Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2020-03-11 Agenda Packet - PC-HPC
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MARCH 1112020 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA A. 7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call: Chairman Guglielmo Vice Chairman Oaxaca Commissioner Dopp Commissioner Morales Commissioner Williams B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Historic Preservation Commission or Planning Commission on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Commission from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Commission 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 Chair, depending upon the number of individual members of the audience.This is a professional business meeting 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. CONSENT CALENDAR/HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. They will be acted upon by the Commission at one time without discussion.Any item may be removed by Commissioners for discussion. C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of February 26, 2020. C2. Consideration to adopt Workshop Minutes of February 26, 2020. Page 1 of 4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MARCH 1112020 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA D. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS/SCHEDULED MATTERS D1. HERITAGE PARK BRIDGES UPDATE —An update on Heritage Park Bridges. E. PUBLIC HEARINGS/PLANNING COMMISSION The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. The Chairman will open the public hearing to receive testimony. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual or less as determined by the Chairman. Please sign in after speaking. E1. DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00069 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to construct a 24,512 square-foot concrete tilt-up warehouse building at the Rancho Cucamonga public works yard, within the General Industrial (GI) district, located at 8794 Lion Street—APN: 0209-013-85. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA guidelines under CEQA Section 15332 — In-Fill Development Projects. F. COMMISSION BUSINESS/HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS: COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS: G. ADJOURNMENT I, Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on Thursday, March 05, 2020, seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. Page 2 of 4 CITY . ■ . CUCAMONGA �l MARCH 1172020 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 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. INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak, given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience. The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission, please come forward to the podium located at the center of the staff table. State your name for the record and speak into the microphone. After speaking, please sign in on the clipboard located next to the speaker's podium. It is important to list your name, address and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are generally limited to 5 minutes per individual. If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under"Public Comments." There is opportunity to speak under this section prior to the end of the agenda. Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for distribution to the Commissioners. A copy of any such materials should also be provided to the Secretary to be used for the official public record. All requests for items to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda must be in writing. Requests for scheduling agenda items will be at the discretion of the Commission and the Planning Director. AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are on file in the offices of the Planning Department, City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. These documents are available for public inspections during regular business hours, Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., except for legal City holidays. Page 3 of 4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MARCH 1112020 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA APPEALS Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeal filed must be directed to the City Clerk's Office and must be accompanied by a fee of$3,114 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council). Please turn off all cell phones while the meeting is in session. Copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports and minutes can be found at www.CitvofRC.us. Page 4 of 4 VicinityMap PlanningCommission Workshop Meeting March 11 2020 +� E -0 o ` I <D u } I j U I 1 � U d 2 2 1 ` (D 1 i L t;R ti 1 I L i � 1 19th 5t N i ti Base Line Base Line J ifs Church Church Foothill Foothill N Arrow E I AV +' 4r 1 Arrow S y as c j J rsey j 8th W j v --• ° �tt H 6th w C7 fit h < — y W 4th _ 4th E1 Meeting Location: City Hall/Council Chambers 10500 Civic Center Drive E1: DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00069 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMON4 FEBRUARY 26, 2020 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA A. 7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call: Chairman Guglielmo _x Vice Chairman Oaxaca _x Commissioner Dopp _x Commissioner Morales x Commissioner Williams x Additional Staff Present: Nick Ghirelli, Assistant City Attorney,Anne McIntosh, Planning Director, Mike Smith, Principal Planner; Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant; Brian Sandona, Senior Civil Engineer, David Eoff, Sr. Planner, Vincent Acuna, Associate Planner; Mena Abdul-Ahad, Assistant Planner. B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Historic Preservation Commission or Planning Commission on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Commission from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Commission 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 Chair, depending upon the number of individual members of the audience.This is a professional business meeting 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. Chairman Guglielmo opened the public communications. Seeing none, closed. C. CONSENT CALENDAR/HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION Page 1 of 5 006 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMON4 FEBRUARY 26, 2020 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. They will be acted upon by the Commission at one time without discussion.Any item may be removed by Commissioners for discussion. C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of February 12, 2020. Moved by Vice Chair Oaxaca, second by Commissioner Williams; carried 5-0-0 D. PUBLIC HEARINGS/PLANNING COMMISSION The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. The Chairman will open the public hearing to receive testimony. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual or less as determined by the Chairman. Please sign in after speaking. D1. TIME EXTENSION DRC2019-00955— RICHLAND COMMUNITIES —A request for a one (1) year time extension for a previously approved Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749—The subdivision of approximately 168.77 acres into 269 residential lots located in the Low (L) Residential District and Flood Control (FC) District within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, and the northeast corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue— APNs: 1087-081- 04, through -09, and 1087-081-14. Mena Abdul-Ahad, Assistant Planner, presented Commissioners with a Staff Report and oral presentation. John Schafer, Vice President of Richland Communities, applicant, addressed the Commission to answer any questions. With no questions by Commissioners, no further discussion took place. There being no one else present to address the Commission on this item, the public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Williams, second by Vice Chair Oaxaca; carried 5-0-0 D2. TIME EXTENSION DRC2019-00559 — SALLY CHENG —A request to allow for the first one (1) year time extension of a previously approved 6-lot Tentative Tract Map (SUBTT20026) Page 2of5 007 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMON4 FEBRUARY 26, 2020 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA on 1.67 acres of land within the Low (L) Residential District, located at 10235 19th Street; APN: 1076-121-03. Planning Department staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines as a Class 32 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15332) exemption, which covers in-fill development on no more than 5 acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. Vincent Acuna, Associate Planner, presented Commissioners with a Staff Report and oral presentation. Public comment made by Mr. Joe Silva, resident, stated he never received previous notifications on this project site. Anne McIntosh, Planning Director, assured him notices were sent out and the first one was sent in October 2016. Unfortunately, we do not have any way of going back and documenting it from the past. There being no one else present to address the Commission on this item, the public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Williams, second by Commissioner Morales; carried 5-0-0 E. COMMISSION BUSINESS/HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS: COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS: None F. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Vice Chair Oaxaca, second by Commissioner Morales to adjourn the meeting to the workshop in the Rains room; carried 5-0-0. 7:35pm Page 3 of 5 008 CITY . ■ . CUCAMONGA �l FEBRUARY 26, 2020 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA I, Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant 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 20, 2020, seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. 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. INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak, given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience. The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission, please come forward to the podium located at the center of the staff table. State your name for the record and speak into the microphone. After speaking, please sign in on the clipboard located next to the speaker's podium. It is important to list your name, address and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are generally limited to 5 minutes per individual. If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under"Public Comments." There is opportunity to speak under this section prior to the end of the agenda. Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for distribution to the Commissioners. A copy of any such materials should also be provided to the Secretary to be used for the official public record. All requests for items to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda must be in writing. Requests for scheduling agenda items will be at the discretion of the Commission and the Planning Director. Page 4 of 5 009 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FEBRUARY 26, 2020 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are on file in the offices of the Planning Department, City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. These documents are available for public inspections during regular business hours, Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., except for legal City holidays. APPEALS Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeal filed must be directed to the City Clerk's Office and must be accompanied by a fee of $3,114 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council). Please turn off all cell phones while the meeting is in session. Copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports and minutes can be found at www.CitvofRC.us. Page 5 of 5 010 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGX �l FEBRUARY 26, 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES RAINS ROOM RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA A. CALL TO ORDER Reconvened meeting at 7:37pm Roll Call: Chairman Guglielmo _x_ Vice Chairman Oaxaca _x_ Commissioner Dopp _x_ Commissioner Morales x Commissioner Williams x Additional Staff Present: Anne McIntosh, Planning Director; Mike Smith, Principal Planner, David Eoff, Sr. Planner; Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant. B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Planning Commission on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Commission from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Commission 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 Chair, depending upon the number of individual members of the audience.This is a professional business meeting 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. Chairman Guglielmo opened the public communications. Seeing none, closed. C. DISCUSSION ITEMS PLANNING COMMISSION C1. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW DRC2019-00961 — GH PALMER ASSOCIATES — A pre-application review of a proposed mixed use project on a vacant property with an area of 14.57 acres located on the east side of Haven Avenue between 4t" Street and Page 1 of 6 011 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGX �l FEBRUARY 26, 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES RAINS ROOM RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Trademark Parkway North in the Industrial Park (IP) District, Haven Avenue Overlay District; APN: 0210-081-41. Mike Smith, Principal Planner, provided an overview of the project site. David Eoff, Sr. Planner, presented a PowerPoint presentation starting with a refresher of the project. Drue Marshall, Vice President, G.H. Palmer and Associates, presented PowerPoint slideshow of developed projects in Los Angeles, Inland Empire areas and upcoming future projects. Reviewed introductions of their vision for Rancho Cucamonga. Plans to develop 603 residential units at this site with commercial space on corner of Haven. Commissioner Williams stated she likes the project but not at this site location. Commissioner Dopp stated he is thinking more of mixed use and asked if they would be open to an office component. Steven Fink, CIO answered they are open to the idea and not opposed to it. Commissioner Morales asked if the project met the parking requirements. Staff explained that it does not meet the code required parking and that the applicant would be submitting a parking study. Vice Chair Oaxaca stated he would like to see more opportunities for internal pedestrian circulation between the two main buildings. Also, doing away with walls along the peripheral will make a difference. Regarding the bridge structure at main central entrance, it takes people off street level. He understands in some scenarios it works, like in downtown areas but he does not believe it will work here. It reduces that action at pedestrian level. In addition, he would like to see more clearly how they plan for some of the potential public transit connection that are not confined yet. His final comment is creating a design," This is Rancho Cucamonga"across Fourth Street, more of a connection into the project. The residential buildings need to provide more reasons for residents to go to the ground level - with as many amenities at street level as possible. Page 2of6 012 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGX �l FEBRUARY 26, 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES RAINS ROOM RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Chair Guglielmo asked applicants are they wanting to move forward with this project. Commissioners are here to provide them with feedback. Do they feel they received good feedback up to this point. Do they feel there is a demand for this type of project in the City. Drue Marshall, Vice President answered yes. Commissioners asked about the current zoning for industrial. Is mixed use the direction General plan is heading. Mike Smith answered, yes and that this is in the scope of the next generation update of the General Plan. Chair Guglielmo stated, regarding the parking. He asked if they think parking is adequate. How does the City feel about the parking reduction. Anne McIntosh answered what they will have to do at the next level is have an inter- departmental meeting and talk to Engineering about parking and issues of where the access levels are and curb cuts and interior circulation, those are some of the details they need to work out next. Chair Guglielmo asked about the "bus stop to be relocated"and what it means. Steven Fink, CIO answered on the south edge of the property, there is a little area at the bus stop and it would be their desire to slide it more over to the north of the building so the bus does not stop right in front of the restaurant. Commissioner Williams inquired if they are making accommodations for children. Steven Fink, CIO answered they have a "tot"lot in their plans, although not fully designed yet. Commissioners mentioned the project needs to clearly connect to the surrounding streets - Trademark, Haven and 4th - and the larger neighborhood in an intentional way. "Connect" means pedestrian, vehicular, transit, massing, and visual connections. Notches should be designed into the exterior elevations for small courtyards, parklets, and other green space. Page 3 of 6 013 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGX E(Iew L J FEBRUARY 26, 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES RAINS ROOM RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Small office spaces should front Haven Avenue and replace currently proposed retail uses wherever possible. The corner of 4th and Haven needs to have a focal architectural feature. This can be accomplished by putting a more urban building right up at the corner, putting a tall architectural element there. Restaurants should have at least one "front"on the street sides - accomplished with outdoor dining areas and other visual cues Restaurants at this site should fill the current void of high-end "white linens"restaurants. Outdoor gathering spaces should be enhanced for both restaurant goers, but also around the bus stop/future BRT stop. Sidewalks and parkways around the perimeter of the project need to be wide and designed to feel safe to traffic, but also inviting to the interior of the project. No walls along the perimeter that act as barriers. Avoid design features that are unwelcoming to visitors. Make it inviting and impressive. Ratio of residential to retail did not seem appropriate, in comparison it appears to be too much residential. Commissioner Oaxaca stated in closing, to reiterate as they look at the project again, if they are open to mixed used, sustainability, small office, it would be something for them to consider. Steven Fink, CIO thanked Commissioners for their time. He stated it was important for them to come in and get their ideas. Although, received mixed perception. He stated if Commissioners do not collectively think this is the type of project that will fit at this location, they want to know now. He hopes Commissioners will see them as a different applicant and not to expect that they will make more than one revised proposal. Chairman Guglielmo stated he hopes they received good guidance and feedback and suggested for them to rely on Staffs expertise. Page 4 of 6 014 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA �l FEBRUARY 26, 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES RAINS ROOM RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Commissioners made their suggestions and recommendations and look forward to a second workshop for a more detailed overview. D. