb :+D+L+H 144.00 psi fb : Actual : Max fv/FvRatio =0.949 : 1 5.384 ft 984.61 psi at atfv : Actual : Ratio 9999 >360 Ratio 9999 >180 Max Deflections Transient Downward 0.188 in Transient Upward 0.000 in Total Downward 0.200 in Total Upward 0.000 in Ratio 361 339Ratio LC: +L+23.0H LC: +D+L+H LC:LC: BEAM Size :9.0 X 3.50, Sawn, Fully Braced Using Allowable Stress Design with IBC 2018 Load Combinations, Major Axis Bending Wood Beam Design : Calculations per NDS 2015, IBC 2018, CBC 2016, ASCE 7-10 Douglas Fir-Larch No.2 900.0 900.0 1,350.0 625.0 1,600.0 580.0 180.0 575.0 31.20 Eminbend - xx ksi Wood Species :Wood Grade : Fb - Tension psi psi Fv psi Fb - Compr Ft psi Fc - Prll psi psiFc - Perp Ebend- xx ksi Density pcf Bridge C - Plank Flexural Capacity Applied Loads Beam self weight calculated and added to loads Unif Load: D = 0.020 k/ft, Trib= 1.0 ft Point: L = 0.780 k @ 2.833 ft .Design Summary Max fb/Fb Ratio =1.000 : 1 Max Reactions (k)HEWSLrL +D+L+HLoad Comb : Span # 1 Left Support D in 2.834 inft 21.83 psi Fb : Allowable :792.00 psi Right Support Fv : Allowable :Span # 1 Load Comb :+D+L+H 144.00 psi fb : Actual : Max fv/FvRatio =0.152 : 1 0.000 ft 791.87 psi at atfv : Actual : Ratio 9999 >360 Ratio 9999 >180 Max Deflections Transient Downward 0.100 in Transient Upward 0.000 in Total Downward 0.112 in Total Upward 0.000 in Ratio 681 607Ratio LC: +L+23.0H LC: +D+L+H LC:LC: 1 Multiple Simple Beam Licensee : AUFBAU CORPORATIONLic. # : KW-06004972 Heritage Park Bridge Capacities Rancho Cucamonga, CA BEAM Size :9.0 X 3.50, Sawn, Fully Braced Using Allowable Stress Design with ASCE 7-10 Load Combinations, Major Axis Bending Wood Beam Design : Calculations per NDS 2015, IBC 2018, CBC 2016, ASCE 7-10 Douglas Fir-Larch No.2 900.0 900.0 1,350.0 625.0 1,600.0 580.0 180.0 575.0 31.20 Eminbend - xx ksi Wood Species :Wood Grade : Fb - Tension psi psi Fv psi Fb - Compr Ft psi Fc - Prll psi psiFc - Perp Ebend- xx ksi Density pcf Bridge C - Plank Flexural Capacity - Two point loads applied at 6 inches from both supports Applied Loads Beam self weight calculated and added to loads Unif Load: D = 0.020 k/ft, Trib= 1.0 ft Point: L = 2.20 k @ 0.50 ft Point: L = 2.20 k @ 5.167 ft .Design Summary Max fb/Fb Ratio =0.996 : 1 Max Reactions (k)HEWSLrL +D+L+HLoad Comb : Span # 1 Left Support D in 2.834 inft 108.02 psi Fb : Allowable :792.00 psi Right Support Fv : Allowable :Span # 1 Load Comb :+D+L+H 144.00 psi fb : Actual : Max fv/FvRatio =0.750 : 1 0.000 ft 788.69 psi at atfv : Actual : Ratio 9999 >360 Ratio 9999 >180 Max Deflections Transient Downward 0.148 in Transient Upward 0.000 in Total Downward 0.160 in Total Upward 0.000 in Ratio 460 425Ratio LC: +L+23.0H LC: +D+L+H LC:LC: BEAM Size :8.750 X 15.0, GLB, Braced @ 1/4 Points Using Allowable Stress Design with IBC 2018 Load Combinations, Major Axis Bending Wood Beam Design : Calculations per NDS 2015, IBC 2018, CBC 2016, ASCE 7-10 DF/DF 