HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-06-10 - SupplementalsCity of Rancho Cucamonga
SAN SEVAI N E TRAIL
PROJECT
Gianfranco Laurie, Senior Civil Engineer
Engineering Services Department
June 10, 2020
Vicinity Map
�V J/��vl•
Continue - above right -
Continue - below left
LEGEND
SAN SEVAINE MU PHASING
„
sPHASE
_
LOVER AVE.
— EX61ING SEGMENT
j
+� SEGMENT i
_
<
—SEGMENT7
ac
SA A
"'•'SFCiEAtNl ;1
PHASE
—.PHASE u
OIHEE REGIONAL TRARS
.XISTING CUSS I PATH
-.ORCPOSEDCLASS IPATH
s• or roN*n Nn _ N
J11fNIYFr
O OYYY AM1r 12N
Background
• City of Fontana awarded
two State grants
• Earlier Trails Advisory
Committee Meetings
• Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU)
Typical Design Layout
,{ RFIM CITY OF RM1CH0 QKAMOWA - - - - - - - - - - - WAIL H-4'
/' EOOESTilN! TRAIL EXPN I V
iMi0PO5E0 NULTWSE TR& "
�, rl'�E RETNFMG "
-----� % K_----_Q•F
Designing Multi -Purpose Trail
• Constructing a 4-foot-high
retaining wall
• Investigating re -use for
elevated equestrian trail
• Avoids demolishing the
retaining wall in the future
Design Underneath the SR-210 Freeway
�
w t
i o
co W
N
r
O
f
�
U)
I
-RXE'B.1ENi
'�
A
�BMOS ABUIIENT
--
-
Gp
1
I
B
r �MGE AMENT
, x
h
it -s
CY
„lo
51 }Q'J
4
brc
PROPOSED VNN-BLE—/
'-70P
n6 c2(10
„
HEIGHT REFANN: WALL
OF
-
.
CHANNEL
TOP W
CHANNEL
A
TOP OF
rw cF
TOP CF
CHMEI
TwNE
_auaNn
-
B
1 O
N
V)
I f i
9D TE-ea I FETB;!E DE-BACN
IMB' WALL, H=IA' Al
Sm
rxrxEt
Constraint Beneath the SR-210 Freeway
• Bridge abutment conflict
• Inadequate width for an
equestrian trai
• Funding limited to
pedestrians and bicycles
• Combine trail uses for a
200-foot stretch
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE
PER PLAN
I,
L
FWY-EB TO 615 NB------_
__
I -A
---SR-210
EXIST. BRIDKIE SIiliJ /
/
1&5
I
25'
16'
PROPOSED MULTI -PURPOSE
TRAIL
I I \,
I•.•I
��
II \\
II \\
u.
MAXIMUM
, ,
l P0.55. WIDTH
PROPOSED
LJ V
TIE -BACK WALL
TIE -BACK WALL
W=2'; H=14'
W=2'; H=V
SECTION B-B
ETIWANUA
Recommendations
Option 1— Provide concurrence that the trail improvements submitted
meets City's MOU.
Option 2 — Provide concurrence that the trail improvements submitted
with design of 4-foot high retaining wall for an elevated equestrian trail in
the future meets the City's MOU.
Option 3 — Determine that the trail improvements do not meet City's MOU
and recommend City Council to rescind City's participation and direct
Fontana to stop trail improvements outside city limits.
Option 4 — Recommend the City Council to appropriate additional funds
necessary to construct full trail improvements. Note, City funding to
proceed with this oation has not been identified.
Questions?