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 9:25pm I, Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant 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 20, 2020 seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. 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. INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak, given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience. The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission, please come forward to the podium located at the center of the staff table. State your name for the record and speak into the microphone. After speaking, please sign in on the clipboard located next to the speaker's podium. It is important to list your name, address and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are generally limited to 5 minutes per individual. If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under "Public Comments." There is opportunity to speak under this section prior to the end of the agenda. Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for distribution to Page 5 of 6 015 FEBRUARY 26, 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES RAINS ROOM RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA the Commissioners. A copy of any such materials should also be provided to the Secretary to be used for the official public record. All requests for items to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda must be in writing. Requests for scheduling agenda items will be at the discretion of the Commission and the Planning Director. AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are on file in the offices of the Planning Department, City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. These documents are available for public inspections during regular business hours, Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., except for legal City holidays. APPEALS Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeal filed must be directed to the City Clerk's Office and must be accompanied by a fee of$2,793 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council). Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is in session. Copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports and minutes can be found at www.CityofRC.us. Page 6 of 6 016 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: March 11, 2020 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer INITIATED BY: Gianfranco Laurie, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: HERITAGE PARK BRIDGES UPDATE RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the single bridge structure with physically separated uses while leaving the two westerly bridges in place with regular monitoring, and forward that recommendation to the Public Works Subcommittee. 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. In 2019, an updated bridge report reassessed the five bridges at Heritage Park(Bridges C through G). The report analyzed various bridge alternatives which included new concrete bridges, combining three bridges into one bridge (uses separated), and replacing bridges with an in-kind construction material. An estimate to replace all five bridges was prepared and costs were estimated to be as high as $1,840,000 for design and construction. The report concluded by recommending future restorations or replacement measures for each bridge. On October 30, 2019, staff shared the report with the Public Works Subcommittee. An option presented was combining the three bridges (Bridges E, F & G) into one bridge with a barrier separating vehicles from pedestrians and equestrians. This option estimated at$1.2 million. One advantage of a single underlying bridge structure is that it leverages an option not otherwise available to allow Fire District reserves to assist with funding up to 50% of the structure, given that this is the only emergency vehicle access point to the facility which is utilized as a fire staging area to help protect the surrounding community during wildfires in the adjacent mountains. The remaining 50% would then be potentially funded with Park Development District No. 85 (PD-85) reserves. If the three bridges are not combined into a single underlying structure (with uses separated) then the costs are higher, and the Fire District funding can only be utilized for 50% of the main vehicular bridge and not the pedestrian or equestrian bridges. A motion was approved to recommend the City Council consider allocating funding in the Fiscal Year 2020/21 CIP Budget for combining the three bridges into one bridge (uses separated). Following the Public Works Subcommittee, staff re-engaged the consultant to conduct a more detailed structural evaluation of each bridge. A supplemental engineering study was prepared 017 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT HERITAGE PARK BRIDGES UPDATE March 11, 2020 Page 2 that documented exploratory investigations, structural calculations, and load demands. Significant exterior deterioration, noted delamination, fractures, and insect activity was identified at the two westerly bridges (Bridges C and D) and main vehicular bridge (Bridge F). The load demands determined for Bridges C and D independently indicated they could carry a combined weight of a 16-hand horse, tack, and rider estimated up to 2,000 pounds. Further, the load demand determined for Bridge F indicated it could hold a single rear axle fire engine ranging between 24,000 to 35,000 pounds. Preliminary cost estimates involving concrete, steel, and timber construction materials were also included in the study. The purpose of this study was to provide better structural information for decision-making as well as to discuss future bridge restorations or replacements with the Trails Advisory Committee. On February 12, 2020, staff presented all the findings received to date to the Trails Advisory Committee. Before the meeting, the Alta Loma Riding Club (ALRC) submitted a letter opposing the removal of any bridge as well as installation of one combined bridge. ALRC's letter indicated that replacing all five bridges at one time is essential and needed to maintain public access, recreational opportunities, and public safety, regardless of cost. Staff explained to the committee and ALRC members that based on the findings received the best option now is to replace the three bridges (Bridges E, F & G) with a combined bridge (uses separated) as the Fire District could potentially fund 50% of the anticipated costs as noted previously. Moreover, the two westerly bridges (Bridge C & D) would remain open for the immediate future with regular monitoring until they reached end of life. A copy of ALRC's letter is included as Attachment 1. The Trails Advisory Committee meeting concluded with a unanimous recommendation to combine the three bridges (Bridges E, F & G) into one bridge while leaving the two westerly bridges (Bridges C & D) in place with regular monitoring. Also, the Trails Advisory Committee agreed with staff to proceed with temporary improvements such as installing new signs and striping for Bridge C, Bridge D, and Bridge F. A request was made by the Trails Advisory Committee to specify more detail about the design, budget and timing of the needed improvements as part of the report to the Planning Commission. A copy of the staff report for the Trails Advisory Committee is included as Attachment 2. ANALYSIS: As mentioned previously, significant exterior deterioration has occurred to the two westerly bridges (Bridge C & D) and the main vehicular bridge (Bridge F). Bridges C & D serve pedestrian and equestrian traffic which uses those bridges to access park amenities such as the adjacent wilderness area, a short-cut to access the main park, and an additional access point for the equestrian center. The pictures on the subsequent pages depict insect activity, decayed wood planks, discolored wood planks, longitudinal cracks and fractures in the beam supports. 018 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT HERITAGE PARK BRIDGES UPDATE March 11, 2020 Page 3 --—-------- Bridges C & D Close Up r'ti•�t'''�':r �;��ry r�;'t'`:1 cft,�,, •,:r` - ,�'�:,:;,.';�:� ;�.{�. r:�•:�::x`:<_;...:.•�rK k•,: .?j;,� „SG;`.�' '4--�kJ.t'�y;K` �C.� `,'t,('�i^.. ,yr} .. `r_ 1',t,,t. •T..�:.:. �,{...;.�., �` .r,, ti,t v..t� i..:'.. e;I:•� •!" �C :`'• s. `r<:1 � �%':�%C ;'..T.i> .��,-.... ` .�,.�;'��:- �._r' •.C.,. .�!C/• 'Y`E K 4 i" Y - ?f`2':e c.,,v :.,r.n ",. :;:t'::i�• �' .<<.. L` . ram. ',:.;:,;.:�;x_ -��kk,,,,.. `,c•c,�.e Yr:h.s{'���r"t' `:�( ;,� �,`Cr_,` •,C`%vt''r�� j , _ r ' 'f•� yC off j�4: :'��'' 1.\:.` 3�%F'-' :'..`:,'�':<' .. Bridge C 019 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT HERITAGE PARK BRIDGES UPDATE March 11, 2020 Page 4 77 mm - - S' 4 Bridge D Bridge F is one of three main bridges that provide access into the equestrian center. It serves vehicular traffic as well as the Fire Districts staging area. The picture below shows decayed wood planks at the outer edges. Bridges F Close Up 020 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PARK BRIDGES UPDATE March 11, 2020 .•- r; s rrrxr prrrxxrru[[[rr� t r, ' - ` °'�•`� s � nrrrrrlrl[[1�I/ rrr 1".? ♦• . � i Z:- Bridge PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT HERITAGE PARK BRIDGES UPDATE March 11, 2020 Page 6 J I 11 1 Independent Bridges E, F & G Staff recommends combining the three bridges (Bridge E, F&G) into one bridge (uses separated) will result in a compressed bridge structure. Presently all three wood structures are independent with open voids in between bridges spanning longitudinally 80 feet along the Demens Creek Channel. The proposed combined bridge structure would remove the open voids with constructing one concrete superstructure spanning a total length of 50 feet across the Demens Creek Channel. This concrete bridge structure would include dedicated pathways for vehicles, pedestrians and equestrians that would keep the uses separated. A rough broom finish will be applied throughout the bridge surface to provide better traction for horses. Furthermore, constructing a concrete bridge structure will significantly reduce maintenance, extends the lifespan, and ensure uniformity with current city standards. An architectural rendering of what the proposed structure might look like is illustrated below. Combined Bridge (Uses separated) Understanding that timing is of the essence given the current condition of the bridges, staff has developed a tentative schedule that identifies all major milestones and target dates. The overall process from City Council approval to design and then construction will take approximately two (2) years to complete. The immediate next steps are review by the Landscape Maintenance District(LIVID)Oversight Committee,with Public Works Subcommittee, and ultimate consideration 022 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT HERITAGE PARK BRIDGES UPDATE March 11, 2020 Page 7 by the City Council. Staff will utilize its on-call civil engineering consultant firm to prepare construction drawings. A brief outline of the tentative schedule is shown below. Milestone Target LMD Oversight Committee March 17, 2020 Public Works Subcommittee March 18, 2020 City Council May/June 2020 Conceptual Design October 2020 (3 months) Design Drawings (PS&E) March 2021 (8 months) Permits May 2021 (10 months) Bid and Award June 2021 (3 months) Construction March 2022 (8 months) Tentative Schedule Combining the three bridges (Bridge E, F & G) into one bridge (uses separated) will result in a total estimated cost of $1.2 million. As noted earlier, funding for the combined concrete bridge structure could possibly be split 50% between the Fire District and the other 50% from PD-85 reserves. PD-85 does not presently have sufficient reserves to fund all five bridge replacements which is estimated at a cost equal to or greater than $1.8 million. An estimated cost breakdown is provided below. Bridge Fire PD-85 Combined ID Bridge Type District Reserves Funding Reserves E Pedestrian F Vehicular $420,000 $420,000 $840,000 G Equestrian Includes Prelim Eng., PS&E, $189,000 $189,000 $378,000 Inspection, & Permits Total $609,000 $609,000 $1,218,000 Estimated Costs Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the recommendation of the Trails Advisory Committee, to combine the three separate eastern bridges into a single bridge structure with physically separated uses while leaving the two westerly bridges in place with regular monitoring and forward that recommendation to the Public Works Subcommittee. FISCAL IMPACT: It should be noted that PD-85 does not have sufficient reserves, once cash flow needs are accounted for, to fund the replacement of all five bridges. Further, because PD-85 is using 30 year old assessment rates to fund current day costs, and the residents of the district have 023 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT HERITAGE PARK BRIDGES UPDATE March 11, 2020 Page 8 overwhelmingly rejected any revenue increases, it is not possible for PD-85 to save up additional funds on its own, or repay a loan from the General Fund. Consistent with existing City Council policy, all landscape and park districts city wide (east and west, north and south) are intended to be self-sustaining and receive an equitable level of support from the General Fund without disproportionately favoring any one district. The only potentially fiscally viable alternative which is within existing City Council approved policy is to leave the two western bridges (Bridge C & D) open but continuously monitored for safety and concurrently combine the eastern three bridges (Bridge E, F & G) into a single, use separated bridge which would then be eligible for partial funding by the Fire District. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 —Alta Loma Riding Club Letter Attachment 2 —Trails Advisory Committee Staff Report 024 February 12, 2020 Rancho Cucamonga Trails Advisory Committee 10500 Civic Center Street Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 ALTA Ltd RE: Heritage Park Bridge Updates—Agenda Item Dear TAC Members P• • Box 81f7ou r° The Alta Loma Riding Club or ALRC is a community service, all ' ta Loma,CA t volunteer, non-profit organization, dedicated to preserving, as well as i t enjoying, the equestrian lifestyle in the beautiful City of Rancho Cucamonga California. The Club has been in existence for 50 years w�rw.al�loinaridinglum and many of our founding members were participants in the efforts Alta Loma Ri ng 00 leading to the incorporation of our City. In addition we were contributors At HeriMga I* to the City's Master Plan of Trails and the City Trail Implementation Plan. We are active in all levels of our community, encouraging j participation of the entire family in our events. On behalf of the Alta Loma Riding Club, we are expressing our strong objection to the Staff recommendation to only replace the 5 existing 1 Bridges in Heritage Park with 1 combined Bridge and to defer the handling of the 2 western most Bridges to a undetermined time. The 4 City Staff recommendation is based solely on costs and not on need and public obligation. Our objections are based on the following: 1. Public access to a public park is a primary and most important value in our community. Heritage Park was constructed 33 years ago and at the time the 5 bridges were determined to be necessary to provide public access. The Bridges have been established to provide essential recreational opportunity as well as public safety. To allow replacement with less than the existing r 5 bridges would be reducing a quality of community resource {f ` that is detrimental to the quality of life for our residents. # 2. The Bridges were not constructed to the original approved plans, but to a r J: lesser standard, which may have reduced the life expectancy of the bridges. 