24F-V4 2,400.0 1,850.0 1,650.0 650.0 1,800.0 950.0 265.0 1,100.0 31.20 Eminbend - xx ksi Wood Species :Wood Grade : Fb - Tension psi psi Fv psi Fb - Compr Ft psi Fc - Prll psi psiFc - Perp Ebend- xx ksi Density pcf Bridge C- Girder Flexural Capacity Applied Loads Beam self weight calculated and added to loads Unif Load: D = 0.060 k/ft, Trib= 1.0 ft Point: L = 22.0 k @ 2.0 ft Point: L = 22.0 k @ 16.0 ft .Design Summary Max fb/Fb Ratio =0.770 : 1 Max Reactions (k)HEWSLrL +D+L+HLoad Comb : Span # 1 Left Support D in 9.000 inft 259.31 psi Fb : Allowable :2,259.35 psi Right Support Fv : Allowable :Span # 1 Load Comb :+D+L+H 265.00 psi fb : Actual : Max fv/FvRatio =0.979 : 1 0.000 ft 1,740.13 psi at atfv : Actual : Ratio 9999 <360 Ratio 9999 >180 Max Deflections Transient Downward 0.688 in Transient Upward 0.000 in Total Downward 0.735 in Total Upward 0.000 in Ratio 314 293Ratio LC: +L+23.0H LC: +D+L+H LC:LC: 2 Multiple Simple Beam Licensee : AUFBAU CORPORATIONLic. # : KW-06004972 Heritage Park Bridge Capacities Rancho Cucamonga, CA BEAM Size :9.0 X 3.50, Sawn, Fully Braced Using Allowable Stress Design with IBC 2018 Load Combinations, Major Axis Bending Wood Beam Design : Calculations per NDS 2015, IBC 2018, CBC 2016, ASCE 7-10 Douglas Fir-Larch No.2 900.0 900.0 1,350.0 625.0 1,600.0 580.0 180.0 575.0 31.20 Eminbend - xx ksi Wood Species :Wood Grade : Fb - Tension psi psi Fv psi Fb - Compr Ft psi Fc - Prll psi psiFc - Perp Ebend- xx ksi Density pcf Bridge C - Plank Flexural Capacity w/Equestrian Load Applied Loads Beam self weight calculated and added to loads Unif Load: D = 0.020 k/ft, Trib= 1.0 ft Point: L = 0.60 k @ 1.833 ft Point: L = 0.60 k @ 3.833 ft .Design Summary Max fb/Fb Ratio =0.996 : 1 Max Reactions (k)HEWSLrL +D+L+HLoad Comb : Span # 1 Left Support D in 2.834 inft 31.83 psi Fb : Allowable :792.00 psi Right Support Fv : Allowable :Span # 1 Load Comb :+D+L+H 144.00 psi fb : Actual : Max fv/FvRatio =0.221 : 1 0.000 ft 788.76 psi at atfv : Actual : Ratio 9999 >360 Ratio 9999 >180 Max Deflections Transient Downward 0.128 in Transient Upward 0.000 in Total Downward 0.140 in Total Upward 0.000 in Ratio 530 484Ratio LC: +L+23.0H LC: +D+L+H LC:LC: 3 Multiple Simple Beam Licensee : AUFBAU CORPORATIONLic. # : KW-06004972 Heritage Park Bridge Capacities Rancho Cucamonga, CA Description : BEAM Size :9.0 X 3.50, Sawn, Fully Braced Using Allowable Stress Design with IBC 2018 Load Combinations, Major Axis Bending Wood Beam Design : Calculations per NDS 2015, IBC 2018, CBC 2016, ASCE 7-10 Douglas Fir-Larch No.2 900.0 900.0 1,350.0 625.0 1,600.0 580.0 180.0 575.0 31.20 Eminbend - xx ksi Wood Species :Wood Grade : Fb - Tension psi psi Fv psi Fb - Compr Ft psi Fc - Prll psi psiFc - Perp Ebend- xx ksi Density pcf Bridge D - Plank Shear Capacity - Two point loads applied at 7 inches from both supports Applied Loads Beam self weight calculated and added to loads Unif Load: D = 0.020 k/ft, Trib= 1.0 ft Point: L = 2.950 k @ 0.5833 ft Point: L = 2.950 k @ 5.250 ft .Design Summary Max fb/Fb Ratio =1.513 : 1 Max Reactions (k)HEWSLrL +D+L+HLoad Comb : Span # 1 Left Support D in 2.917 inft 143.84 psi Fb : Allowable :792.00 psi Right Support Fv : Allowable :Span # 1 Load Comb :+D+L+H 144.00 psi fb : Actual : Max fv/FvRatio =0.999 : 1 5.541 ft 1,197.96 psi at atfv : Actual : Ratio 9999 <360 Ratio 9999 >180 Max Deflections Transient Downward 0.244 in Transient Upward 0.000 in Total Downward 0.258 in Total Upward 0.000 in Ratio 286 271Ratio LC: +L+23.0H LC: +D+L+H LC:LC: BEAM Size :9.0 X 3.50, Sawn, Fully Braced Using Allowable Stress Design with IBC 2018 Load Combinations, Major Axis Bending Wood Beam Design : Calculations per NDS 2015, IBC 2018, CBC 2016, ASCE 7-10 Douglas Fir-Larch No.2 900.0 900.0 1,350.0 625.0 1,600.0 580.0 180.0 575.0 31.20 Eminbend - xx ksi Wood Species :Wood Grade : Fb - Tension psi psi Fv psi Fb - Compr Ft psi Fc - Prll psi psiFc - Perp Ebend- xx ksi Density pcf Bridge D - Plank Flexural Capacity - Point load applied at center of span Applied Loads Beam self weight calculated and added to loads Unif Load: D = 0.020 k/ft, Trib= 1.0 ft Point: L = 0.750 k @ 2.916 ft .Design Summary Max fb/Fb Ratio =0.996 : 1 Max Reactions (k)HEWSLrL +D+L+HLoad Comb : Span # 1 Left Support D in 2.917 inft 21.21 psi Fb : Allowable :792.00 psi Right Support Fv : Allowable :Span # 1 Load Comb :+D+L+H 144.00 psi fb : Actual : Max fv/FvRatio =0.147 : 1 0.000 ft 788.63 psi at atfv : Actual : Ratio 9999 >360 Ratio 9999 >180 Max Deflections Transient Downward 0.105 in Transient Upward 0.000 in Total Downward 0.118 in Total Upward 0.000 in Ratio 668 591Ratio LC: +L+23.0H LC: +D+L+H LC:LC: 4 Multiple Simple Beam Licensee : AUFBAU CORPORATIONLic. # : KW-06004972 Heritage Park Bridge Capacities Rancho Cucamonga, CA BEAM Size :9.0 X 3.50, Sawn, Fully Braced Using Allowable Stress Design with IBC 2018 Load Combinations, Major Axis Bending Wood Beam Design : Calculations per NDS 2015, IBC 2018, CBC 2016, ASCE 7-10 Douglas Fir-Larch No.2 900.0 900.0 1,350.0 625.0 1,600.0 580.0 180.0 575.0 31.20 Eminbend - xx ksi Wood Species :Wood Grade : Fb - Tension psi psi Fv psi Fb - Compr Ft psi Fc - Prll psi psiFc - Perp Ebend- xx ksi Density pcf Bridge D - Plank Flexural Capacity- Two point loads applied at 7 inches from both supports Applied Loads Beam self weight calculated and added to loads Unif Load: D = 0.020 k/ft, Trib= 1.0 ft Point: L = 1.850 k @ 0.5833 ft Point: L = 1.850 k @ 5.250 ft .Design Summary Max fb/Fb Ratio =0.984 : 1 Max Reactions (k)HEWSLrL +D+L+HLoad Comb : Span # 1 Left Support D in 2.917 inft 91.45 psi Fb : Allowable :792.00 psi Right Support Fv : Allowable :Span # 1 Load Comb :+D+L+H 144.00 psi fb : Actual : Max fv/FvRatio =0.635 : 1 5.541 ft 779.05 psi at atfv : Actual : Ratio 9999 >360 Ratio 9999 >180 Max Deflections Transient Downward 0.153 in Transient