3. Some 15 to 20 years a go the City decided to drop the portion the PD85 Park } �• �. tax that covered the retirement of the original capital bonds. It does not $ appear that there was any consideration to continuing that component to establish a fund for capital replacement of Building Roofs or Bridges. This PF;4 action was not done at the request of the public, but now the City is claiming there are not sufficient funds in the District. It is clearly apparent that there are more than enough funds in the City General Fund Reserves. The purpose of .k General Fund Reserves is to cover such unplanned capital repairs. r. ! 4. The Staff recommendation appears to run contrary to the policies adopted in k the current General Plan with regards to the Health RC Initiative. We urge the TAC to take a strong recommendation to replace all the Bridges at this time using all the City resources for this vital Community r Resource! Attachment 1 025 Thank you for your consideration please contact Mr. Henderson, ALRC Liaison Director for any questions by calling (909) 226-3956, or e-mail at Ihenderson62@Outlook.com, . Sincerely, Cowan, ALRC President LJH Copies To: HONORABLE Mayor and City Council Chair and Members of the Planning Commission City Staff 026 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT 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 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 Attachment 2 027 Page 1 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. 'Sy a "( \�`/C<<<,t, 'r•� ' �y,N�� ci�r,i`�r .fy 4 r;'u 'k,4• �`2r`!' 1< I . , s_ '•tS,;�:yxtv��,;S;�� '.��, r r` .. `�,�_4. _ ",.7r �I'i - .•[.,-fy<��`'��`..1:ti.�:l�t:- 7-1 r" .. t .,�{,.. -` '�< .C.^.i'",ry S.``,,�`•nnx'C`�,C1.F',; ,.. �.:«�: 'X.`�.,^.f..; _ ..:��_�r..;t.;[�;T''�'.-�'-`- - ,I � �;� f• � x .� �do t r 1'' '#, � ••;r� .y�;,;,r, ���`�;-:c�t yF t ,. r�,�!<•`:,CC rx�t,�� ''��/ .�"[�nT ..��r` .�� � 'vs C Bridge C Page 2 of 6 028 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. i N a, . 6. ra. -. .. - 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. f 1 Page 3 of 6 029 r { _f yl v t 5", F `5 '.1 1 14 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 4 of 6 030 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 5 of 6 031 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 6 of 6 032 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT 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 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Public Works Subcommittee: 1. Recommend that the City Council include Option 2 for the Heritage Park Bridge Replacement Project consisting of replacement of three bridges at the entrance to the equestrian center with one consolidated bridge and removal of the remaining two bridges utilizing the funding sources as described in the staff report below in the Fiscal Year 2020/21 CIP Budget; and 2. Receive a report on the status of the Randolph Davis Property Community Trail deferring recommendation regarding short- and long-term reconstruction of the Davis Trail until a decision on the insurance claim has been received. BACKGROUND: Randolph Davis Property Community Trail In January 2019, a portion of the community trail located on the Randolph Davis Property, 9400 Almond Street, was eroded after a heavy storm event. For the protection of the public and to prevent further damage to the trail or the adjacent hillside, Public Works staff closed the community trail by placing trail closed signs at either entrance to the trail and implementing erosion control measures until the community trail can be restored to a safe condition. Engineering staff contracted with a geotechnical engineering firm to prepare a slope stability assessment report that investigated the failure and provided recommendations on potential short- term and long-term solutions. Heritage Park Bridge Replacement An initial bridge evaluation for the five bridges located at Heritage Park was completed back in March 2011. The initial bridge evaluation recommended replacement of the bridges but identified minor bridge repairs by replacing the existing wood railing supports for each bridge. Because of the timeline from the initial report and current condition of the bridges, Engineering staff contracted with a civil engineering firm to reassess the five bridges at Heritage Park. In September 2019, an updated bridge evaluation report was prepared and submitted to staff for consideration. Page 1 of 3 033 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 2 of 3 034 both Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 (LMD-1) and Park Development District No. 85 (PD- 85) are limited, supplemental funding may be available for these projects in the future. Randolph Davis Property Community Trail While adequate funding is not currently available in LMD-1, to make the trail repairs without depleting reserves, staff has submitted an insurance claim in the amount of$500,000 to cover a portion of the cost. Should the claim be approved, the remaining project cost would need to be funded out of LMD-1 reserves. Staff will re-analyze the project and recommendation once a decision is received on the insurance claim. Heritage Park Bridge Replacement Funding for the Heritage Park Bride Replacement Project has been identified through a combination of PD-85 and Rancho Cucamonga Fire District capital reserves and is available for budgeting in the Fiscal Year 2020/21 CIP Budget. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 — Randolph Davis Property Community Trail Slope Stability Report Attachment 2 — Randolph Davis Property Community Trail Conceptual Drawings and Rough Estimate Attachment 3 — Heritage Park Bridge Replacement Report Page 3 of 3 035 CommunityLimited Geotechnical Evaluation • Davis • • ' Rancho Cucamonga, California City of . • Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive I Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 September 1 2019 1 ProjectNo. 210274008 ' Geotechnical � Environmental � Construction Inspection & Testing � Forensic Engineering & Expert Witness Geophysics� Engineering Geology� Laboratory Testing � Industrial Hygiene� Occupational Safety�Air Quality� GIS ,ynyo /y►nor Geotechnical&Environmental Sciences ConsuHants /yi17Yj9&ffiunr e Geotechnical&Environmental Sciences Consultants Limited Geotechnical Evaluation Community Equestrian Trail Davis Property Rancho Cucamonga, California Mr. Gianfranco Laurie City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive I Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 September 10, 2019 1 Project No. 210274008MEERING No. 1484 C.0 =r P%kl. 2537 CAL Matthew R. Harrell, PG, CEG Ronald D. Hallum, PG, CEG Senior Project Geologist Q'WOFES Project Geologist H M. ft No GE2509 �+ Garreth M. Saiki, PE, GE Principal Engineer MRH/GMS/RDH/sc Distribution: (1) Addressee (via e-mail) 475 Goddard, Suite 200 1 Irvine, California 92618 1 p. 949.753.7070 www.ninyoandmoore.com 037 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 RECOMMENDATIONS 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 Drainage 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 I Community Equestrian Trail,Davis Property,Rancho Cucamonga,California 1210274008 I September 10,2019 o;a 6.6.2 Down Drains 8 6.7 Fill Placement and Compaction 9 7 ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL 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 I Community Equestrian Trail,Davis Property,Rancho Cucamonga,California 1210274008 I September 10,2019 W9 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 040 Ninyo&Moore I Community Equestrian Trail,Davis Property,Rancho Cucamonga,California 1210274008 1 September 10,2019 1 date by the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) to provide vehicle access to up-hill facilities. Portions of the equestrian trail for the MWD section was observed to be paved with asphalt concrete. Construction for the trail was noted to be cut into the uphill portions with fill placed on the downslope portion to create a relatively level cross section approximately 10 feet in width. The limits of the trail are defined by a PVC post and rail fence system set in concrete footings. The slope from the trail alignment to Thorpe Canyon was observed to be at an approximate inclination of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) of varying height. In general, the slopes are heavily vegetated with a variety of chaparral, shrubs, trees, and grasses. In some cases, perimeter slopes adjacent to natural areas were observed to be bare of vegetation. 4 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS The project site is located within the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province of southern California (Norris and Webb, 1990). The province is characterized by generally east-west trending mountain ranges, fault zones, and structural basins. The trail alignment is located south of the east-west trending San Gabriel Mountains and northeast of the San Jose Hills within the Cucamonga Basin. The project is underlain by relatively thick accumulations of Quaternary age sediments eroded from the San Gabriel Mountains that have infilled the basin as broad south- sloping alluvial fans. The material types within the alluvial fans are typically interbedded boulders, cobbles, gravel, and sand with minor silt and clay. The material types can change gradually or abruptly both vertically and laterally. Deposits are typically coarser upslope on the alluvial fan and closer to the mountain front. The project site is situated on a broad alluvial fan at the base of the southeastern portion of the San Gabriel Mountains (Figure 3). Regional geologic mapping indicates that the alluvial fan deposits generally consist of sand, gravel, and boulder alluvial deposits(Dibblee, 2003a,b; Morton and Matti, 2001a,b; and Morton and Miller, 2006). Our review of the referenced geologic literature indicates that the project area evaluated is not transected by active faults. However, the trail is located in the projected path of the Sierra Madre fault zone with active and potentially active fault segments located in relatively close proximity to the boundaries of the trail. The active Cucamonga fault segment of the Sierra Madre fault zone, is located along the northern boundary of the Davis Trail, adjacent to Area 6 (Figure 3). The active Cucamonga fault in this area has a maximum projected earthquake magnitudes of 6.0 to 7.0, which can cause significant ground shaking (Southern California Earthquake Data Center [SCEC], 2019. Nearby seismic events have the potential to cause cracking of the ground surface and slope failures in the project area. 041 Ninyo&Moore I Community Equestrian Trail,Davis Property,Rancho Cucamonga,California 1210274008 1 September 10,2019 2 5 FIELD RECONNAISSANCE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS Representatives from our firm performed a geotechnical site reconnaissance on April 4, 2019 to observe and document the condition of the slopes and other general site conditions. Our site reconnaissance consisted of walking the trail to observe and document the site conditions. Our evaluation included documentation of geotechnical issues, such as drainage concerns and significant erosion. Our scope of services for this project was limited to visual observations of the trail and slope surfaces and did not include subsurface exploration. Heavy vegetative coverage limited our visual observations for much of the slope areas facing Thorpe Canyon. Our observations documented during our site reconnaissance are provided in the sections below and are indicated on Figure 2. Selected representative photographs of observed conditions are provided in Appendix A. 5.1 Area 1 Trail erosion consisting of rilling and gullies were observed within Area 1, beginning near the trailhead and extending approximately 100 feet west on the south side of the trail, exposing coarse gravels and cobbles. The erosion then continues south off the property across a private drive. Sands and gravel are visible on the private drive where drainage is conveyed to an existing swale to the southwest.A graded swale within the Davis property was observed along the east property boundary to convey drainage onto the trail. Additionally, an existing drainage culvert approximately 200 feet from the trail is present to the south of the trail where it crosses a topographic swale. 5.2 Area 2 Drainage on the trail in the vicinity of Area 2 is concentrated off-trail with erosion to the west towards Thorpe Canyon consisting of gullies of less than 6 inches in depth and "piping" of an existing animal burrow where the trail trends to the north. Additionally, trail erosion consisting of rilling is present on the slope side of the trail. 5.3 Area 3 A small gulley of less than 6 inches was observed at the top of slope facing towards Thorpe Canyon. Additionally, trail erosion consisting of rilling is present on the slope side of the trail. However, changes in the drainage have conveyed water away from the slope face and the slope erosion. 042 Ninyo&Moore I Community Equestrian Trail,Davis Property,Rancho Cucamonga,California 1210274008 1 September 10,2019 3 5.4 Area 4 Significant slope erosion consisting of a deep gully up to 8 feet in depth and up to 14 feet in width, extends to the floor of the adjacent Thorpe Canyon. Field measurements estimate that the slope is approximately 26 feet in height based on a slope inclination of 2:1 over a distance of approximately 52 feet. Soil exposed in the sidewalls of the gully were observed to be loose with significant amounts of cobbles and boulders.An MWD water line is exposed approximately 6 feet from the top of slope. Drainage is conveyed to Area 4 from the Davis Trail to the north and the Davis property to the east. To reduce additional erosions, city personnel have installed gravel bags to direct water away from gully and to the south. 5.5 Area 5 Drainage on the trail is concentrated off of the Davis Trail to the south where an existing vehicle access ramp to Thorpe Canyon is cut. Additionally, erosion consisting of rilling is present on the ramp access. To reduce additional erosion on the trail alignment, city personnel have installed a gravel bag berm to direct water away from the trail, south onto the access ramp. 5.6 Area 6 Drainage of an existing swale has been altered from the original alignment by the construction of the MWD access road currently used by the Davis Trail. Drainage has been cut-off from Thorpe Canyon and is conveyed south along the trail to Areas 4 and 5. Discontinuous asphalt pavement has been exposed at the base of rilling in some areas. In addition, rilling is limited to the inside edge of the trail, away from the slope to Thorpe Canyon. 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The purpose of our study was to evaluate the condition of the subject trail and slopes, and to provide our opinions regarding their condition from a geotechnical perspective. To accomplish this, we have performed a review of readily available background information, including geologic maps, aerial photographs, and plans, and we have performed a geotechnical site reconnaissance of the subject trail and slopes. Based on the results of our evaluation, it is our opinion that the majority of the trail and slopes observed during our site reconnaissance are in relatively good condition; however, the noted locations are in need of mitigation, repair, or maintenance. Our preliminary recommendations regarding the observed conditions on the subject slopes are presented in the following sections. 043 Ninyo&Moore I Community Equestrian Trail,Davis Property,Rancho Cucamonga,California 1210274008 1 September 10,2019 4 6.1 Area 1 The Davis Trail has significant erosion from off-site drainage on the trail. To address erosion concerns, the following recommendations for erosion and drainage in the vicinity of Area 1 are as follows. 6.1.1 Rilling and Gullies Riling and gullies greater than 6 inches in depth, observed during our site reconnaissance, were located in areas with concentrated runoff from the adjacent property to the north.Areas of surficial erosion should be filled with compacted soil to help maintain surficial soil stability. 6.1.2 Positive Drainage Consideration may also be given to the construction of additional surface drainage mitigation systems, such as positive drainage to the inside edge of the trail to maintain drainage on the north side and to convey runoff west to the existing swale and culvert. 6.1.3 Low Water Crossing Positive drainage to the existing swale to the west will concentrate drainage south across the trail to the existing culvert. Site improvements consisting of a low water crossing 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 044 Ninyo&Moore I Community Equestrian Trail,Davis Property,Rancho Cucamonga,California 1210274008 1 September 10,2019 5 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. 045 Ninyo&Moore I Community Equestrian Trail,Davis Property,Rancho Cucamonga,California 1210274008 1 September 10,2019 6 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. 046 Ninyo&Moore I Community Equestrian Trail,Davis Property,Rancho Cucamonga,California 1210274008 1 September 10,2019 7 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 047 Ninyo&Moore I Community Equestrian Trail,Davis Property,Rancho Cucamonga,California 1210274008 1 September 10,2019 8 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 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Our scope of services included review of readily available background information, including geologic maps and aerial photographs.We have also performed a site reconnaissance and visual assessment of the subject slopes. However, we have not performed a subsurface investigation to evaluate the soil conditions at the site, nor have we performed slope stability analyses of the existing slopes. To further evaluate the potential for future soil-related movement that may affect site improvements, geotechnical evaluations should be performed, including slope stability analysis of Area 4 Slope Reconstruction based on proposed import materials and a review of the proposed civil design. These evaluations could include the sampling of proposed import materials and laboratory testing. A detailed scope and cost estimate for such an evaluation can be provided upon request. 8 CONTINUED SLOPE MAINTENANCE Continued vigilance and on-going maintenance are important for reducing the potential for future slope instability. The following additional recommendations for continued trail maintenance are provided below: • Areas that are not adequately vegetated should be covered with plastic sheeting or jute mesh during rainy seasons, as appropriate. • Surface drainage should be provided so that surface water runoff does not flow over the tops of the slopes. Irrigation or drainage from the adjacent property along the tops of the slopes should not saturate the slope soils or flow over the tops of the slopes. 048 Ninyo&Moore I Community Equestrian Trail,Davis Property,Rancho Cucamonga,California 1210274008 1 September 10,2019 9 • 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. 049 Ninyo&Moore I Community Equestrian Trail,Davis Property,Rancho Cucamonga,California 1210274008 1 September 10,2019 10 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:Husgs.maps.arcgis.com. University of California at Santa Barbara, 2019, http://mil.librarV.ucsb.edu/ap indexes/ FrameFinder/, Aerial Photograph, dated December31, 1937, October 21, 1952, September 30, 1969 and October 1, 1995. 050 Ninyo&Moore I Community Equestrian Trail,Davis Property,Rancho Cucamonga,California 1210274008 1 September 10,2019 11 Ninyo&Moore I Community Equestrian Trail,Davis Property,Rancho Cucamonga,California 1210274008 1 September 10,2019 051 3800 { o 6� "1 40o0 I �$ 3600 III I \SNOWDROPST i m ° o v ` ISO Z80o Cucamonga Road ,_. `; 0�:. ° �j' rDeme.ns_Canyon_ o �> Angalls o _ Canyon N _ REALEs sr TNorpe'Canyon — r..- �ti� MEADOWWOODDR ALMOND ST SUMMERHILL-RD —77 SITE - HIDDEN FARM RD n 00 �_ L VISTA-GROVEST - 0 4 Z— — o m ~ 1= o HILLSIDE RD ORCHARD ST W — 1800 Q WILSON AVE I - ILSON AVE_ w t 1800 THOROUGHBRED-Sl Q` p NORTHRIDGE DR o T N17*ADR / � Q COCA ST H 0 BANYAN D R AND_ARIN AVE t a MST o V O O m 3 a J I N o FEET o NOTE:DIMENSIONS,DIRECTIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. I REFERENCE:USGS,2018. 0 2,000 4,000 N SITE LOCATION N,nyo&/�oore COMMUNITY EQUESTRIAN TRAIL, DAVIS PROPERTY Geotechnical&Environmental Sciences Consultants RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 210274$gS 1 9/19 LO v n q _ AREA 6 '• � �_• LIMIT OF EVALUATION A / ri e ' �. •.� r l t' AREA 5 y 1 `. ,� � � � fr i•fit r`�- kz itl SLOPE REBUILD 8'WIDEN l 4y rr - " t ' / ' AREA 4 PROPOSED KEYWAY •+'- co ,, _ —�. l � fit GV• ":+'�r:F� . �� •1( - ` ti AREA 3 a, aw - -- aO410�FZ 8 <� { ! .9C(jOCur F 0. a�Wnoc�, x � � r fl� hs. tin >t t c y^>4 4. AREA1 1 .S QNd 6N7b l.?� xaays:-.•nrz^a- •.za,«m:...:.�ww,es•-+^�sss+maocam=«.•:as.a. � nr. �.�. ..rm+T:. m=-mm- .w..am:-.,._ ._.rs.+sa.rt u:...ra..•-•-wAe.,assr,o.�mc.a--. a LEGEND o APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXISTING SURFACE WATER FLOW o I I PROPOSED LOW WATER CROSSING o LLJ_J 3 PROPOSED SLOPE DRAIN EXISTING GRAVEL BAG BERM N col � FEET o NOTE:DIMENSIONS,DIRECTIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. I REFERENCE:GOGGLE EARTH,2019. 80 160 N SITE AERIAL N�nyo&/�oore COMMUNITY EQUESTRIAN TRAIL, DAVIS PROPERTY Geotechnical&Environmental Sciences Consultants RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 2102741 1 9/19 .= DOE 40 .} n h L T .. _ 'Oo a �.. - ti gnui� r f � _ f - % SITE ire p ri QAD ! •k {• � #. « � � � -fit• � —� . - T:'n k 40 LEGEND N Qg ALLUVIAL GRAVELS gnh HORNBLENDE GNEISS o N Qa ALLUVIUM •• FAULT a c9 Qoa OLDER ALLUVIUM — GEOLOGIC CONTACT o FEET 0 a o NOTE:DIMENSIONS,DIRECTIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. I REFERENCE:THOMAS W.DIBBLEE JR.,2003. O 1,000 2,000 N REGIONAL GEOLOGY /�/inyo&/�oore COMMUNITY EQUESTRIAN TRAIL, DAVIS PROPERTY GeotechnicalB Environmental Sciences Consultants RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 210274$g% 1 9/19 MEN, QF Flo _ : I. , / ! ! %aut gg / 1 / %1! WON �,. �Jif��•'r1'� :�.... :ram. - �' 1��Irl� �� 1 �I .l, LEGEND ACTIVE FAULTS FAULTS CONSIDERED TO HAVE BEEN ACTIVE DURING HOLO SURFACE RUPTURE; CENE TIME AND TO HAVE POTENTIAL FORSOLID LINE WHERE ACCURATELY LOCATED,LONG DASH WHERE APPROXIMATELY LOCATED, .- 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. EARTHQAUKE FAULT ZONE BOUNDARIES 0 0 THESE ARE DELINEATED AS STRAIGHT-LINE SEGMENTS THAT CONNECT ENCIRCLED TURINING POINT SO AS DEFINE EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONE SEGMENTS. oSEAWARD PROJECTION OF ZONE BOUNDARY. NOTE: FEET REFERENCE:CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY,1995. DIMENSIONS,DIRECTIONS AN.LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. „ 1 2,000 4,000 FIGURE 4 EARTHQUAKE ZONES COMMUNITY EQUESTRIAN TRAIL, DAVIS PROPERTY Geotechnical&Environmental Sciences Consultants RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 1 41g FILL SLOPE PROJECTED PLANE COMPACTED / FILL I- 1 TO 1 MAXIMUM FROM TOE OF SLOPE TO APPROVED GROUND / REMOVE NATURAL UNSUITABLE , _ BENCH MATERIAL GROUND / --' HEIGHT VARIES 2%MIN. BENCH INCLINED OUTLET PIPE \ 1______- -___-- ,�� ���_, SLIGHTLY INTO --______- - I- SLOPE(TYPICAL) 2'MIN. 16 MIN. 2%MIN. KEY DEPTH LOWEST BENCH (KEY) SUBDRAIN DETAIL 3/4-INCH OPEN-GRADED GRAVEL WRAPPED IN AN APPROVED GEOFABRIC�� GEOFABRIC T-CONNECTION— (SEE DETAIL) / 12 INCHES OR MORE NON-PERFORATED PIPE,4 INCHES OR LARGER SCHEDULE 40 PVC OR EQUAL OUTLET PIPE 4 INCHES OR MORE 22%� Q M E ' T-CONNECTION DETAIL PERFORATED PIPE,4 INCHES OR LARGER SCHEDULE 40 PVC OR EQUAL,INSTALLED WITH PERFORATIONS DOWN,SLOPED AT 1%OR MORE TOWARD OUTLET PIPE CAP 0 v 0 0 m NON-PERFORATED 3 OUTLET PIPE n C m Y �I 0 0 r N NOTE: 'AS AN ALTERNATIVE, AN APPROVED GEOCOMPOSITE DRAIN SYSTEM MAY BE USED. KEYING AND BENCHING DETAIL N,nyo&*nnre COMMUNITY EQUESTRIAN TRAIL, DAVIS PROPERTY Geotechnical&Environmental Sciences Consultants RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 210274$% 1 9/19 APPENDIX A Photographs Ninyo&Moore I Community Equestrian Trail,Davis Property,Rancho Cucamonga,California 1210274008 1 September 10,2019 057 _ —ram•!,-+a++e��_ ���Aetr`+�.r:W.:;',.'� r s^e _ ��� �■Photograph 1: Area 1 Davis Property graded swale. a_ ri k!` Photograph 2: Area 1 gully trail erosion. PHOTOGRAPHS NWnyo&*oore COMMUNITY EQUESTRIAN TRAIL, DAVIS PROPERTY Geotechnical&Environmental Sciences Consultants RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 210274008 1 9/19 P'. �,a� -v �:i •p r Wu. Photograph 3: Area 1 gully and rilling trail erosion. n tom. „ Photograph 4: Area 1 drainage culvert. NMI 1:4 WNW PHOTOGRAPHS NWnyo&*oore COMMUNITY EQUESTRIAN TRAIL, DAVIS PROPERTY Geotechnical&Environmental Sciences Consultants RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 210274008 1 9/19 y�v �_.� f :�l'._may ��! fit• �'r�"�T` 4 L 9 E WWoo �T Vie% Photograph 5: Area 2 gully and "piping" erosion. y si S 9 Photograph 6: Area 3 small gully erosion at slope face. PHOTOGRAPHS N�nyo&/�oore COMMUNITY EQUESTRIAN TRAIL, DAVIS PROPERTY GeotechnicalB Environmental Sciences Consultants RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 210274008 1 9/19 Jill,. e .. 6& - X s Photograph 7: Area 3 rilling trail erosion. t *" Photograph 8: Area 4 deep gully of slope face. PHOTOGRAPHS NWnyo&*oore COMMUNITY EQUESTRIAN TRAIL, DAVIS PROPERTY Geotechnical&Environmental Sciences Consultants RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 210274008 1 9/19 Photograph 9: Area 4 deep gully of slope face. .WL titit It lift 1; in _ L Photograph 10: Area 4 drainage from Davis Trail and Davis Property. PHOTOGRAPHS N�nyo&/�UUre COMMUNITY EQUESTRIAN TRAIL, DAVIS PROPERTY Geotechnical&Environmental Sciences Consultants RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 210274008 1 9/19 -r MIR 4. A V°'ic'9ri v ���" ����° ,".Y o IA i A, f fin.r V Photograph 11: Area 5 vehicle access ramp to Thorpe Canyon. n � s . r asW 14 irk v F *s 'y � Photograph 12: Area 6 existing swale drainage area. PHOTOGRAPHS N�nyo&/�UUre COMMUNITY EQUESTRIAN TRAIL, DAVIS PROPERTY Geotechnical&Environmental Sciences Consultants RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 210274008 1 9/19 jy*7 ,YA9&ffinwirp. Geolechnical&Environmental Sciences Consultants 475 Goddard, Suite 200 � Irvine, California 92618 � p. 949.753.7070 ARIZONA � CALIFORNIA � COLORADO � NEVADA � TEXAS � UTAH www.ninyoandmoore.com i rI • , •• , 40 Ir A V1!40 416 7 eA 1 • • •' • . •• �► 1 '' � V , or loop *b • • s • • • . - `• ♦ ` j� +• • •� 1 • •tit ` ��'►'• • •a. � � • 141 ir • -may f •. do • T' a •' • • . �y 41L •"r • poll" 41 a limp 1Aft 0M ` • • �$ kw Ift lk a cc is sow ._��• - do of ,ter •� �, • , •• . 7 j ' • • �J ` f� , . ' • 1 • •• ••Rik s t ow • • ter! • • ' :.L • 1 '�1 � • ~ �♦ A�'� •• M � � �. � � �'• • • . � •iii '• • 1 (• ` + ♦ � Imo, • .41 T-• • , , ; v r•� ;' ; • J .� •�� •_ ` � 14 • ( A•• 4. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ♦ • �� :~ • e ,. ��• .2 ,�•• r •ter �' + r IL EXHIBIT op • '`j• • r ' a �^�h �. � • • .. tL�•- ./ • � '� • - law • • • . � j 4 • `; .•. .• �• ' �•rlr+• '•s � + / � • •" t TRAIL DAVIS A *OIL APPROVED DATE: CITY ENGINEER RCE: 67514 LAN PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDED CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CONCEPTUAL PLANS10500 DRIVE'-' • CUCAMONGA, • • R.C.E. No 67514 DRAWING NO. DATE X FILE NO x EXHIBIT .. •� r . _ . • • . . • Oki 44 • .� TT' •. ! • _` • . • a• ` 6I• • s _ k• 44 rIA do 401 'Ii • • r • ' .r �, 1 i • • 1 •.� tom' ,• v • i 40 •fit �' ~ ` • � ,� � 1 � 1 � 1 1 � i� ' ` . • ` - •F •• • L. , � � % ' 48 46 ' AL vA qlb b IL J AP db No AOL dr • • �` # Apr • • . 1•• • r bell 2% 0 v a f ,* . oil 714al AM. 10 rf 40 jv lb wr JL Ap • y • •f�. • ti� - - • r t 1 • ` lot • t ow • aEXHIBIT • • 10 ol CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA lb Cal L w • r r DAVIS TRAIL APPROVED DATE: CITY ENGINEER RCE: 67514 PLAN PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDED CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • •• CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, • • R.C.E. No 67514 DRAWING NO. DATE X FILE No _x EXHIBIT • •� ;• / r • 40 vp f • �so IP 41 4 \ • , • + T •!! T NA 1 . � ! _ •� ► ray '� -. • WW All *414, 40 COA 10 rA 1 _ �' �.•.. top • • • ♦ ' � . • � • t• � �♦ i /• �,�•• - - fail fail . , ` - •• ♦ •• _-- wo L IL m Ain - W • ( • _ - s Ir dp Op • i * • t ♦ M i r �j � _ , :� , .• . sip.,• � • . r • to _ , .- r • tat d' • r I r fo • N 1 St r • 1• • / v • .06 wr AN 46 IL � � . ; � � «�� ��s y �• •�,� •'`'fir`�� ,�' - t �I � , ' ,. IL 44 IL Ira lb 40 No el y •1+ r ,: . . f ! s • •-4 •� I 'le ••.• •. ' • •• •' _ !r.' • �.. aft - ♦ /� �' • • • • • • - i1 rj •61 +j - IL If till or- . .� ' r � �i�1: * _ • - ' / - t '�. . . ,.,•. , "fir' • , , �� op A qd- �lp AINK •�-s 3 1 • T • • r•• • + • �• _ ► �• mil! \. , - .�� 1 •ter' ♦ '1�'+. - •• • - • '� • tom.. • t �► f�, 'l low • a t•1 s a • .. .• ue•' w• � • 4, -` � • t. ~ •,/ � .~ ,�, I •• 1 • - �� '\ I ••'� • . • +M.•I , • � • •.. !�i: w Ir - %�' r' : .� • ti ' '• -1 : • !` +�• r '- .. .ire / -•'f _ •• _ R� . Jew '7� • • • / . 4w 410 •. ♦T � .�♦• • ! i�y ! +' � a '•� '� ' ` `• war ''' • I '{, " e • • Av ••�� , - • • •• : ►� .�' •• .� + - m� s.• `- • - �t . ,a � 1 - � � .1 1. r• , I tjkbq ...,• • r . , • �. • , All op • • � • - . � - - • ��i• �: - + •- • r . • �-.yam• ,i` ��;.i � • . . • J •% 1 • C .•! - • ♦ 1 � w� •fit • •_ •I -I, •� t Rp 040 41 ow— Jay tt ti , •I �, � -,r • r ] ♦ • AL a .0 CONCEPTUAL PLANS owl . - Ilk Ito lb EXHIBIT op y . CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA l . • ♦ • r k • f x ,•law77 1 , � • DAVIS TRAI L foI VIP.! •.• I APPROVED BY: DATE: cl 17 4,4v*-�a it • • J. �,a �. lb 00 • • + PLAN PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDED CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • •• CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, • R.C.E. No 67514 DRAWING NO. DATE X FILE NO x EXHIBIT • • �,11h,I -, . .= _ 4' 1 '�•.,, • i� . . .• .fit • �•- , . SA1 • •`' �r , , r • �' •` 46 op 4 lb T. lilt rJ kb Ilk I. It op AM- 1 i . ti• . • • 1 • .� • • a r �. • ;,, -- - _ _ • ter �, •, . r f� , ML tit • it 41 •�; � � •- � � ��t �• � Lam• , 4*4-.i ILI LTA +� • lambIca- Alb op ..• • .` • ` 1 • ` • ,• _ • ` • • • i w _ IT AbLA 01 VA CONCEPTUAL PLANS • `/ if CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA _ ; � _ . �C•• ,{•fit.� , .ti + . w � s • .r , , _ ' -_ . . :�' . '• .♦ DAVIS IL 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE 40* APPROVED BY: DATE: CITY ENGINEER RCE: 67514 PLAN PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDED � . f RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 so DRAWING NO. 41 f R.C.E. No 67514 EXHIBIT DATE X FILE NO ♦ ►- ^ , { .♦ IW ► ► r f 1 w' a - • -•• �•• • •*_• • • - • • 7 • •• ~ .L • • • 1,rt�ji s ' .A 1 •_• 'X • • • ,ice, - M A It rr lip s `4 � L • d _ ♦ • �• • � • I" ♦r '' II • ,.i , . • • � • il •S � f �� � ` `�•� . •� i� �� r•r; �b 1 � • 1 0 love 84 SO tov IV lb • •• • •o . , Xis 1 �� • • • 1 ;�t �f �. a �. WN 10 go So 4t* 40 oft IL at C N •� ' i J 1• •� • % • • r , �t * • f � to lop Ih W. dr IV t *410 10 . ,� • • ` F Vol lip j . 40 dO ., / ., • ► ♦ • ..'Y . • • ,� �' _' , A r !• : • . . . . ♦ .• ^ ' • •fir' . Go f I MEN .• AdW do l ` _ .� •' • ti 40 ._ it i .IF PRO �• IL dbp• i. r .• ...Z . f . . .. i• ` t . . ••• � ` • 1r • . -'fir r • r ._ . Y, 1 . . • It wa wo Noe to It 49 _4 ' _ •1 , Me o 6 Is 41 • _ _ 40 so 64 1 — • , irkNo 16 • •� • Ib 16 11 IL Op 4 110 • r • «• • — _ s • • • � ,� do .� . - Community Equestrian Trail R G ESTI ATE NSTR TI N ST Date of Estimate: 8 19 2019 Job Number: By: RD ITE DES RIPTI N ANTIT NIT PRI E ST AREA 1 SHORT TERM FILL ERODED SURFACE AND COMPACT TO 90% OR PER THE SOILS ENGINEER CY $200.00 $2,000.00 SATISFACTION RE-GRADE EXISTING SURFACE TO CREATE NATURAL UN-GROUTED GRAVEL FLOWLINE SURFACE DRAINAGE INSIDE EDGE OF THE TRAIL TO CONVEY RUNOFF TO THE EXISTING LS $9,100.00 $9,100.00 SWALE/DIRT AND EXISTING STORM DRAIN AND ENERGY DISSIPATOR, 4 LABORS 24 HRS @ $65 AND 1 SKIP WITH OPERATOR 24 HRS@$120 LOW WATER CROSSING DRAINAGE, CONCRETE CROSSING TRAIL 45 DEGREES SF $20.00 $2,000.00 TOWARDS SOUTH 10' X10', AT 1% FLOW TOWARD CENTER. SUB-TOTAL 13 100.00 LONG TERM INSTALL INLET HEADWALL AND CONNECTED 1 TO EXSTING STORM DRAIN AND NEW V- 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 DITCH 2 CONCRETE V-DITCH SWALE 2' FEET WIDE 6" 123 FT $50.00 $6,150.00 DEEP SUB-TOTAL 11 150.00 Grand-Total 24 250.00 Area 2 SHORT TERM FILL ERODED SURFACE AND COMPACT TO 90% OR PER THE SOILS ENGINEER CY $200.00 $1,600.00 SATISFACTION. RE-GRADE EXISTING SURFACE TO CREATE NATURAL UN-GROUTED GRAVEL FLOWLINE SURFACE DRAINAGE INSIDE EDGE OF THE TRAIL TO CONVEY RUNOFF TO THE EXISTING LS $18,200.00 $18,200.00 SWALE/DIRT AND CULVERT, 4 LABORS 48 HRS @ $65 AND 1 SKIP WITH OPERATOR 48 HRS@$120 INSTALL 12-INCH DIAMETER PVC PIPE WITH INLET HEADWALL AND CONNECTED TO LS $8,000.00 $8,000.00 EXISTING CMP, 28 LF 12" PVC@$145/LF, 1 HEADWALL@$4,000/EACH 27 800.00 SUB-TOTAL 071 LONG TERM CONCRETE V-DITCH SWALE 2' FEET WIDE 6" 1 DEEP TO CATCH WATER COMING FROM 362 FT $50.00 $18,100.00 ARENA AND NORTH TRAIL SUB-TOTAL 18 100.00 Grand-Total 45 900.00 AREA 3 SHORT TERM FILL ERODED SURFACE AND COMPACTED CY $200.00 $2,000.00 PER THE SOILS ENGINEER SATISFACTION RE-GRADE EXISTING SURFACE TO CREATE NATURAL UN-GROUTED GRAVEL FLOWLINE SURFACE DRAINAGE INSIDE EDGE OF THE TRAIL TO CONVEY RUNOFF TO THE EXISTING LS $13,700.00 $13,700.00 SWALE/DIRT AND CULVERT, 4 LABORS 36 HRS @ $65 AND 1 SKIP WITH OPERATOR 36 HRS@$120 SUB-TOTAL 15 700.00 LONG TERM 1 CONCRETE V-DITCH SWALE 2' FEET WIDE 6" 240 FT $50.00 $12,000.00 DEEP INSTALL 12-INCH DIAMETER PVC PIPE WITH 2 INLET GRATE AND OUTLET HEADWALL, 1 LS $9,450.00 $9,450.00 ENERGY DISSIPATOR, 10 LF 12" PVC@$145/LF, 2 HEADWALL@$4,000/EACH SUB-TOTAL 12 000.00 Grand-Total 27700. AREA 4 SHORT TERM RE-GRADE EXISTING SURFACE TO CREATE NATURAL UN-GROUTED GRAVEL FLOWLINE SURFACE DRAINAGE INSIDE EDGE OF THE TRAIL TO CONVEY RUNOFF TO THE EXISTING LS $9,100.00 $9,100.00 SWALE/DIRT AND CULVERT, 4 LABORS 24 HRS @ $65 AND 1 SKIP WITH OPERATOR 24 HRS@$120 RECONSTRCUT EXISTING SLOPE, 70 FEET DEEP BY 23 FEET WIDE SLOPE AT A 2:1 COMPACTED PER THE SOILS ENGINEER SATISFACTION INCLUDING KEYING, LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00 BENCHING AND INSTALLATION OF SUBDRAIN, I BACKHOE WITH COMPACTOR ROLLER, PERFORATED PIPES AND FITTINGS FOR SUBDRAIN, 3 LABORS FOR 48 HOURS 3 IMPORT FILL MATERIALS CY $20.00 $6,000.00 HYDROSEED NEW SLOPE TO PROTECT FROM LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00 ERODING. SUB-TOTAL 36 600.00 072 LONG TERM INSTALL 18-INCH DIAMETER PVC PIPE WITH 2 INLET GRATE AND OUTLET HEADWALL, 1 LS $16,200.00 $16,200.00 ENERGY DISSIPATOR, 57 LF 18" PVC@$145/LF, 1 HEADWALL@$4,000/EACH 2 CONCRETE V-DITCH SWALE 2' FEET WIDE 6" 75 FT $50.00 $3,750.00 DEEP SUB-TOTAL 19 950.00 GRAND-TOTAL 56 550.00 AREA 5 SHORT TERM FILL ERODED SURFACE AND COMPACTED CY $200.00 $2,000.00 PER THE SOILS ENGINEER SATISFACTION RE-GRADE EXISTING SURFACE TO CREATE DIRT FLOWLINE SURFACE DRAINAGE OUTSIDE TRAIL TO MAINTAIN DRAINAGE ON LS $10,300.00 $10,300.00 THE EAST SIDE, 2 LABOR AND 1 SKIP FOR 48 HOURS. OPERATOR 8HRS@$85 PLUS LABOR 8 HRS@$65 SUB-TOTAL 12 300.00 LONG TERM CONSTRUCT 18" DIAMETER PVC PIPE, INSTALL INLET HEADWALL AT THE TOP EAST 1 SIDE OF THE TRAIL AND INSTALL OUTLET 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 HEADWALL AT THE WEST SIDE TAIL WITH ENERGY DISSIPATOR. 