Upward 0.000 in Total Downward 0.167 in Total Upward 0.000 in Ratio 457 420Ratio LC: +L+23.0H LC: +D+L+H LC:LC: BEAM Size :9.0 X 3.50, Sawn, Fully Braced Using Allowable Stress Design with IBC 2018 Load Combinations, Major Axis Bending Wood Beam Design : Calculations per NDS 2015, IBC 2018, CBC 2016, ASCE 7-10 Douglas Fir-Larch No.2 900.0 900.0 1,350.0 625.0 1,600.0 580.0 180.0 575.0 31.20 Eminbend - xx ksi Wood Species :Wood Grade : Fb - Tension psi psi Fv psi Fb - Compr Ft psi Fc - Prll psi psiFc - Perp Ebend- xx ksi Density pcf Bridge D - Plank Flexural Capacity w/Equestrian Loading Applied Loads Beam self weight calculated and added to loads Unif Load: D = 0.020 k/ft, Trib= 1.0 ft Point: L = 0.550 k @ 1.916 ft Point: L = 0.550 k @ 3.916 ft .Design Summary Max fb/Fb Ratio =0.963 : 1 Max Reactions (k)HEWSLrL +D+L+HLoad Comb : Span # 1 Left Support D in 2.917 inft 29.55 psi Fb : Allowable :792.00 psi Right Support Fv : Allowable :Span # 1 Load Comb :+D+L+H 144.00 psi fb : Actual : Max fv/FvRatio =0.205 : 1 0.000 ft 762.88 psi at atfv : Actual : Ratio 9999 >360 Ratio 9999 >180 Max Deflections Transient Downward 0.130 in Transient Upward 0.000 in Total Downward 0.143 in Total Upward 0.000 in Ratio 540 488Ratio LC: +L+23.0H LC: +D+L+H LC:LC: 5 Wood Beam Design Licensee : AUFBAU CORPORATIONLic. # : KW-06004972 Heritage Park Bridge Capacities Rancho Cucamonga, CA Description : BEAM Size :9.0 X 3.50, Sawn, Fully Braced Using Allowable Stress Design with IBC 2018 Load Combinations, Major Axis Bending Wood Beam Design : Calculations per NDS 2015, IBC 2018, CBC 2016, ASCE 7-10 Douglas Fir-Larch No.2 900.0 900.0 1,350.0 625.0 1,600.0 580.0 180.0 575.0 31.20 Eminbend - xx ksi Wood Species :Wood Grade : Fb - Tension psi psi Fv psi Fb - Compr Ft psi Fc - Prll psi psiFc - Perp Ebend- xx ksi Density pcf Bridge F - Plank Shear Capacity Applied Loads Beam self weight calculated and added to loads . Point: L = 3.40 k @ 0.30 ft Design Summary Max fb/Fb Ratio =0.816 : 1 Max Reactions (k)HEWSLrL +D+L+H fb : Actual :Fb : Allowable : Load Comb : Span # 1 D in 0.300 ft in720.00 psi Left SupportRight Support Span # 1fv : Actual :Fv : Allowable : Load Comb :+D+L+H 142.79 psi144.00 psi Max fv/FvRatio =0.992 : 1 0.000 ft 587.66 psi at at Ratio 9999 0.014 in 2215 >360 Ratio 9999 >180 Max Deflections Transient Downward Transient Upward 0.000 in Total Downward 0.014 in Total Upward 0.000 in Ratio 2197Ratio LC: +L+23.0H LC: +D+L+H LC:LC: BEAM Size :9.0 X 3.50, Sawn, Fully Braced Using Allowable Stress Design with ASCE 7-10 Load Combinations, Major Axis Bending Wood Beam Design : Calculations per NDS 2015, IBC 2018, CBC 2016, ASCE 7-10 Douglas Fir-Larch No.2 900.0 900.0 1,350.0 625.0 1,600.0 580.0 180.0 575.0 31.20 Eminbend - xx ksi Wood Species :Wood Grade : Fb - Tension psi psi Fv psi Fb - Compr Ft psi Fc - Prll psi psiFc - Perp Ebend- xx ksi Density pcf Bridge F - Plank Flexural Capacity Applied