12 FT OF PVC PIPE. (TWO LOCATIONS) RE-GRADE EXISTING DIRT AND INSTALL 2 UNGROUTED ROCKS TO DEFLECT WATER TO 1 LS $8,000.00 $8,000.00 NEW INLET HEADWALLS @$4,000/EACH INSTALL AC BERM AT THE EDGE OF AC 3 DRIVEWAY TO ELIMINATE ERODING AT DIRT 200 LF $25.00 $5,000.00 SLOPE SUB-TOTAL 23 000.00 Grand-Total 35 300.00 AREA 6 SHORT TERM FILL ERODED SURFACE AND COMPACTED CY $200.00 $2,000.00 PER THE SOILS ENGINEER SATISFACTION RE-GRADE EXISTING SURFACE TO RESTORE DIRT FLOWLINE SURFACE DRAINAGE SWALE TO MAINTAIN DRAINAGE ON THE EAST SIDE LS $5,100.00 $5,100.00 AND CLEAN UP, 2 LABOR AND 1 SKIP FOR 24 HOURS. OPERATOR 24 HRS@$85 PLUS LABOR 24 HRS@$65 SUB-TOTAL 1 7100.00 073 LONG TERM LOW WATER CROSSING DRAINAGE, CONCRETE CROSSING TRAIL 45 DEGREES 1 TOWARDS SOUTH 20 FEET WIDE X10 FEET, 1 LS $6,000.00 $6,000.00 1% FLOW TOWARD CENTER AND INSTALL OUTLET HEADWALL AND ENERGY DISSI PATOR. SUB-TOTAL 6000.00 Grand-Total 13 100.00 SHORT TERM TOTAL COST 112 600.00 25% CONTINGENCY $28,150.00 S RT TER T TAIL ST 140 750.00 SHORT TERM ADMIN COST AND CONSULTANT COST Al MOBILIZATION (10%) 1 LS $14,075.00 A2 SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING (30%) 1 LS $42,225.00 A3 CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION (25%) 1 LS $35,187.50 A4 CONSTRUCTION STAKING (30%) 1 LS $42,225.00 A5 SWPPP 1 LS $5,000.00 A6 DESIGN COST (20%) 1 LS $28,150.00 A7 ENVIRONMENTAL (25%) 1 LS $35,187.50 A8 DEPOSIT/PERMITS (10%) 1 LS $14,075.00 S RT TER AD IN AND NS LTANT ST (Al A8) 216 125.00 S RT TER GRAND T TAIL ST 356 875.00 L. NG TER S T TAIL ST (IN . S RT TER ST) 202 800.00 25% CONTINGENCY $50,700.00 LONG TERM TOTAL COST 253 500.00 LONG TERM ADMIN COST AND CONSULTANT COST Al MOBILIZATION (10%) 1 LS $25,350.00 A2 SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING (30%) 1 LS $76,050.00 A3 CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION (25%) 1 LS $63,375.00 A4 CONSTRUCTION STAKING (30%) 1 LS $76,050.00 A5 SWPPP 1 LS $5,000.00 A6 DESIGN COST (20%) 1 LS $50,700.00 A7 ENVIRONMENTAL (25%) 1 LS $63,375.00 A8 DEPOSIT/PERMITS (10%) 1 LS $25,350.00 L. NG TER AD IN AND NS LTANT ST (Al A8) 385 250.00 L. NG TER GRAND T TAIL ST 638 750.00 074 HJERJTAGE COMMUNITY PARK BRJDGE EVALUATION REPORT i F a � I � � y - r 4 _ ■ y so i ` + PREPARED BY: Aufbau Corp. p RANCHO SEPTEMBER 2019 C;UCAMONGA 075 "MM 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. QROFESSION 9 Vq�q. C h Q No. 38893 m 'a'�. Exp. 03-31-21 .a s� ciV4� P 4TF OF CAL F ( a4 September 9, 2019 Vartan Vartanians Date: Registered Civil Engineer Aufbau Corporation 076 Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to document the condition of the vehicular, pedestrian, and equestrian bridges within the Heritage Community Park, evaluate alternative locations and designs for their future restoration or replacement, and assign rough order of magnitude costs for the City of Rancho Cucamonga's budgeting purposes for their reconstruction. This report identifies four viable alternatives for the replacement of the existing bridges within the Heritage Community Park, namely Alternative 1, Alternative 2, Alternative 3, and Alternative 4. Each of these alternatives provides two construction methods - Option 1 and Option 2. Detailed discussions of said alternatives and said construction methods are provided further in this report. The rough order of magnitude implementation costs of the viable alternatives presented in this report range between $1,040,000 and $1,840,000—Alternative 1 being the costliest alternative at a rough order of magnitude cost of $1,840,00 and Alternative 4 being the least costly alternative at a rough order of magnitude cost of$1,040,000. The alternative which best preserves the current vehicular, equestrian,and pedestrian circulation pattern of the Heritage Community Park and the Heritage Park Equestrian Center is Alternative 1. Under Alternative 1, the removal and reconstruction of the existing five (5) bridges— one (1) vehicular bridge, three (3) equestrian bridges, and one (1) pedestrian bridge -within the Heritage Community Park would be conducted under a single construction contract. Alternative 4 provides the essential access needs of the vehicular, equestrian, and pedestrian traffic to Heritage Park Equestrian Center. Under this alternative the five (5) bridges within Heritage Community Park will be removed and will be replaced with a single bridge.The single bridge will be constructed at the location of the existing vehicular bridge where it crosses over Demens Creek Channel. The proposed bridge will accommodate a 26-ft wide pathway for vehicular traffic and a 10-ft wide pathway for the shared use of equestrian and pedestrian traffic. The vehicular pathway will be separated by a chain link fencing installed over a concrete barrier from the shared pedestrian and equestrian pathway. Under Alternative 4, due to the elimination of two equestrian bridges, the travel paths of some equestrian communities to and from Heritage Park Equestrian Center will be altered and increased. Prior Bridge Repair/Retrofit Work: Reference is made to Exhibit A for the locations of Bridge C, Bridge D, and Bridge F. The bridges subject to light utility vehicle and vehicle loading within Heritage Community Park, namely Bridge C, Bridge D, and Bridge F, were repaired/retrofitted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in the past to address the deflection of the wood railings and chain-link fencing that were along the sides of said bridges.The wood railings and chain-link fencing had deflected and moved away from the bridge decks. The repair/retrofit work modified the connection between the wood railings and the bridge deck by introduction of additional timber blocks under the bridge decks, introduction of new timber curbs on top of the bridge decks and strengthening of the bolted connections between the wood railings and the timber blocks and the timber curbs. 1 077 ,Nv •. 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 s r' Bridge C—Looking West Bridge C—Looking South 2 078 �p. #_ NO MOTOR VEHICLES d s' - a v a F ^ Bridge C—Looking North Bridge D -Spanning over Rancho Wash Channel —Serves only equestrian traffic at this time �n '-- MOTOR NO VEHICLES MOTOR VEHICLES 1 x IM' J dl Bridge D—Looking East Bridge D—Looking West 3 079 ufba Ram. At OTO WA AW a __ _ _ate I � t s;! ��✓ �,' - �� [� .fir n' Na MOTOR 's`= VEHI r „ a Bridge E—Looking South Bridge F - Spanning over Demens Creek Channel—Serves vehicular traffic VWW spa— ' - �a1ii ♦ _ Bridge F—Looking North Bridge F— Looking North 5 081 ufba „1 y M � r ••e F—Looking South •ge G - Spanning • only equestrian No MOTOR . VEHICLES Bridge G—Looking South Y 4 NO MOTOR YEHVCLES 7- .. K Bridge G—Looking North Background: Reference is made to Exhibit B for the below discussions. Heritage Community Park is situated at the southeast corner of the intersection of Beryl Street and Hillside Road. The park site is comprised of approximately 41 acres of land, approximately 34 acres of which is owned by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. San Bernardino County Flood Control District and Cox Communications PCS, L.P., doing business as Sprint, own approximately 6.5 acres and 0.5 acres of land within the park site, respectively. Heritage Community Park is physically separated into two portions by Demens Creek Channel-a concrete- lined channel owned and operated by San Bernardino County Flood Control District. Rancho Wash Channel, a concrete-lined channel, also owned and operated by San Bernardino County Flood Control District, is located within the northerly portion of the Park. Rancho Wash Channel receives runoff from natural watercourses to the north. The runoff generated to the north of Hillside Road is first carried through an underground storm drain pipe that crosses under Hillside Road and outlets into the northerly portion of the Park, the runoff then flows overland to the upstream end of said concrete-lined Rancho Wash Channel. The runoff is thereafter conveyed south through Rancho Wash Channel to its point of confluence with Demens Creek Channel. Demens Creek Channel extends to the east and to the west of Heritage Community Park. The runoff within Demens Creek Channel flows to the west, where it drains into Cucamonga Creek Channel. Reference is made to Exhibit A and Exhibit C for the below discussions. 7 083 ,Nv •. 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 8 084 "MM 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: 9 085 'NV •. 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 10 086 "qqN Pertinent information regarding the above-noted bridges are as follows: Bridge Bridge Spans Over Centerline of Channel Approx. Approx. Approx. ID Bridge at Width Bridge Bridge Clear Approximate (ft) Span Deck Width Bridge Channel (ft) (ft) Deck Width Station (ft) C Demens Creek Channel 99+20 18 18 10 8 D Rancho Wash Channel 13+50 10 10 10 8 E Demens Creek Channel 111+45 12 17.5 8.5 8 F Demens Creek Channel 111+80 12 12 27 25 G Demens Creek Channel 112+15 12 17.5 10.5 10 Aufbau has not been able to obtain the construction drawings for the existing five bridges within Heritage Community Park—the information provided in the tabulation above and in Appendix 3 (general drawings depicting the existing bridge construction)are primarily based on field investigations conducted by Aufbau in connection with the preparation of its March 2011 report. It appears that the bridges reflected on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' drawings, prepared for the Cucamonga and Demens Recreation project, were somewhat modified to accommodate the site development and planning of the Heritage Community Park as follows: o Bridge C — Bridge C is constructed in substantial conformance with the bridge drawings for Cucamonga and Demens Recreation project—See Appendix 2, Sheet C-8. Exceptions include the configuration of the reinforced concrete corbels at the sidewalls of the channel which support the glued-laminated stringers of the bridge, and the clear bridge deck width. o Bridge D is constructed in substantial conformance with the bridge drawings for Cucamonga and Demens Recreation project—See Appendix 2,Sheet C-10. Exceptions include the configuration of the reinforced concrete corbels at the sidewalls of the channel which support the glued-laminated stringers of the bridge, and the clear bridge deck width. o Bridge E—the end supports/abutments of Bridge E do not rest on top of the sidewalls of Demens Creek Channel.The construction drawings for the Cucamonga and Demens Recreation project do not provide details for such bridge construction. o Bridge F - Bridge F is constructed somewhat similar to the bridge drawings for Cucamonga and Demens Recreation project—See Appendix 2, Sheet C-9. Exceptions include the bridge span, the bridge deck width, the clear bridge deck width, the number of glued-laminated stringers supporting the bridge deck, and the configuration of the reinforced concrete corbels at the sidewalls of the channel which support the glued-laminated stringers. o Bridge G—the end supports/abutments of Bridge G do not rest on top of the sidewalls of Demens Creek Channel.The construction drawings for the Cucamonga and Demens Recreation project do not provide details for such bridge construction. 11 087 "MM 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. 12 088 "MM Bridge Alternatives: In conjunction with the preparation of this report,Aufbau investigated alternative bridge locations, bridge consolidations, and bridge construction options for the reconstruction of the bridges within Heritage Community Park. Below are a number of considered design alternatives. Alternative 1—Viable Alternative Under this alternative, all five bridges within Heritage Community Park will be removed and will be replaced with five new bridges of similar widths and somewhat similar spans at their present locations. This alternative will preserve the current vehicular, equestrian, and pedestrian circulation pattern of the Heritage Community Park and the Heritage Park Equestrian Center. Under this alternative, the construction cost of modification of the pedestrian, equestrian, and vehicular approach pathways to the new bridge structures will be minimal. Several construction options of the proposed bridges under this alternative are presented within Appendix 4. Reference is made to Appendix 5 for the estimated construction cost of the bridges under Alternative 1. Alternative 2—Viable Alternative Under this alternative, all five bridges within Heritage Community Park will be removed and will be replaced with four new bridges. The equestrian bridges, namely Bridge C, Bridge D, and Bridge G will be replaced with bridges of similar widths and somewhat similar spans at their current locations. Bridge E and Bridge F will however be combined into a single bridge and will serve the pedestrian and vehicular crossing needs across Demens Creek Channel.The new bridge will be approximately 38 feet in width and will be centered near the centerline of the existing Bridge F. Under this alternative, the construction cost of modification of the pedestrian, equestrian, and vehicular approach pathways to the new bridge structures will be higher than Alternative 1. Several construction options of the proposed bridges under this alternative are presented within Appendix 4. Reference is made to Appendix 5 for the estimated construction cost of the bridges under Alternative 2. Alternative 3—Viable Alternative Under this alternative, all five bridges within Heritage Community Park will be removed and will be replaced with three new bridges. Bridge C, and Bridge D will be replaced with bridges of similar widths and somewhat similar spans at their current locations. Bridge E, Bridge F, and Bridge G will however be combined into a single bridge.The new bridge will be approximately 50 feet in width and will be centered near the centerline of the existing Bridge F.The bridge will serve the pedestrian, equestrian,and vehicular crossing needs across Demens Creek Channel. This alternative provides separate pathways within the proposed bridge for the pedestrian and equestrian crossings over Demens Creek Channel. 13 089 'NV •. 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 14 090 ,Nv •. 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. 15 091 ,Nv •. Under this alternative the bridge foundations and the bridge end support of the existing bridges, the glued-laminated stringers supporting the bridge decks, as well as the side fences of the bridges will be protected in place. The wood decking and the asphaltic wearing surfaces supported by the glued- laminated stringers will however be replaced with members generally in kind —the intent being to keep the weights of the existing and the proposed bridge structures relatively the same. This alternative was summarily rejected for the following reasons: o This alternative maintains the existing glued-laminated stringers in place. The exact condition of the glued-laminated stringers which are the primary support system for the bridge decks, at the interface of the glued-laminated stringers and the bridge decks, particularly for the bridges which have received plywood sheeting and asphaltic concrete wearing surfaces,can only be ascertained upon removal of the entire bridge decks. Upon removal of the bridge decks, the bridge stringers may not be found to be in good enough condition to receive new decking. o This alternative may require permit approvals from San Bernardino County Flood Control District. Construction of new bridge superstructures, utilizing the existing bridge foundations and the bridge end supports, to continue resting on sidewalls of San Bernardino County Flood Control District's drainage channels,may require the review and approval of San Bernardino County Flood Control District, as well as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. We are not certain that such approvals from said regulatory agencies can be obtained at this time. o This alternative will not significantly add to the service life of the existing bridges, as the glued- laminated stringers, which are the main vertical load carrying members of the bridges, will not be replaced. Bridge Type Selection: A Bridge Type Selection Meeting was held with staff from the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Engineering Services Department and Public Works Services Department. The meeting provided a forum to discuss various alternatives for bridge types and bridge locations, including discussions on bridge consolidations. Presented at the meeting were six construction options for the bridge superstructure: o Option 1: Cast-in-place reinforced concrete deck with reinforced concrete side barriers o Option 2: Precast prestressed reinforced concrete deck with reinforced concrete side barriers o Option 3: Composite deck,cast-in-place reinforced concrete deck slab supported on wide flange steel girders with reinforced concrete side barriers o Option 4: Orthotropic steel deck with steel side barriers o Option 5: Prefabricated steel truss bridges o Option 6: Wood deck with wood side railings In view of the below considerations, the above-noted Option 1 and Option 2 were selected as the most desirable bridge superstructure types. 16 092 ,Nv •. o Anticipated bridge service life o Initial bridge construction costs o Lifetime bridge maintenance costs o Bridge construction duration o Bridge aesthetics—maximum flexibility for architectural enhancements o Compatibility of the depth of the proposed bridge superstructures with the depth of the existing bridge superstructures — to minimize the cost of modification of the approach pathways leading to the bridges o Bridge types that would most likely be acceptable by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and San Bernardino County Flood Control District At the meeting, it was agreed that the bridge abutments and the foundation system for the bridge abutments should be constructed independent of the sidewalls of the channels which the bridges span. Three design alternatives for the locations of the bridges to be considered were as follows: Alternative 1: Maintain all five bridges within Heritage Community Park at their current locations. Alternative 2: Combine Bridge E,and F into a single multipurpose bridge—maintain the remaining bridges within Heritage Community Park at their current locations. Alternative 3: Combine Bridge E, F, and G into a single multipurpose bridge — maintain the remaining bridges within Heritage Community Park at their current locations. There were discussions during the bridge type selection meeting to possibly increase the width of Bridge C to provide vehicular access from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District's patrol road to the area to the north of Demens Creek Channel and to the west of Rancho Wash Channel.The widened bridge would provide another vehicular access point for the maintenance of Rancho Wash Channel by San Bernardino County Flood Control District. It was also preferred that the equestrian bridges under Alternative 1, Alternative 2, and Alternative 3 considerations — under both Option 1 and Option 2 construction options, receive decomposed granite riding surfaces, an acceptable surface for equestrian trail surfaces, instead of roughened concrete surfaces. Construction Timing: We anticipate a period of approximately three years from the time of initiation of the conceptual design of the project until all five bridges within the Park are removed and are replaced under the below timeline: o Six (6) Months - Preparation of the conceptual plans and architectural renderings for the new bridge structure(s), engagement of the City of Rancho Cucamonga's equestrian community and the Trails Advisory Committee, as well as the members of the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Planning Commission and City Council to achieve consensus on a desirable design concept. o Eight (8) Months - Preparation of the construction drawings and construction specifications, subsequent to the required review and approval of the conceptual drawings of the bridge(s) by City officials. 17 093 ,Nv •. 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 Cast-In-Place Precast Prestressed Bridge ID Bridge Type Concrete Deck Concrete Deck (Option 1) (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 18 094 "NM Alternative 2: Estimated Construction Cost of Bridges Only Cast-In-Place Precast Prestressed Bridge ID Bridge Type Concrete Deck Concrete Deck (Option 1) (Option 2) C Equestrian/ Utility Vehicles $115,000 $125,000 D Equestrian/ Utility Vehicles $95,000 $100,000 E and F Pedestrian and Vehicular $230,000 $245,000 Combined Bridge Width of 38 feet 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 Cast-In-Place Precast Prestressed Bridge ID Bridge Type Concrete Deck Concrete Deck (Option 1) (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 $295,000 $315,000 Combined Bridge Width of 50 feet Falsework $60,000 $0 Totals Alternative 3 $565,000 $540,000 Alternative 4: Estimated Construction Cost of Bridge Only Cast-In-Place Precast Prestressed Bridge ID Bridge Type Concrete Deck Concrete Deck (Option 1) (Option 2) E, F, and G Pedestrian, Vehicular, and Equestrian $240,000 $270,000 Combined Bridge Width of 42.5 feet 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). 19 095 Alternative 1: Estimated Construction Cost Cast-In-Place Precast Item Concrete Deck Prestressed Number Description (Option 1) Concrete Deck (Option 2) 1 Mobilization/ Demobilization $ 15,000 $ 15,000 2 Traffic Control $5,000 $5,000 3 Removals/Demolition $100,000 $100,000 4 Bridge Construction $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 Cast-In-Place Precast Item Concrete Deck Prestressed Number Description (Option 1) Concrete Deck (Option 2) 1 Mobilization/ Demobilization $ 15,000 $ 15,000 2 Traffic Control $5,000 $5,000 3 Removals/Demolition $100,000 $100,000 4 Bridge Construction $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 Cast-In-Place Precast Item Concrete Deck Prestressed Number Description (Option 1) Concrete Deck (Option 2) 1 Mobilization/ Demobilization $ 15,000 $ 15,000 2 Traffic Control $5,000 $5,000 3 Removals/Demolition $100,000 $100,000 4 Bridge Construction $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 20 096 Alternative 4: Estimated Construction Cost Cast-In-Place Precast Item Concrete Deck Prestressed Number Description (Option 1) Concrete Deck (Option 2) 1 Mobilization/ Demobilization $ 15,000 $ 15,000 2 Traffic Control $5,000 $5,000 3 Removals/Demolition $100,000 $100,000 4 Bridge Construction $280,000 $270,000 5 Approach Pathway Modifications $200,000 $200,000 6 Bridge Lighting $20,000 $20,000 Totals Alternative 4: $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 Cast-In-Place Precast Prestressed Description Concrete Deck Concrete Deck (Option 1) (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 Cast-In-Place Precast Prestressed Description Concrete Deck Concrete Deck (Option 1) (Option 2) Year 2019 Construction Cost $980,000 $945,000 Escalation in Construction Costs, YR 2019-YR 2021 $121,000 $117,000 10% Incidentals and Contingencies $110,000 $106,000 Total Alternative 2: $1,211,000 $1,168,000 Use: $1,220,000 $1,170,000 21 097 ,Nv •. Alternative 3: Estimated Construction Cost Cast-In-Place Precast Prestressed Description Concrete Deck Concrete Deck (Option 1) (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 Cast-In-Place Precast Prestressed Description Concrete Deck Concrete Deck (Option 1) (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. 22 098 I Estimated Project Cost of Viable Alternatives — Year 2021 Construction Advertisement Date: Alternative 1: $1,720,000 to$1,840,000 Alternative 2: $1,650,000 to$1,770,000 Alternative 3: $1,610,000 to$1,730,000 Alternative 4: $1,040,000 to$1,120,000 Recommendations: It is our opinion that the five bridges within the Heritage Community Park have neared the end of their service life.As such,their removal and replacement are recommended at this time or at very near future. In absence of project funding constraints,we would recommend replacement of all existing bridges within Heritage Community Park under Alternative 1 consideration - utilizing either cast-in-place concrete deck construction (Option 1) or precast prestressed concrete deck construction (Option 2) for the bridge - utilizing cast in drilled hole (CIDH) reinforced concrete pile foundations for the support of the bridge abutments. However, should project funding becomes a constraint, our recommendation would be implementation of Alternative 4 instead. We recommend construction of the bridges within Heritage Community Park to be awarded under one construction contract. We believe that there would be significant cost savings with the removal and replacement of all five bridges under a single construction contract. We recommend the equestrian and pedestrian bridges be designed to accommodate weights of light utility vehicle. The design of the new bridges should comply with the Bridge Design Practice Manual by the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the appropriate Engineer Manuals by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). We recommend frequent inspection of the bridges, at a minimum of biennial frequency, until the bridges are removed and replaced. Limitations: The findings and recommendations presented in this report are for the exclusive use of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The findings and recommendations are not intended for use by other parties and may not contain sufficient information for the purposes of other parties or other users. Aufbau Corporation's services are performed using the degree of diligence and skill ordinarily exercised for rendering similar services by reputable consultants practicing in the field. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional recommendations presented in this report. 23 099 � t NOT TO SCALE { BRIDGE TYPES BRIDGE C - EQUESTRIAN ' + 1k.•► , BRIDGE D - EQUESTRIAN `Y ' s/ - Q ' w y .•��-° BRIDGE E - PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE F - VEHICULAR W f " BRIDGE G - EQUESTRIAN .a -- - EQUESTRIAN _ ACCESS POINTS TO HERITAGE PARK - - EQUESTRIAN CENTER ill HILLSIDE ROAD BERYL STREET NORTH BERYL STREET SOUTH MUSTANG ROAD '�J~ RANCHO STREET X JlIL�. 1,7 44 LEGEND o COMMUNITY TRAILS - https://www.cityofrc.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=7020 ®SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT PATROL ROAD. ALSO, CLASS I SHARED-USE PATH - PER FIGURE 4-6- RANCHO CUCAMONGA FINAL CIRCULATION MASTER PLAN FOR BICYCLISTS AND PEDESTRIANS oSAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT PATROL ROAD EXHIBIT A 'i i � L T dw f4b&c,dAl 1 . . ' NOT TO SCALE f40 - _ J PROPERTY OWNERSHIP +f * f APN: 1061-631-01-0000: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - aw APN: 1061-641-07-0000: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA APN: 1061-641-06-0000: SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD M . L ILF CONTROL DISTRICT _ •ti fV - APN: 1061-641-0�0000: COX COMMUNICATIONSrlp i >~ f r -Mir I op 111 ' 111�111iOG '- LEGEND J PROPERTY LINE DRAINAGE CHANNEL a' EL BRIDGE CROSSING m r EXHIBIT B LUNGING ARENA jw HILLSIDE ROAD - - N owe ■ �' f PARKING gP OW OFFICE -r 4"` �" BRIDGE G '' W CONCESSION STANDS 19 - RESTROOMS - „ - -- P BRIDGE R BIDG F _ _ _ wv W G _A BRIDGE E A oe iw a x r - �_� - HERITAGE COMMUNIT PAR - APPENDIX 1 VALUE ENGINEERING PAY a SANTA ANA RIVER BIASIN , : CALIFORNIA CUCAMONGA CREEK , SAN BERNARDINO & RIVERSIDE COUNTIES I � . - FOOTHILL BLVD, , NORTH HALF AIRPORT CONDUI { DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL AND DEBRIS BASIN INDEX TO CONTRACT DRAWINGS FILE NO. 251 / 1 THROUGH 251 /110 TITLE SHEET TITLE SHEET TITLE SHEETM R� �E I INDEX TO CONTRACT DRAWINGS 1 A CARNELIAN STREET DRAIN-ENTRANCE STRUCTURE AND UTILITY RELOCATION DETAILS A OUTLET WORKS-JUNCTION STRUCTURE-STRUCTURAL DETAILS 87 ; . PROJECT LOCATION MAP, GENERAL NOTES AND ABBREVIATIONS 2 A RED HILL BASIN DRAIN-GENERAL LAYOUT 51 OUTLET WORKS-JUNCTION STRUCTURE-MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS 88 FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION-LOCATION OF EXPLORATIONS 3 RED HILL BASIN DRAIN-JUNCTION STRUCTURE 52 OUTLET WORKS-JUNCTION STRUCTURE-MISCELLANEOUS METALS 89 i FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION-CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL 4 RED HILL BASIN DRAIN-CHANNEL SECTION AND BOX CONDUIT 53 OUTLET TO SPREADING GROUND 90 A FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION-CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL 5 CUCAMON43A CREEK AND DEMENS CREEK DIVIDER WALL-STRUCTURAL DETAILS STAFF GAGES, SURVEY MONUMENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS 91 i > FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION-DEMENS CREEK DEBRIS BASIN 6 DEMENS CREEK AND RANCHO WASH DIVIDER WALL-STRUCTURAL DETAILS S WATER RETENTION TANK(GUZZLER)-PLAN, SECTIONS AND DETAILS 92 FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION-DEMENS CREEK DEBRIS BASIN 7 AIRPORT BOX CONDUIT-APPROACH DIVIDER WALL 5 IRRIGATION PLAN _ 93 Ar FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION-DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL AND DEBRIS BASIN 8 AIRPORT SOX CONDUIT-STRUCTURAL DETAILS S PLANTING PLAN AND DETAILS 94 A CUCAMONGA SPILLWAY DIVERSION CHANNEL REMOVAL PLAN 9 A AIRPORT BOX CONDUIT-SAFETY FENCE AND SIDE DRAIN DETAILS 5 A DEMENS BASIN NO, 2-INLET SPILLWAY 95 --BASIN N . - s s PLAN AND PROFILE(CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL}-STA.IOOIt20.47 TO STA.992+50.00 -1 A AIRPORT PAVING AND MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS $ DEMENS'SASIN ND.'2�OUTLET BASIN DRAIN W W PLAN AND PROFILE (CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL)-STA.992+5aOO TO STA.980+'50.00 11 PLAN AND PROFILE (CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL CONTINGENCY EXCAVATION PLAN, g N A TA-M4 Y t M-R(OH ASIN SBCFCD FILE NO.1-404-4A-1. x DEMENS CREEK, PORTION OF CUCAMONGA RANCHO AND SECTIONS 15 a22 TIN,R7W. SBCFCD x"� PLAN AND PROFILE(CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL)•-31A.S80+50.00 TO STA.971+00.00 12 - AIRPORT CONDUIT) STA.660+00.00 TO STA.$50+25.00 0 1 p t - Ll DEMENS BASIN NO,2, WATER CONSERVATION BASIN DEVELOPMENT f' }xa PLAN AND PROFILE CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL}-STA +00.00 TO STA.959+DO.OD 13 - PLAN AND PROFILE (CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL CONTINGENCY EXCAVATION PLAN it 9 a SBCFCD, FILE NO. 1-401-4A-3 s s s ( __ f•Y.A_a mmr PLAN AND PROFILE(CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL}-STA.09+00.00 TO STA.945t00.00 14 A AIRPORT CONDUIT) 3TA.650+25.00 TO STA.638+94.T1 _ PLAN AND PROFILE(CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL}-STA.945+00.00 TO SYA.933+00.00 15 A SECTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS-(CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL CONTINGE116Y $2 A BRIDGES PLAN AND PROFILE(CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL}-STA.933+00.00 TO STA.920+00.00 18 EXCAVATION PLAN,AIRPORT CONDUIT) BANYAN STREET-EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY, PLAN AND PROFILE 96 PLAN AND PROFILE (CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL)-STA.920+00.00 TO STA.907+00.00 17 A TAXIWAY 'S' DETOUR-PLAN AND DETAILS 43 A BANYAN STREET CROSSING -STRUCTURAL DETAILS 97 L. PLAN AND PROFILE (CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL}-STA.907+00.00 TO STA.896+00.00 IS RANCHO WASH ENTRANCE STRUCTURE-GENERAL PLAN 64 19th. STREET-EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY,UTILITIES. REMOVALS AND ROAD DETOUR 98 PLAN AND PROFILE (CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEl�-STA.898+00.00 t0 STA.88 +00.00 19 RANCHO WASH ENTRANCE STRUCTURE-STRUCTURAL DETAILS 65 A K -PLAN AND PROFILE 99 ---- ----- _ ___W�_ _ -._ _._ PLAN AND PROFILE(CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL)-STA.883+00.00 TO STA.871+00.00 2 CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL THROUGH S.RR.R. BRIDGE 66 19th_ STREET CROSSING -STRUCTURAL DETAILS 100 A ----- _ - -_ _--- - - - --------. ... _ -_......__ PLAN AND PROFILE(CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL}-STA.871 +00.00 TO STA.051+79.70 21 A INVERT ACCESS RAMP STA.97B+ZOM-PLAN.PROFILE AND TYPICAL SECTION 6T RED HILL COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE ' PLAN AND PROFILE (CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL}-STA.857+79.78 TO STA.646+40.69 22 13 INVERT ACCESS RAMP STA.889+20(R)-PLAN,PROFILE AND TYPICAL SECTION 68 -EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY, UTILITIES, REMOVALS, PLAN AND PROFILE 101 A 1 PLAN AND PROFILE(CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL}-STA.646+40.69 TO STA.$36+70.43 2 INVERT ACCESS RAMP DETAILS AND SCHEDULES �- 69 RED HILL COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE CROSSING -STRUCTURAL DETAILS 1021 A PLAN AND PROFILE(CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL)-STA.660+00.00 TO STA $50+25.00 2 3 WEST CUCAMONGA BYPASS CHANNEL-INLET CONTROL GATES 7 A WILSON AVENUE AND CARNELIAN STREET -� PLAN AND PROFILE(NORTH HALF AIRPORT CONDUIT)-STA, 650+25.00 TO 25 A CUCAMONGA CREEK DIVERSION STRUCTURE AND TURNOUT DETAILS 7 II -EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY,UTILITIES. REMOVALS AND ROAD DETOUR 103 A STA. 638+94.11 GAGING STATION DETAILS T A u -PLAN AND PROFILE 104 A t ! 1 PLAN AND PROFILE(DEMENS CREEK CHANNE!}-STA.125+50.64 TO STA.120+00.DO 2 LOG OF TEST BORINGS(CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL)-STA.987+00 n -TYPICAL SECTIONS --- T - •1051 A -- -- - --- -- - -- - --------- PLAN - - - - -- - - - - _ _ ----r - AND PROFILE(DEMENS CREEK CHANNELS-STA.120+00.00 TO STA.108+00.00 27 G -� _ _ II -CATCH BASINS AND MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS 106.1 A + PLAN AND PROFILE(DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL)-STA.148+00.00 TO STA. 97+00.00 28 A MISCELLANEOUS ROADWAY DETAILS ' - -'107j A PLAN AND PROFILE(DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL)-STA. 97+00.00 TO STA, SS+OO.DD 2 3 DEMENS DEBRIS BASIN BRIDGE APPROACH GUARD RAIL 108: PLAN AND PROFILE(OEMENS CREEK CHANNEL}-STA. 86+00.00 TO 3TA. 76+00.00 3 3 GENERAL PLAN 71 A TYPICAL BRIDGE DETAILS-CONCRETE BARRIER 109 PLAN AND PROFILE MBANKMENT AND BASIN PLAN 72 PLAN AND PROFILE DMENS CREEK CHANNE STA. 65+00.00 TO STA. 5533+00.00 32 c EMBANKMENT AND PILOT CHANNEL-PLAN,PROFILE AND DETAILS - 73 A if -TUBULAR F- W_ _-.3 _- it a -- - ------- -- - --- - --- -' - - - ---- GENERAL PLAN a DETAILS DEMENS CHANNEL HANDRAIL _ 110 ( � - EL CROSSING VICINITY - JASPER AVE, -1: PLAN AND PROFILE (DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL}-STA- 53+OOLO0 TO STA. 41 450,00 - 33 H EMBANKMENT PROFILE _ --- --� - 74 BRIDGE DETAILS, DEMENS CHANNEL CROSSING,VICINITY JASPER AVE. 732-z PLAN AND PROFILE(DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL)-STA. 41+50.00 TO STA. 29+00.00 34 A EMBANKMENT CROSS SECTIONS 75 PLAN AND PROFILE(DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL.)-STA. 29+0%00 TO STA. 16448.87 35 A EMBANKMENT ACCESS RAMPS.A AND 5 76 PLAN, PROFILE, AND GRADING PLAN-RANCHO WASH CHANNEL 36 EMBANKMENT ACCESS RAMP C-AMETHYST AVE. RELOCATION 77 A As-�urif Cnan a5 1 z TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS-{CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL) 37 SPILLWAY AND OUTLET WORKS-PLAN. AND PROFILE to sr.uat cesnrnors o+n wrrorw TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS-(CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL) 38 A SPILLWAY AND OUTLET WORKS-CROSS SECTIONS 79 REVISIONS TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS-(DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL) 39 SPILLWAY-STRUCTURAL DETAILS 84 DEIARTMENT OF THE ARMY It S.ARMY ENGNEER DISTRIC T_�� �---•---_-____ aro wsrRln,cars of ENGINEERS LOS ANGELES sAu,AAIc TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS-(DEMENS CREEK AND RANCHO WASH CHANNELS) 4 SPILLWAY-MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS _ el 3AC4M�ENtD,"IFORHIA CORP$OF E+4GNEIMS ( } GENERAL NOTES AND MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS 41 SPILLWAY AND OUTLEY WORK.