Loads . Beam self weight calculated and added to loads Point: L = 2.150 k @ 1.250 ft Design Summary Max fb/Fb Ratio =0.979 : 1 Max Reactions (k)HEWSLrL +D+L+H fb : Actual :Fb : Allowable : Load Comb : Span # 1 D in 1.250 ft in900.00 psi Left SupportRight Support Span # 1fv : Actual :Fv : Allowable : Load Comb :+D+L+H 51.50 psi180.00 psi Max fv/FvRatio =0.286 : 1 2.217 ft 881.03 psi at at Ratio 9999 0.024 in 1269 >360 Ratio 9999 >180 Max Deflections Transient Downward Transient Upward 0.000 in Total Downward 0.024 in Total Upward 0.000 in Ratio 1263Ratio LC: +L+23.0H LC: +D+L+H LC:LC: 6 Heritage Park Bridge Capacities Rancho Cucamonga, CA BEAM Size :8.750 X 15.0, GLB, Braced @ 1/3 Points Using Allowable Stress Design with IBC 2018 Load Combinations, Major Axis Bending Wood Beam Design : Calculations per NDS 2015, IBC 2018, CBC 2016, ASCE 7-10 DF/DF 24F-V4 2,400.0 1,850.0 1,650.0 650.0 1,800.0 950.0 265.0 1,100.0 31.20 Eminbend - xx ksi Wood Species :Wood Grade : Fb - Tension psi psi Fv psi Fb - Compr Ft psi Fc - Prll psi psiFc - Perp Ebend- xx ksi Density pcf Bridge F - Girder Shear Capacity Applied Loads Beam self weight calculated and added to loads Unif Load: D = 0.060 k/ft, Trib= 1.0 ft Point: L = 25.0 k @ 1.250 ft .Design Summary Max fb/Fb Ratio =0.443 : 1 Max Reactions (k)HEWSLrL +D+L+H fb : Actual :Fb : Allowable : Load Comb : Span # 1 D in 1.280 ft in2,352.84 psi Left SupportRight Support Span # 1fv : Actual :Fv : Allowable : Load Comb :+D+L+H 260.76 psi265.00 psi Max fv/FvRatio =0.984 : 1 0.000 ft 1,043.14 psi at at Ratio 9999 0.112 in 1290 >360 Ratio 9999 >180 Max Deflections Transient Downward Transient Upward 0.000 in Total Downward 0.121 in Total Upward 0.000 in Ratio 1192Ratio LC: +L+23.0H LC: +D+L+H LC:LC: BEAM Size :8.750 X 15.0, GLB, Braced @ 1/3 Points Using Allowable Stress Design with IBC 2018 Load Combinations, Major Axis Bending Wood Beam Design : Calculations per NDS 2015, IBC 2018, CBC 2016, ASCE 7-10 DF/DF 24F-V4 2,400.0 1,850.0 1,650.0 650.0 1,800.0 950.0 265.0 1,100.0 31.20 Eminbend - xx ksi Wood Species :Wood Grade : Fb - Tension psi psi Fv psi Fb - Compr Ft psi Fc - Prll psi psiFc - Perp Ebend- xx ksi Density pcf Bridge F - Girder Flexural Capacity Applied Loads Beam self weight calculated and added to loads Unif Load: D = 0.060 k/ft, Trib= 1.0 ft Point: L = 20.50 k @ 6.0 ft .Design Summary Max fb/Fb Ratio =0.981 : 1 Max Reactions (k)HEWSLrL +D+L+H fb : Actual :Fb : Allowable : Load Comb : Span # 1 D in 6.000 ft in2,352.84 psi Left SupportRight Support Span # 1fv : Actual :Fv : Allowable : Load Comb :+D+L+H 121.95 psi265.00 psi Max fv/FvRatio =0.460 : 1 10.760 ft 2,307.36 psi at at Ratio 9999 0.289 in 497 >360 Ratio 9999 >180 Max Deflections Transient Downward Transient Upward 0.000 in Total Downward 0.299 in Total Upward 0.000 in Ratio 482Ratio LC: +L+23.0H LC: +D+L+H LC:LC: Wood Beam Design Licensee : AUFBAU CORPORATIONLic. # : KW-06004972 7