- QNFl,UEN;E STRUCTURE 4x M ?s:f IxslcreDsn SANTA ANA RIVER RAIN CALIFORNIA CIICAVONGA CREEK, SAN /ERNARDIND� • RIVERSIDE COUNT:ES CHANNEL SECTION-STRUCTURAL DETAILS 42 A SPILLWAY-SUBORAINAGE SYSTEM 03 AJ J.MOORE CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL - -- FOOTHILL BLVD. TO CUCAMONGA DEBRIS BASIN. - TRANSITION WALLS-SCHEDULES AND DETAILS 43 OUTLET WORKS-PROFI.I g ANI? SEGT�ON 84 99AWN IT. NORTH HALF AIRPORT CONDUIT I ----T" DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL AND DEBRIS GASIN A CHANNEL SUBDRAINAGE SYSTEM 44 A) OUTLET WORKS-INTAKE f6 W�f�-$fR4I TUA: DETAILS 0'S J. MOORE I 4 51D£ DRAIN DETAILS AND TABULATION T_45 C OUTLET WORKS-- INTAKE' TQWER MI3CELLAN900 DETAILS --yam 8B INLET STRUCTURE DETAILS 46 INDEX TO CONTRACT DRAWINGS PIPE INLET AND MANHOLE DETAILS 47 - .. - LYE vto: �� 1 AT E: SH�t CARNELIAN STREET DRAIN-GENERAL LAYOUT 44 -:z .. .• /<¢-- �r IF is . d XAIAR"fU CARNELIAN STREET DRAIN-JUNCTION STRUGTURIR, „ ;`i 49 _ 51(rN AE4}FF:7l(Q IDICATE UiilClA R GMMEMD 1 V' AP RQV (Cfi�CphIMENDEO. PREPARED i�DER THE DIRECTION OF; SFEG N0. DAC11D�--QQ F4448 4 h PRVY 0 AL RF�N`}�N THt'� SfT A INDExE Air. A TEAGUE D NQ 2`�V I�� ILO r DFFIC� h wft��NN Of Exp�MEFRd,r u r ti pi iTrlCY EMfpMC[� R41�. . LTA Y 1 / -� �h CntA A a , r r .v 0 Goo- of TLIa ,.. If 4 104 VALUE ENGINEERING PAYS - 5ECT/pN P-P SECTION P-P Oq 1 � n hp STA. //3#/4.54- INTERSECTION OF BERYL STREET O AND HILLSIDE ROAOIPROTECT BRIDGE IN PLACE) r r r q LIMITS OF EX/SUNCJ CONCRETE (ai Z (L o LINED CHANNEL AND BRIDGE n q y STRUCTURE � a O y q a = y CONT. 6'CHAIN L INK FENCE f + y Z Q �--- I t ERS fTCLL3a0H ACCESS LE�T4!AtOR DETAILS) • - 1900 EL./894.62 _ - TOP OF BOTH WALLS- 0 f 1890logo _ EL./B81.16 APPROA EXIST. ROUND LINE EL 1886.50 EL. / 7 .l1 ALONG CHAN EL E 1880 1880 CHANNEL INVERT I -- 1e7o S0000 033 1860 -- � � 1860 0 0 q R o 1850 >z EL./B3P.dI sPo ' 120400 118+00 116+00 114+00 112400 110+60 106+00 PROFILE e ar.e se:;' .�� �.,_.�.. -w-M r•-� SCALE: 1•• 40' HORIZONTAL B 1°• 10' VERTICAL t. WALL NEIill DINENSION IS NEASYIEO FROM'• INFEST AT SASE Of WALL TO TOP OF WALL. LIMITS OF EXISTING CONCRETE LINED CHAAWEL 3 AND 8RIDGE STRUCTURE _. %AEEE PROFILE II1I6ATES XSRUPT OFAISE IN s - BENCH MARK WALL NEIGAT, COISTIYCT A STRAIiNT LINE TRANSIT/pN WALL 1E1ALL RE164T T IEIIIAIN&TATI WI TN THE l/SCE'I973-DC-9 NIiNEN WALL IE161i AT TIAT 3TAT101 AND M� E111111 WITHIN ONE WALL FOEN LEI/TM ($0 TD II/2• I.P. W/BRASS CAP 60 FE911. = rh D O r M 723,8d2.03 .:. . Y W LU \ N r2d,/0!.2/ +S ELEY./8T4.9S,! `C s,3ur , y E/,389,3d2.p$ 01011�1� \aR� 60 W W T= 2.0..31, \ t �*f pF Qi�d•37°�I131' $ q N L 5f.54' mar �� 1 v� T=20/9�� N CONSMIiAs CrIO O t 9� L�38.93 — q 140 CONST.4ucr 44 ACCESSRAMA y p L 1OCAT/GW3 AS SHCWN- P4rq ~� . moo rcT` �, Q J/ G�p T R/W A.C.PAVED PATROL ROAD Oy wr 1. DETAILS ON SNEET 21 ) / .p TOE OF COMA FILL 1' TOP CF CrJ7 ✓Cy'y ? a, OEIIENS CREEK TOP OF CUTall Z it N,42'29'40'E ------ ` to N?3.46'33'E ►� t fLOW,, - - _ _ It 11160ZI JOIN n a /(r''` �P� �� \ � RY °04'04ti' TOP OF CUT — h qp TY1P Ce CUT ��SA'20'!7• ` 1� C�S+�i \ �=m a& � RAW p 7= 2.7-1 . . Q C Q�{ M9 d=06°4/'SO' i ®EXUT. I-ENct(iCE wye d 4.. 3•S4' /I /! 4y�f` ,B ' c` \ Rr 601 W IVEA Fi17Rt�t IpQ+W LlM1T MISC F/L a, w c)' ° a T O ,f r�rlu�S/Ti- a 31•Le��a" �/ 4' ' TH 70-2$ `{7 tom' L=7.0►' 0. TC CJAL AID/COTS R= 40 y yy/iEXG�Y1SlCdE) T l/.$71 ��q men VF RECORD DRAINING AS CONSTRUCTED L y E/A97' b STA. �s N TP3 98/.42 CUNT.NO. REV.I DATE POSTED CHECKE REVIEW`EC .+ n �11+1.,STA,III>r 18.. ANGLE POINT [Eanrsr.A.aAc[ets �Q E/,389,39.T.f0 ��') b �; �� 9AA7P WIA,C. D/IN + CONC.Luna GUfTE9-FJR0TECr/NPLAC * (TYR L LOCAnaNS Q AS pioWli OP PER s OETA7LS ON S.QiFT 107) T !rn!i4 4 aifefti ex,s .fence fo be rnLwed.14AV- +�r REFERENCE DRAWINQS AddedGs n Sa. tares n noes. 27Ae & R-RA. s°o EX/STING BR106E - ,R fivninq.We LoFhfsr.' SMsr.' RX.K. 1PR0TECT IN PLACE'/ GENERAL NOTES AND ABBREVIATIONS.........SHEET ? sY.lat makw l CW5TXacr DAIS I A"OvK PLAN CHANNEL SECTION-STRUCTURAL DETAIL 5...SHEET 4P REVISIONS X ACCESS 1G�l41°,CUlta 4 DRIVEWAY DEMLS.•..... 3NL`ET w DEPARTMENT OF THE ARRAY U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT SCALE 11°• 40' SA61M3 STATAW &-TAILS............ ...SHEET Ina SACAAMENTO DISTRICT,COMPS OF LNGINEERS LOS ANGELES SACRAMENTO,CALIFONNUI CORPS OF ENGINEERS msr_l'D IT, SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CALIFORNIA NOTES CUCAYONGA CREEK, SAN SERNARDINO 0 RIvERSIDE COUNTIES THE TOPOGRAPHY OF DEMENS CHANNEL BETWEEN STAS. /23t00 AND E. GARCIA FOOTHILL BCLVD.TOACUCAMONGA DEBRIS BASIN, 0 98000 IS GENTLY SLOPING AND CULTIVATED /N VINEYARD. THE LIMITS ouwNlT, NORTH HALF AIRPORT CONDUIT, �0 OF'CLEAR/NG SHALL EXTEND THE FULL LIMITS OF THE CHANNEL R/W. GRAPHIC SCALE H-G, DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL AND DEBRIS BASIN fa 2�*WiIOTE3 EY45T.MAWfD G97G4 495NS- Pt445 Age 2MAI!'I'VWX5 OV49 cY4vN&s o M. '00• e7 IPD' Isd -__e07 J.MOORE ti f!£LD PI fG4CE 5Y 13'1 cF aKT WIA.C.EKE QYEX. )WVI(C fLu63 WA44 c7tNW'a 02M, 1'-40'-0* �m In PLAN AND PROFILE sxucTicrl Ccr•wEETEv. �/ (QEMENS CREEK CHANNEL) I D.WOEHL STA.120+00.00 TO STA.108+00.00 SU&MTED IY, DATE SPEC.NO. DACW 09•BQ LQQV9 S T tiOr -2/6IS DLSTwcT FEE Na 251/27 REY.'C" t() SHEETS O Tir SAFETY PAYS ,aAq-6 105 YALVE EIVGINEEKINO PAY5 sEcrION P-P SPECIAL SECT/ON sscrroN E—E b � o o ►� c� �O J 6 00 Z p Oy O �1q Nh py to I570 ___ w_. ___.. _ _ �T' 18T0 al APPfTOX. EXIST, GROUND � LlN ALONG CHANNEL IB80 �~ __ v 1860 ""• x ,_ TOP Ora TH !PALLS CONT. 6'CHAIN INK FENC 1850 �~r Sa0p31d 19so EL. 143P.so CHANNEL /NtVERr f `Y IBao 11a40•D.0?Old9 EL./9dt..�J Et.IB42.00 lmviA T AT WALLS Q / Et.lees.68 1830 t EL./S34,I! 1830 tT, EL./9 s DT,832-0�5 F INVERT _ ,fit: EL.1023:98 11 107+00 105+00 \ / 103+00 101400 T 99+00 97+00 \v/ PROFILE r9TE! SCALES IN 40' HORIZONTAL 9 1'ally YEATICAL WALL AU"I IIIIE111I1 13 REA1110FRIM 11SElr 1T I11E IF_WALIR Jl TIF O ti r" ,• Q jr CpNFLUENC- iff :'1 7 Qlad/T R/W t.x W i 4C.PAVED PATROL ROAp J' rtYt Y DEMENS CREEK .`"•""` "`.` � A s f_L011'` O/Y/DER.IV4LL . roP OF cur r �- i ,la w s N3?•46�3 ' ' Wh _ h O uNPAVEp PATROL R oAD T()P OF Cur . , ... .. .. TOP OF Cur 3' i $EE DETAIL 'A' U iNVED AAr,�rx ROAD 1~ � w h ANC�H�WA�y-FOR PLAN, J.Pp \ / ANY? PLAN PLAN SEE SHEET 36. 41 } E/,396,429•/1 O GOAIfLuENCE - � GRAPHIC SCALE ,• O } } I"=4o'-0" o zo' ao' Bo' 120' led eoa' NOTE. A► /?1 0/1_0d 9 0 /. THE TOPOGRAPHY OF DEA/ENS CHANNEL BETWEEN SrAS. 12.1 t 00 AND 98tOO IS GENTLY SLOPING AND CULTIVATED /N YINEYARD. THE LIMITS y OF CLEARING SHALL EXTENO THE fOU WIOTN OF rHE CHANNEL R/W, /e Z. FOR LIMITS OF CLEARING OFRANCHO WASH, SEE SHEEr 36. f AII&I CRAr I� N.13.46'55'E /2' r°0 �• ' PLAN M 3 ,_ ® AS 8WILT CHatir615 �e.FTID JTA.$7o?C) i4.�7) x'tq ,• q, , ! SYM10l • )r I $CALF.: 1'• 40' I �S REVISIONS tAn A/rSt��K i1 * C r r Q�4 DEFARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S.ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT ° REFERENCE DRAWINGS (RANCHO WASH ti O O SACw+ENr°DlstutT,togs of,1NwuD:es LOS ANGRLES GENERAL .NOTES AND ABBREV/ATIONS,..........SHEET 2 ty N ld«i,,Ld3.1/ sAc1AMENrp CALIF0INIA CORPS OF ENGINEERS , } + EI,1d6,42E,66 oE51GrA01Y SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN CALIFORNIA c.HANNEL-sEcr1oN-srRuoruRAL DETAILS,......SHEET 4P _ _ h CUCAMONGA CREEK, SAN BERNARDINd a RIVERSIDE COUNTIES SIDE ORA/N D4mis...............................SHEEr 45 �• E. GARCIA CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL vy prt�lt FOOTHILL BLVD. TO CUCAMONGA DEBRIS BASIN, RANCNt�WASH QETA/LS..................._._-_..._SHEET 36 k Yliy aeAun+rn NORTH HALF AIRPORT CONDUIT. SPEC/AL SECT/ON.... ......5HEEr 35 d MOORE DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL AND DEBRIS BASIN RANc0 WASP EHTMI S IREAC.Mf...... .....SVEETS 64 65 Pm1n PLAN AND PROFILE at DETAIL 'Am (DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL) � - . • - $cAL�r• - M WOEHL STA.108+00.00 TO STA.97+00.00 _ I i u lmn-no by, 5mm •` * o° °AVPRovw, SFEC.Na DAcwos• IS, 44M 28 p I ti . � ` •__.. w ' _.. �� iCdlFii2-celCJ '//4 o pSrRKT FR!Na 251128 MY.'A" 110 • e 4: - _ DESIGN .Sft£Era "' 1w 1 �+ SAFETY PAYS a. '. .: LiG'.W 6 .+,. i<. .r •, _ .n V°,� �. T r d•.. '. � 'R - A F -� Ne ✓'.;' � ' _.f'�a,1I•i.ar_. .a :':�:.�.Z._.s � �'Ytt'�r1�r..�i.ss� ..__ _�r>lJ-�� '�"T_•a':�.5/rd'� _ ..Y '. � r�k�Y"..�'�'iBF° .,.� .. an- fIt'_'.'.ri �MC! !� .� ,uw� a• 106 VALUE ENGINEERING PAYS SECrON SECTION N-N SECTION 0-0 SPECIAL ECT D-D SECrION 0-0 �, 5£E.SHEEr55 h tr N n At O � 4kR y hO x h H h 4i V ti� tiW� ci y ti��► 1aT0 �__ y h.�� K y ax 11860 I i EL.1847,010 rOP OF LEFr WgLL TOP OF RIGHT WALL Ia50 - -- -- - -- - -+ --- ----.. --71850 REFERENCE DRAWINGS r —- + °BP�O /B3B.3/ INVERT Ar LEfT WAL�C !�INVERT ! GENERAL NOTES AND ABBREVIATIONS....................SHEET 2 /L EL. S.P __w _._._ _ W CHANNEL SUBDRAINAGE Sl'SrEm..........................sHEEr 44 1940 CHANNEL SECTION-51RUCTURAL DETAILS.............SHEET 42 GRpUTED STONE _ S=0.O109632��1 EL.9-3- 7 EL./B3�R/5 1e� RANCHO WASH DIVIDER WALL-STRUCTURAL DETAILS ,..SHEET 33 j I EL. 6. 74 � i �J EL./837.7/ - RANCHO WASH ENTRANCE STRUCTURE.....................SHEETS 64 9 6.5 1830 EL./839.00 I /NVERr AT R/GHr WAKL £L./B34.S7 { - t----- -- - 1930 I I/ --i-D.6D' I EL./834-// W1820 � _ APPROX.EXIST,GRoam PROFILE b LINE ALAYGCHANNEL (SCALE- 1'• 40' HORIZONTAL 9 1"" 10' PERT CAL i i 16#p0 14i00 12+00 10#00 Iy 164 O h g v r0E OF CO,MPACM f(LL Q 1 ►. h w R/11r � � g ,1 � ( h z W z DEAIENS CREEX — O I O u W I ! aR WALL — TOP OF cur k a �` r0P OF cur I �s� x ~ n I y x y N 33.46 33"E _ � \ i ` -- \ 6rA,/05 toc r TOP OF cur SEE DETA/L :1"GM SHEET 28 1 / TOP OF CUT N 723,430,29 5PECIAL SECT/pN-Gvi�/GEi7 00 SLOP£TO DRAIN /r aA III(Trp) E1,588,648.05 i= NALL GEM/-Ss SHr. 55. Ob Vy 4 4; /l I NOTE: N 22.39'38 ,W + p 1 / THE TOPOGRAPHY OF RANCHO WASH /S STEEP, / f RANCHO RASH p $ O / RUGGED, AND COVERED W/TH rHICK STANDS OF OF BRUSH AND ESHALL EXTEND TO THE BOUNDARIES FORMED CLEARING FORMED 7.4 RIM, UNPAVED PATRpL R i r ! j Br THE UPPER L/M/rS OF MISCELLANEOUS /� �►m, i y y \ 1 1 I �� FILL ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDES AND 5 fE£r BEYOND THE BOUNDARY FORMED BY ti I TOE Of COMPACrEO F!L L ON THE SOUTH SIVE, AT + a ►; h y 1 oxo _ / [a CURVE DATA ( CHAN EL SUBDRA/NAC,E $ ! • T6'46 30" 1/MIT J r7i J 5� TEM(S£E SHr 44) CIRCULAR CURVE SPIRAL N0.720 or M/SC. f/LLB _ r / %' L/INr Ll �. / 46.62.22'3D As.07.12 00' I j, OF MISC. fill G R A D I N G P L A N dp• C R• 300.001 Ts- ?75.so' 1 l s Sr T: 18460' Ls+7500' �FS� RCCOR nSTRUCTED /rr1P$ L = 326.60' / �/ COMT.h.J,i__--RE----V j DAT'c POSTED CHECKS REV;EY<<EP - IF . s r P L A N 45 6 5Ed / r+=� STA/* gP 34 SCALE: 1"+10' - I • sr way DEsa rnQN$ wn nnsor u Q' rf .Sr4 REVISIONS /J�Ordd I ! j DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT I SACRAMENTO DISTRICT.CORK Of TaIGIN[ERS LOS ANGELES 1 (80m S awwNAROUND g STEEPEN FILL I SACUMWO,CALIFORNIA "{)/ i�� / CARPS OF ENGINEERS l N T2S,B2/./9 SLOPES Wj/IN.THESE / DESK440BY. SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CALIFORNIA I E/,4588,490.60 L/MITS(Z ..YlAX.)� �' / CUCAMONGA CREEK, SAN BERNARDINO 111 RIVERSIDE COUNTIES TOACE&OOArE L0 K f J. MOORE CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL y `F01 TURmleo(VDS, 1 % I FOOTHILL BLVD. TO CUCAMONGA DEBRIS BASIN" pt r BOTH SIDES cvrc;wk 16 °RA"N SY. NORTH HALF AIRPORT CONDUIT /rrsS j* fO"t+ePt Sr T A��gNHO r o d MOORS DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL AND DEBRIS BASIN o RaNcyo�'Pr 66- q /dtP0. �� sQ „„ PLAN,PROFILE AND GRADING PLAN ►° RANCHO WASH wASy CyCi S. ENQ I (RANCHO WASH CHANNEL) ENTRANCE STRUCTURE AN�yEt p,� I D. WOEHL 5ULYJnT;D SY. DATE 511EET M1� APPROVER SPEC.NO. DAC W 09•-QQ-,h 990 OF D4TRK7 F4!N0. 251I S6 I p SHEETS SAFETY PAYS 02 107 U.S. ARMY ENGll EJ R DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS i00 SO O 50 50 0 50 la3o 'mow /iso- /goo soo EL! ass [ larrs.6s — — J R'w [ /rTasP — [L /rT /! Riw — EL ►r/s. !/r0 Inv lrl0 i lino T TA +00.0 A 97 00.0 lito ___ !1l1P EE R —A //r! J [c /rs d1�1—Irt—lo — Ll . RYiw-L -FZ - --- �� /INID /INAP /!OP im //rD - COA0 4CrED X&L, - 10 I-rroe <• TA 6 +00.0 /ozotiro ,vr AMD /f pt.ss 1 I It! W.u -- — HIO - -_._ -. - ... ._.__ _ - - to" TA 10 +00. R/ AIJO— f E //A7..St7 R/M CL loon I f� tpoo !rro s s _. - !i/o --- FF /►to - lira /Too 1 TA.-9- +�a /000 o w 7A I I 00.0 so , 1 NOTES RECORD DRAWING AS CONSTRUCTED - /lrt7 /!3o J. GVA0CM$JONs AMD CALLOUrs SjWWM AT sm!lr f DA.PP Am rmcAL ra# COMT.� REV t CATE I POSTED 1C.LCCKEN REWEv, TiGt PAT 1 — IorM SIDE•! OF CNANA'EL,AM ARE AA% A"f9 ALL S£ A;WS SOGWJV, _ p CNAN&CL £D,£.KEPT mmroi Anr !F`v d. sicrwAvs rArEv LGt'w~ vwmsrRtAM. 11WCif / J. ~r-CW-wM'LOCATIONS ARE APPAVANAAr[. yr TL tCAVAT I If. CHANNEL F£MC/" Nor S"00111. NANNEL REVISIONS /Gyy Q.r s' / C'pMF+ rfD FILL G�IfJl�EZ ?. APPROX. [A"ISr/N6 ?R[714A0 LANE S,IsfA ON/!rS A[RfAL .4t/RVEI'. /1/O 1 r9 sJP a A.C.Pmeas mor R1fwarp oN RY6lfr SIDE oIF DtA#E&s CAYER CA"MMEL DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT COMPA TEp FK ArMP ON IOTA! S/GIES OF /GIAK'M7 IKASII CHANNEL. SACRAMENTO MSTRN:T,[DIIrf of ENW+K4Ks EOS ANGEEES GNA APPR X. fXfSr f LINE SACIIAMENTu uElt<aM1A CORPS OF ENGINEERS �- c[RG�Fr, SANTA ANA Rtl' R SASIN, CALIFDRNIA ! t'A G VNI OVER �S RA E CLWP rW /910D CVCAMONCA CREEK, SAN BERNARDINO III RIVERSIDE COVRTItt two ?; xiAfw Di istry E. GARCIA CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL SELECT L WA FOOTHILL BLVD. TO CUCAMONGA DEBRIS BASIN. MAWN K. MONTH HALF AIRPORT CONDUIT, A 12 +00.0 DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL AND DEBRIS BASIN T. BAAMES K. TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS Q. WOEHL (DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL) R70 SUBMITTED sY. °ARIIE s0 0 Spvrea sr+!c�q °wcw w-_�a 9996 $CAL E, 1 •b' HORU'VI UL A W MERrlCAl D*TWT RR NO.25v3f y, py_,,, I l o IZ.. -......w.s:..w.•• �--.�-.-...•x.�...,......r. r.,.,._....,. ..:_.,,:,:.. ...w.a. :...r.:...,.„.,._ .,.- ,.....r..,.,.-w;..:..,-__�....�:.� ...:,.,,:. . .vr. .-:.�`i°.wig_.:�...wrl'-,:..�:�.r.r.iWirrP- ...is.:uy. ..i;ti+µ�' :�......A._} �.., __. � _ .....+�.. ._._•: _. .�►.:....,....wr:--- �.a-...._,..r` -- ;_«i».�.:..�..s�::,.... ....._... - .- -_�,. ....... .... :.�- 108 VALUE ENGINEERING PAYS a ect - rran5. "rw"frcrn one 5eetian fence Poat(7yp.) to the other within b'�" or cha e abruptly with a t'A.C. ove4r,.4" /�y� e .. 14�0"Ritro/ Road 6=0%120'0 /ink fend g rw Tw type "B"wall conitr,j4 C IGU to 7.7/O Of /��C" (Per Secho7 69 o;SPECx, 71 V POsf � Channel flee 4 Triirn�r r>7 dero/fir, eA.C.o�a!/1 r of wd/l r: �— ) �rt rrred fence Root \ILA. 3%_ I &1e(grtwt 01/led),See epme #4®l'�� �4�/2" Note: Reinforcing 5pdeing � " to be le,CtC.,un/e55 I r IF C bar a/z Cut /-D Un/ec5 Otherwise ?town zD,-OM a/terr to 'F'Bar a,2'-0' v?own otherwee M%sC. Fi// � ExiStirq�ra7 xrfdce Note: �eetian ,vitas no trar,5it+on "fnam bard 2'-0" A: auddrain &-own;me one 5eet/on to the frovn top C/xSrvlel�'�mk Ot/�r withr'n 20'-O Of wd// l 3 5y5ter►7 'ant 4�4 fo PLAN P'c/r 0.75 on De GA. c�,C 1 Section w+r`h odrain d tom, _ bec hi;n C-C_ 156v h6n a-B, S r ofnei// rrdnaitian w1l hoot from A /e varied de + °p pass Section to #*other within � pad� ,C imi t of Ct�rine/ Z "B"Berm/2" on trcncver5e invert 5bpe, Exear�t r�Bar ------- _pm wall offset and aupereJevatian. 30-(a0 ft., un/esg otherwise 5/I�wn. / ce/ect Cha / Cad tr 5kpe IID"��r•im �'-V` 6yn•1.c�Vf � .�.4`•': ,:.f.A�j.•�•�.A":.i..:. e Limit ofChav�/"�"Bares/2- 441211 exeavatian DET.©��- C/•oS?-5/D �' rran,SitiCv7 7s•f/Ta�»case,sect>an q un/ecd O�rrviSe PROFILE�b the other within ,b'-D". C.r t � mown l= M TYPICAL EARTHWORK AT RECTANGULAR SECTION SECTION AT TRANSITION C-IDo eve ht F rW b �- a`jpBD��\' 51®/2Nf h/ • NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE " r �r Bar in was/I a2 Q /=3` z4, -Owl ce/�teren' rYPe'Bt L varied® --OPTIONAL C 5T. JT:DET.� Ls L -WALL, SECTION A-A TO M-M -fence past(Typ) LfNOT TO SCALE #4 rrlirmerz #4(a) (o /'- -- le0cl% C.J 9 L-WALL SCHEDULE z � CONCRETE REINFORCING' STEEL o�tb�i dfe"cut- C/r *49DI " Channel mrr7. i W SECTION N N M M M N Y - M N N N , " t O w S A $" C 0 E F to frorrl t # l . n9 S z x H L T Tw Ts bor 01 a2 bar bl 62 bar bar d bor el e2 bar Of wall®� I dbait L� r IDENTIFICATION FOR W w A-A �Oa 5'-0" d-Id -Id 1'-d N/A - +v 4 3'-d z'-6" #4 NIA - n/A - - ssa CONCRETE PAYMENT ITEM N07 70 SCALE 7 ■ " 8-8 To 6'-d0'-Idd-1d I'-O" N/A - - #6 4-OFN-W #4 N/A - N/A - - #4 8'-6" ,Q. SAW Jzr _. C-C 8TO r-O"O'-I 0'-11" I'-3" #'5 2'-w 3'-d #4 5'-6" 6-0" #4 N/A - N/A � - 04 1� . O.a ® f Io'-d o z: f4®P-6" CROSS scone VZIRo INCE•ILrs Q REFERENCE DRAWINGS: D-D pTO 8'-d 0'- I'-0' V-3' 06 2'-e' 2'-6" #5 7'-d 5'-6r #4 N/A - N/A - 04 3" C.J d j .09p �" "E"�l' I 40cIr64y,0) for C7enere/ Mates crxt M+beel/ar*ouc De/ai/a-5ee,y')t. 4/ I1-6 TY /z" III-7- �T Far LowtiAO Of 5echbm cee P/on&?d E-E TO 9'-d '-10" I'-1' 1'-5' #6 2'-6' 3'-d #6 7'-5 W-d #4 N/A - N/A - - 04 n Profile- ------ -- ----- - - heet5/0 #YM__�.m i Re 12'-6' 1` .F- F 12TO 9'-01 '-I I'-1' 1'-5' #6 3'-6' 8'-W #6 W-W 5'-6r #4 #4 2'-11 N/A - df4 ,�r4 Dowel to�z" Lb��—� 3"cJr.(typ) 13'-d match Vert,bar Liar 'F"Bar a/Z" 13'-1' in wall G-G TO -O' Iom t-2 I -6 06 3'-9' 4-0 #6 9'- 'F-6 #4 04 2'-6r N/A - - #4 e 14'-d H-H II'-0. ' I 1'-4' 1'-8" #7 3'-9' 8'-6' 07 KI-6r 4-0 #4 04 3'-d N/A - - Xr'4P06. . U-WALL, SECTION N-N TO R_-R__ I-I 6F 6r1'- #7 d-d 9'-d #7 9'-d 3'-6 #5 N/A - N/A - - #5 NOT TO SCALE RECORD DRAWING AS CONSTRUCTED N/A-NOT APPUCABLE ^ONT.NO.� REV, DATE POSTED CHECKE REVIEWi TRANSITION L-WALL SCHEDULE;: U-WALL SCHEDULE - —•{ W-6' I►'- o'-I 1'-5" 1'-Id CONCRETE REINFORCING STEEL J -J TO TO TO #8 4'-6'9'-6' #7 III'-Op W-W #5 #5 2'-d #4 2'-d 5"0" xl5 lia'-w 1'-7' 2'-O" SECTION "A; N N SIC; r r r N r r H W Tw Ts T� A a a 8 b b D d E It F f 2'-0' bor I 2 bar I 2 ba bar bar bar K-K TO 1�- ,To- TO" #8 4'-6'KY- #8 12'-6r 4'-6'#5 05 2'-W #4 2'- 6'-d #5 a As 34rar ctiArrre5 '-6 i -9 2'-3 N-N -6"10'- 1'-1' 1'-3' d-1 N/A - - #7 6-61 3'-3r #4 N/A - OW5 2'-11t' N/A - sreua Desalrttlora DAn AMOVAi 19'-7" w w 1'-9' 2'-3' , - , , , - , REVISIONS L- L IT 6r a TOO.2,TO #9 4-6 12-0 #9 14- 5-6 #5 #5 3'-d #4 I'-d 9-d #5 l0'-O- - Q 0-0 10'-6• TO I'-1' P-3' d-I N/A - 07 6-6" 4'-6" 04 N/A - #5 2'-9' N/A DEFARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT 2'-0"2'-7' 3 V IB'-d WMAMENTO DISTOM cotrs OF ENG+NEEti LOS ANGE4E5 M-M TO , TO TO #10 6'-d 7'-0 #9 151-6 Is-6r#5 � 5 4'-d#4 I'-d Id-d#5 r 12•_ SAo4�ENt0,WlFowu CORPS OF ENGINEERS 23'- 16'-d0-12'2'-2r 2-Id P-P TO TO 1'-0' I'-e 0'-II'#6 3'-6' W-6" xf5 7'-d 6-d #4 N/A - 05 2'-d WA - owcreoSr� sARTA AMA RIVER EASIN, CALIFORNIA /rlo e7: 12'-d 18'-d "CAMONGA CREEK, SAN DERMARDINO 9 RIVERSIDE COUNTIES H. MARANO CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL Q/ "az`fregbe less thdn 'bz"In,carL-aecha-e. Di+ra°rr,9itY7&W/beinavrddnre with -6r - FOOTHILL BLYD. TO C O DEBRIS BASIN, reinfcreir itee/xh�/e. 0-0 1 'Idd I''1' 1'-4. 0'-I sy6 2"-6' 3'-6"�76 7'•d 4'-d 04 N/A - �i6 2'-d WA wAwNSn NORTH HALF AIRPORT CONDUIT, OEMENS CREEK CHANNEL AND DEBRIS BASIN (] Where ,+5 / tp� w/dth of channel, Mec&7tlar invert eleb i8 el//r»/rdted and Me 13'-d IV-O' C. LEE leftondrlclht fait/ry /9tiea tcyetneray #4Gbwel ov fheeenter of./66. R-R TO To 1'-2' a-6' O'- 0? 4'-d 4'-0r A'6 9'-d 7'-6" �t4 tta Z'-6' N/A - ssa -d ,Y, CHANNEL SECTION © where tr%j/Ength/5 z'�"D� lc�, the #4 dowel+raybe e/ii»irR9tedar�d the 05#dveroe 4-Or&-W STRUCTURAL DETAILS tcr5 from the center/avert clebo/a/l be extended /'-3'Aa7/0 both foohirra o. WOEHL ® t%'Con&ccla-rne�y Groyee *9 ber to/4'aboVe invert a-;a 'e a Co t0 7t'e �9 bcr sUBhUTTEO SYI DATE SHEET42 B'-la"aLnve+evert. APPROVED sPEc.Na DAcwo9•_�r444Sr Of ©Can&-dC10^rr,5y l rVV10e `9 ber trD/S'-(o"eve invert prod Cie B #6 bar fo t/a#9bdr 4,q/r c DISTRICT FEE NO.2511+2 110 9'6"above +evert. DEsisN Rev.'A' SPIEETS 109 SAFETY PAYS �� APPENDIX 2 I Plow 6XCFP7 0r.- VALUE ENGINEERING PAYS 1k' INDEX ® FDRAWINGS SHEET TITLE DISCIPLINE SHEET• N16.8 TITLE SHEET 61 1 PARK SITE HORIZONTAL CONTROL C1 .2 PARK SITE GRADING PLAN C2 3 PARK SITE DETAILS C2A 4 I SITE GRADING C3 5 r F3�TFi�fT UNDERPASS GRADING C4 b 19TH ST. UNDERPASS DETAILS C5 7 19TH St. DETOUR PLAN C5A 8 ' 'BASELINE UNDERCROSSING Z;6 9 CUCAMONGA CREEK BRIDGE C7 10 STA. 888 + 24.14 r, CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL C7A 11 BRIDGE DETAILS/FENCE DETAILS STA. 888 + 00 DE14ENS CREEK CHANNEL C8 12 _ BRIDGE STA. " + 20 ' DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL C9 13 i BRIDGE STA. 111 + 80 RANCHO WASH BRIDGE STA. 13 + 50 CIO 14 CUCAMON"-DEMENS CREEK BRIDGE STA. 21 + 751 C10A 15 EQUESTRIAN TRAIL CII 16 r µ EQUESTRIAN TRAIL C1J2 11 MANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CALIFORNIA EQUESTRIAN TRAIL C13 18 •;: � r EQUESTRIAN TRAIL C14 19 EQUESTRIAN TRAIL C15 20 EQUESTRIAN TRAIL C16 21 EQUESTRIAN TRAIL C17 22 a..` �CUCAMONGA AND DEMENSCREEK EQUESTRIAN TRAIL C18 23 EQUESTRIAN TRAIL C19 24 EQUESTRIAN TRAIL C20 25 SAN BERNARDINOAND RIVERSIDE _ EQUESTRIAN TRAIL DETAILS C21 EQUESTRIAN TRAIL DETAILS C21A 2627 PARK SITE ,.'DETAILS C22 28 PARK SITE S t DETAILS C23 29 ,p SHELTER DETAILS C24 30 "PARK SITE UTILITIES U1 31 DEMENS CREEK TRAIL REST :T U2 32 j RESTROOM PLUMBING U3 33 FLOOR PLAN, ELEVATION AND DETAIL'S Al 34 RESTROOM DETAILS A2 35 RESTROOM DETAILS Si 36 RESTROOM DETAILS S2 37 PARK LANDSCAPE PLAN Ll 38 DEMENS CREEK TRAIL REST PLANTING PLAN L2 39 -PLANTING DETAILS L3 40 `I tit PARK IRRIGATION PLAN 11 41 y N DEMENS CREEK TRAIL REST IRRIMTION PLAN 12 42 ELECTRICAL PLAN E1 43 ,{`,'," ELECTRICAL DETAILS E2 44 ANGELESDISTRICT ... LL y 1 t4 t d ,. � d�a.w. :•mil=�=rc: .,. ABBREVIATIONS r 3 N r i c, �. ✓,r off; - A.B. Aggregate base GAL. - Gallon � "c �. tit� �.��!kfa✓I I.i% �'�J��••�'J��i �, O I-!�L :try �'�:��•; - - Z A.B. Anchor bolt INV. Invert a J y A.C. - Asphaltic cement M.B. - Machine bolt _F. W ,�' A.C.P. - Asbestos cement pipe MIN. - Minimum z ti Z W Z f Y Y Y Y Y Y • s► B.C. - Beginning of curvature MTO. —Mounted B.C.R. Beginning of curb return O.C. On center O 2 w O �i 1 1 ' K. - Blocking -C4 0 Q ' ,:� '♦ NNF 8L B oc g P.C.C. Portland Cement Concrete > = CC i SM - Beam P.E. - Polyethylene pipe f Z Z = I<� LU uw1— - �� ' C.L. - Chain link P.O.C. - Point of connection 0P �!I L���! w. C.M.P. - Corrugated metal pipe P.S.I. - Pounds per square inch j iRl C.O. - Conduit only P.V.C. - Polyvinylchloride pipe co U N I _ Cubic Yar d PL. Pla te O 1?,Nj OJ.� �T <> CMU - Concrete masonry unit PLY'0. - Plywood �° SHEET NO. C2� �, GpLLE�F CONC. - Concrete PVMT. - Pavement p CONST . - Construct R.C.P. - Reinforced concrete pipe 1. C19 k C 1 8 AV CONT . - Continuous R/R - Railroad C� ` _ `• ' ; m DWG. - Drawing R/W - Rigat-of-way �\ 19TH ST C 17 E.C. - End of curvature REINF. - Reinforcing l f tiQ C 1 g 116a Q� E.C.R. - End of curb return REQD. Required 1 s EA. - Each SCHED. - Schedule CUCAMONGA AND Dr: M, ENS CREEK -IECREATION U S ARM CORPS OF E GIN ERS `! 4y �� ELEV. - Elevation SHTG. Sheathing C EXIST. - Existing T and G - Tonque and groove f F.F. - Finish floor T.G. - Top of grate C 1 3 ����" , 4 F.L. - Flow Line T.W. - Top of Wall JLA1 l Y �"lI�L C12 co co GLli� IMh?• _ , F.S. Finished Surface V. - Volt O FT. Foot V.C.P. Vitrified clay pipe �` - � FTG. - Footing W.W.F. - Welded wire fabric •, FOOTHILL BLVD = WD. - Wood A� G W tz1 `AN D8 D,�pE C > Q`� P`D I I U r A P4 � �or�t'p'o• J San Luis Obisp Bakersfield �..,� •9 a �` '� arstow aF c►►�� 1 Santa Barbara uy Lo ngeles +� ' 4 T H S T > � c�Csror� 4 ~• SYMBOL DE$CRIPTIONS DATE APPROVAL San Bernardino G�� REVISIONS LANDSCAPE U. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT • �\ ARCHITECTURE LOS ANGELES SAN BE NARDINO FWY IM?IL MOA~ CORPS OF ENGINEERS :_.. DESIGNED BYs SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN•CALIFORNIA j C CUCAMONGA AND DEMENS CREEK• SAN BERNARDINO AND RIVERSIDE COUNTIES !�i�"� !✓ VICINITY MAP DRAWN BY: CUCAMONGA AND DEMENS CREEK RECREATION PROJECT KEY MAP NORTH CUCAMONGA /DEMENS CREEK NORTH, N.T.S. aECKED BY# N.T.S. CRY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA APPROVAL 'APPROVAL RECOMMENDED ,Z TITLE SHEET PARK PLANNER CHIEF, DESIGN BRANCH .- SUBMITTED BY. APPROVED ' SHEET APP�iOVAL RECOMMENDED CHIEF PLANNING DIVISION SIGNATURES AFFIXED HEREON INDICATE OFFICIAL RECOMMENDATION AND PREPARED UNDER THE DI A' OF W09 OD G 1 SPEC.NO.DAC -e3h APPROVAL OF ALL DRAWINGS IN THIS SET AS INDEXED ON THIS SHEET CHEF, SAFETY OFFICE DISTRICT FILE NO. ll COL.- OF ENGINEERS U.S.A. DISTRICT ENGINEER SAFETY PAYS i":U S GOVERNMENT PiNNTINO OFF CA,1950-784•134 r & e, a ate,,,, � .- _. .- ". .: , ,_., � v ,. , . _ .. ._._ "....i•�.`' VALUE ENGINEERINGPAYS . SEE DETAIL 5 W 4@ /Z w 2 8 8„ SWEARING SURFACE R/w R�W FAR F2 A4541AI& Z 04 ' 53 — 57 "Ace lx� _ o i K>< Fz Ti�//CI< SHOEr 1OEXISTING A-C.PA VED PATROL- ,a�LySryR�vE �, .' •" ` � •� EXIST. 6 N/GN RD. VO/DFORM - � tt 4 U @ /2 „ _ ` ' i4NG uN� WffAfOVE EX/ST C,N.4//V 6 - �47z . /Z •/O UNPAVED L/NK FE/VGE. FU[.L �p _ //ZLA /14�R1� A ` PATROL RD x I W/OT/�•/ OF ,EAR/L`Y�,E �. - .X 1 G�QO{i/D,E REST •4S R� I .. - •• �. 1-TOW EXIST. SAWCUI- .TOhV lU I ! �_ O„ - ° S , O„ NA T/VE 6�RaC/NO EXIST A.� RVAf T Ta iQtTcowEGT f ONCE `^ � I WODDE�I/ FOR INFO. NOT S�/Olc/N , . , . . � N I i I' C3R/GYBE A057 AAA a,= OE7.4/L r /4 -O /8 -O 14 -O Q . I SrA - '` CHANNEL WIDTH PRO VIDAE 8"cam R� EACH S/O,E E aIETA R C/TY OF Fr�'4N TTA4CA//�1ENT �'4 I U OCAMQN6.4 ST -4 . 3 WEAR//VG SURFACE AVR�V oT / S•No3o a�M TAL a�sT 70 :� /"GRUB/-� ROGK OVER I DETA IL 17 CTYo� 4 v � w w r. Z",4. (*4 CHA NNE_L. W _ - - -- - - 14 �� �� ► ' III I �i. .'j.'�. ' o1�cbV/AE /O' �1 ITV/ /O' I �'1ETAL �GASN//VG ,oAvEO �TF�c.. VED I TOP DEL_ I DETAIL 3 STR/P, 24GQ.Gr4LV. a /' CRUS ED I I C�'4 f CRU�SA/EO � X � O1/ER .• I I L�/A4LL N.T. S. OVER 2 A4C-TYR J AR/ES Z;q�,.- TYP. ► , a W oVC7 L 2 ,�' W Q �' 3 COrt/C DECK O 1�AIP/E EL. 40,1 Q V , ./ FTG. cTY� SEE DETAIL Z BRAG/n/G l TOP of TOP o� u-LAMSTR/�/GERS ' CA.4NMEL .WALL , CHANNEL b✓ �--/'- "l I 4S ,/ i --- - L I 4X"ENO D/APNRAMS EAG/•I6ND OE; A/L S I I AAC�4GN S TA. �9+20 rA SLAB A.PC 46� I I` ax M/D- D/APHRAMS Ca /►?/D'sp �� - - 0 N.T.S. I I ' I l TOP OF WEARING SURFACE N"' ( 14.5 4�� ' Z=8~ METAL F�L.4SN/N65 //-4 , D�C�E GIG CHANNEL WALL 1 SEAR//1/G SURFACE 8 8 / e ROCK OVER 2'�A.C. „ o o #4 DiDk/ELS Fri 42. TDl� GIB / /EAR/IVG S[/RFi�ICE A --Q/ ^-L4 ,. q/ TCiF�C�C� WW TL�P OF - '� • ��°M ., . - , _` -.' _: . •_ -3,. X - @/z WAL.l CHANNEL WAU A ES Q .SEE S CT/ON G LAM STR/NGER ° • • -., /p _ e - � . N 3 R�cySTYRENE /" CsLULA/K .4NCo 0 TACK GpA7 # 2„ L� N _ 10 3 VO/OFORM 3 POD YSTy,QE/1,1E U I � L(�/DFORM. W W UNDERMEATI•/ X MINAL �K ¢" G nb a w W SECTION TIO/V D ` Z - = oO x W M e � \ i DrEOTH To ee SPEc/FlEI� �:3CALE•/ -2� N.T.S. W j ac 4 18 - Z � < `- W � � ; C-7 � , '• I . 8Y B�2/!W� MA NU FA GTl1fZ�R W 3"FILLET • Z W Z j Of�V/DE 6"cowrs. g c7 I` CURB EA�C14 S/G4E � o Z U W x O -�E,c�C/TYf.� lZ4n/C ��XENED_ _ ,� p Z I O Cl/CAMO K�4 STD. S�IRA4CE 57RINGER K e > = aY ' O ! SAI�c/ UT 4 e�>2 '�,6ACANCE n W F- /NATIVE GRZ'X//NO (n 11 TO V ,, 4, tf1 c� 1QfX/ST/NG Q4/[.L / NGiLE @ E�4R SPAC//VG All Fg4VE0 5*t4- . FILL HOLE W/TN ew;xY. am VAIPAVED AwrROL f�WSWEN EXIST. CONCRETE —/ Z" Z' C4.l?. SURFACE M //4"AA1.0r1 rVZ1 E �It 4 /Z!' 4 APAW ZaVZWA*Cw A , Rlw 0 3,� DETAIL SECURE FABRIC TO INTERNED/ATE SCALE sS FXVSTS W/TA/ //4 -0 kE/C HEAD SELF 'Q T.4F�P/NG SCR,EI�c/S 3/4" Jr 3//6'X O'-/.aj 4" N SEED T.4/L 60 C-7A F SEE OETA/L 7 GLIJLaM STRINGER SMpE MESH /ill LINK-F,q, ?/G AGivG OF' �7A" u0 � I _ LTS 3"x2"4XLc./ 3T5ry� a 2 4 00 a � � M •� �2� _�/8 NO � 5UR c,4CE - AROM ENO OF ,�AOOPROACH E L S x4 x 3/8 �l V) %), I C A T %5"S TO 04 Y(./C,A"r. ,B0774 FEAICLS O.= (�' C• 7 Ir 6R/OGE C,,4gA0.C= $E 4GS7" O I - . r' 6y CacrrRAC7PA.;, r�A�f.� THICK CC�i1/CRETE AAoRQ4CH SLAB.. �2� 5/8" � A6 ` z G/�tIGS 951 - I I II I SEE / G ENGINEER: II I J.P. KAPP dt A;lSOCIA►ITES INC. A CONSULTfNG CIVIL ENGINEERS, i I i 3 °. � � CL�R 4, 16884SURVPASADE YORS ADD PLANNERS ' `!�. -moo A0LASHEN EXIST. CONCRETE r. - WRFACE UNOERNEATq SE.4RIA49 TusTirr, 5757 -oR1ilA sssso G?q YUGNT �" �- o / i (714) 730•5757 Ed- 42.Zs ` / ° *- ILr4 almond H bridge - RECCK IPAGT J 3' AO/D site sYM.o� .t BOTTOM Z' OF SvBGRADE V t j I _ / oes�rnow DAN AMWVAL TO 95� (7TI�R� Z r'A Gr REVISIONS , ` OErAIL rz v b a ni a I �� �� ' U. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT y G EL..30.25 W /Nv N.T.S. s ID arOr� LOS ANGELES V bm EL./629.95 •- �Lo CORPS Of ENGINEERS HMV. Q C"WNEL :'= 1 G G p Ilr, ANTA ANA RIVER BASIN,CALIFORNIA 9 Ith ' St ; �'a• �,, �� CUCAMONGA AND DEMENS CREEK, H 5 x a0, SAN BERNARDINO AND RIVERSIDE COUNTIES NOTE: 4,°I �ct`e oMAWNAt CUCAMONGA AND DEMENS CREEK �. O/MEN,S/Q►it/S SN��..D BE F/EL17 VER/F/EO • - base 1 e a v e. a RR1� �ro /ws o� ,0,4 cN sLA sE-cTIcK/ :s.� RECREATION SECTIOWr- A /V /A/oR VARATovS c� w L OIMENS/ays AAID I ppRK CUCAMONGA/DEMENS- CREEK ELEV.4T/GYvS M.4V OccUR. O �Q� ERIT AGE o+Ea�o w, SGA4LE• / -5 — 1"1 If • v O tl DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL BRIDGE STA. 99+20 • .I �� , SUBMITTED 6Y: SPEC. NO. DAC A 09- -AID.9925 SHEET - DRAWING NO. C�8 - VICINITY MAP LOCATION MAP DATE: DISTRICT RILE N0. C - SAFETY PAYS oY i SYFM %T/MNTAS WFOU ISO—M-13/ 112 1 6 VALUE ENGINEERING PAYS BR/GGE @ GNAN/VEL ,, Z-8" N ; �4 @ /2 8" WEAR//VG SURFACE MOVE C IAA a7, O 2 tA4 W � � RE EX/S .T NA • L I AI/ < Z-EJl/C E. FULL AE Fa25T AS RED ,Q 7 WOiDDF.,�t/ RROV/ POST AND o O RAILS �' �J �11 OI.K �• 4 WHIT F I STR/P� �\ o. • • o. •3 A4.G S RENE - r Q J V 1 1 LY G�1l LINE TOP OF R,ZY TY d' �� /D E T,x/ST Z W w o i0 EXIS ) VO/DFORM #t 4 u @ /O r \CldA/VNE L „ -o PA F<D. V TROL R / ALL_ FL.ASN/NG - ) STRIR 24Cw4 GArL V. SAWCUT PTOIAI v�j V ' ,TO/AV EXIST N i ' 3 'S EXIST. A.C. PVMr �C Q J /VAT/VAE G&<)UA D �-- Y J I1- ,GK BR.4C/MG W _ v J Q I woo- EiV' SEE- DETAIL 8 0 •e; 2" / GLU-L AM SrRlN6ER6TYP. 7A SEE DET /L Ze .�7`rAc�MEwr' O A VED U O COMPACTED /VA VE OF ME TAL AO�'T 7� 4'-4 .. r � � . � i E TI 8 A,�p�E/V PasT. (3-A 0/xy� � ^ 3 W N - t' �`3 PRO V/DE 8' CDA C.CURB 5CA LE EACH S/LiE - PEol GrY C= a,-4 R,a�vctio CUB c� sTo. DETAIL. 4 Dw<s /1/0.30/ - ¢X END D/APHRi�MS EAGH END. .4GGROAG�-1 MIOSPAN N rS' DETAIL ('5 Ni SLAB — - - - 4 s.1 _ A PAR N.T.S. SLAB xt TOP OF ;VEARI/VG SURFACE rA I I - 'V M i I 2"8 11, T _- E A L FLAS�,I/LAG J I I DGE OF CyANWEL. WALL 28'-O'' I STA Co"PA/IVTE I _ - I ///f80 H/ I m TOP OF h/EARI/VG SURFACE ,� WEARING SURFACE C 3 A C�.GZVLV) - - -�--.. SEE SEGT/ON G 5'PEDESTR/A/l/ I , ( I 8„ 8" LULi1M STR/LAGER „ a WALK %MA ----- - — - ---- iOL4 « u «� 3 Rx.YsTy�4E GLULA4M ANCA4O ----- ,o , Q o e Y �r✓P `�6 8 0) 8 P. 4 3., y0/OFOR/�? /� Pi2o�// TACK G9AT CO/liC . •, • ' o /Q ) T P. • • .• • .• • e •e • • \ UA14ERAIEATN SLAG A e , 4 t� I �O THE St.A , 4XCo"A/OMMAL PC-CA: „ . Ti4L'X_ ,, '%' . DEOTH 70 BE SRECIF/ED / 'reus�- BY &,RIOGE MAwUFACrU964 #4 DiDh/ELS ZD _0A/ -rYo 3"FILLET it RC�EA/ED. SA•WCUT� TOiN I CNA/VNEL WIDTH n/.4T/VE GRO�C�wO SURFACE . .• z p ' ' tEEC/ST. A.C. R4 VEEJ1lTEX/ST. /O EXIST. /O = /#5 "" '�- N • /� D W .C.PAV AIPAVED PArRO1 D. �. , GL NOL @ �R So.4C//�/G 5'rt44A / 1 /ry E�x y. M.r. •. _ 1 i, /. . .i Z W J ��N #4 GiOh/ELS @/Zuj ZIII- W Z / ',= /0 ,- ROCIGNEN EXIST. �CONC-RE TE --/ Z" 2 CLEA R• W g SURFACE ro //4 AMOT/Tv,DE #4 @ /2'' y' zuw � 4 � OZ J i �T Z Z Z W � WWH j SEE QCrA�L. DET�IIL r7*'lliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii , \EZA SECG/RE FABR/G TD //VTERMEQ/ATE STEEL l�//RE F PIOLSTS W/T� / " �IEX .�+/E.4D SELF �, $� �' �3RAc, At/65 CrVP TAA0/LAG SCREWS 3/4' X 3//6''�C O -/�,G¢ o AC G �-A li4IllER B A4 �IAX. P SSE LaETA/L 7 , G7 GC.UL.A4M STR//VGER S GA. C/.G4/it/ G/A/i FABRIC U G 7A4 SHOE . ALL AOSTS3 E L3X4"x - 4/B" e 3/8 �S[-1/� �2 il/ t PROV/OE 3" WEAR/LAG SURFACE 8" TN/GK CONCRE TE •'` - AGGROAG/-1 54AS TO LKYL/&il T. SOTI�/ APPROoAC14 SLA6 �Z) 5/$�� A� Elt/OS DF 5R/ E To �6E ES l'A,BUS/•JEQ t SEE DE rA BY CCy1/TR�4CTQR �/D o AIAX EXIST. COIVC.I rE 1 -ter PI a4YL/G/.�T :, \ '' ° SEED TA4/ .5C/RFi4CE UNDERA/EATy B,E,gRjNG �34p. C.-rYP RECOMO.4CT � J r< J •g" 1�/1�FO/Q/�ri ,Bout m z' Cam- suaQAP- 4a 7z) es/o T�� SEE T /L I 2\ DETAIL ENGINEER: U SEE DETAIL •�� �•TS• •••�•• J.P. IKAPP dt AS90CIATES INC. FOY4 FsC.A /NrG 9 CONSULTfNG CML ENGMEZRSI SrN SURVEYORS AND PLANNERS iC iSa92 PASADENA AVENUE - - - — - - i-<Z) 5�$ ~M.B. • TUSTIN, CAUFORNIA 9WIM i iTr—------- - =---- - I yr (71� 730-5757 almond t_ y bridge ' { - £ hills rd- - site - r srM.a Ixsan►noas Ulm �n+towu + N C.0 \ REVISIONS h° � -//z EL ASPcWMERIC oAo ={ban I a�G rga ; �a U. S. ARMY ENGINEER asnRlcr „X d LOS ANGEIES / •— a� F ENGINEERS CORPS o 19 Ith _-�_ _ �, DESIGNIV M SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN•CALIFORNIA INFO. NOT SA�/OGc/N St CUCAMONGA AND DEMENS CREEK, .SEE OET.4/L / N > �� SCrgLE / =5 — Ip C SAN BERNARDINO AND RIVERSIDE COUNTIES 0�`:.`°Lbase i e , ave. l o"wNBY, CUCAMONGA AND DEMENS CREEK ,a RECREATION �I RK CUCAMONGA/DEMENS CREEK c) IvoTE. L GE p A E ER�T A cmeac�o nY� - ALL O/MEMS/GWS SAAX-I ZE c ELO VER/F/ED V •� = N PRIC►R rb CAST/LAG CK' APiOMOAC_•/ SLAB SECT/ON, f o o•ki MAW.y d. M1woR vaRi•�TIcws orC WA�c. ME•vsicws A•vo 11 DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL BRIDGE STA. 1 11 +80 { ELEVA'r1e- t,/S' MAY 0=t- 2. � I t0l sueMrTTED BY: SPEC. NO. oAcA 09- _moo-QD2s SIB DETAIL ra . DRAWING NO. C9 NT. s. VICINITY MAP LOCATION MAP DATE: DISTRICT FILE N0. ' SAFETY PAYS �'.'..a' :'rU f WVEMIYEIP MNFItNG OFFICE 11N0-44•1 34 MIN, 113 I I � I VALUE ENGINEERING PAYS SEE ETA/L 5 #'�� /ZN Z 8 N. DI WEARING SURFACE FAIR F�L.AS�!•I/it/G Z At4 sm f / MICK SA/OE - - I ` � I �YSTYRE�IE - r i RIEMOVE EXIST CNA/N 0 N g I + YO/DFORM „ - # �4 U @ /Z" x � NK FENt E FULL I EX/ST//VG ' EX/ST7AIG W/DTN Off' BR/!XaE /O - D !'" _ -//2 ��A5Tz7M5RIC �.QD. �Ly� ii X�'. E14• -�' ,A /o' UNPAVED o' PROWOZ �sr As R . • - UNG�4 V O PATROL ROAD ,� PA7-AXV - RC3�40 Tb E MAI ........ -O 5 -OFENGE _ R INFO. oAl ' , � � WGbDEN. FO S�,/D N /5" 3 5 .TGYN EX/5T/NIG , x` JaViv EX/STING A"T%VE T JNC? _ ,CAR/G1GE POST ANO M4 /VE I /Qi4/LS SEE O�T.4/L / ' _. .; C�WANNEL - STA 3 SEE DETA/L 8 PROV/DE 8�"CLy1�C � � f3-f5O k.: CURB-EACqS/AQ=� FCV? ATTACHMENTPER C/re Qc 7�4 I J STD. 7 I I OFNlEL4L POST TO ' J J M/6S� NNo.30/CTYP 3 WEAR/LAG SURFACE k/OO�/ �sT OROV�oE /o . J V 3 " I ( /';CRUSE-J ROCK OVER ,' laETA/Lr4 A V,E� TRDL R Q I I- �.4.C. PVM'T �! CURB TO C4/A/V/V OVER Z'AC -TY/?� (� W X {MALL C TYP. — - - - .—• t , MO OC ME7"AL G44S�4/LAG L i ISTR/f�,Z¢C-A GA,LV. CAIAI/N�L DETAIL ra _ N.T. 5. l�✓A4.L ---- � OVER 2':4 / , - L . o � � - z a k a WGY�DEN `1r VARIES 10.0 A AEU` _ " 0 con/a: SEE DETQ/L Z O`-'CK �gR4G/LAG W LTG. C T YP _ -- GLU--LAM STR/LAGERS SCALE I , f I APP�q P,•�3.34 1 I I 4X ENp a/a py eAM S EACH ENO Off;rAlL. S SLAB '� A/�'�c 4C/-/ I I I � ,11 4 4"X MID- D/APHRAM @ A410, PAN N.T.S. __. I I 4 Z4 dw I i ° TOP OF W64RI/VG SURFACE . � 4.5 I " L 4.5� I .?-8 , METAL F�L4.5/,l/LAGS //=0" 9' .4 CHANNEL L.L 8" 9� —� DICaE QF /,�q /0 1�lEAR//�G SURFACE C'kc / /EAR//VG WR=ACE - A 2' A.C, x m SE'E S GT/O10 �t/ C �/��`' - - - - - - - -- - 4 D�oWEI.S LAM STRINGER '' �D o �' A M 41 Al CLIILAM ANCrUOR � 4 " e ; p� Q wo/OFORAY " „ - • - o 0 N PRo✓/�E rat ck COA r8 w ( UNQEiQNEAT�•/ 30 YRSt�/E .•X(o //vA Ec V RM /VOM C. D K w J �" O /� W {D °• DEPTH TO BE SPECIFIF-D , D < �- �► 1• + I„ By BRIDGE. MAh1UFACTUP-�.F- SG4LE•/ =2 N.T.S. w /4 _ / /4 uj W UJ Z k CMG M W/OT/y k "FILLET + , CL \ z v W f�� /ENEO Q + - o O Z �, < muj SURFy4CrE z i = r : 0 - 4('a " 2 =p" ElS OF STR/NC g W W H v /�e'S f• #�Ga'/L" BAG.A/1lGE n , PTO/N EX/STMG X rOIi I EXISTING G7aNGRET� • qq/[.L /''SALE @ ,�4R SO C//VG A Ar/V� GRO MD N.4T/VE GROUND 5*4- � F�GLEPDXY EXISTING /O' / 77 /O \p UNSAVED Al T�L. UNR4 VED GA77t '= , �:• � � - , SURF Z" BAR, 1 y P ACE TO 114",q�yAT/TL/,QE �1t 4 @ /Z!, - +( :,+ 1 J 1 R, , SCr4LE: / '=5 AAQW �aAOCi°4GENT. DETAIL rl**� C-7A SECURE FABRIC TO /NTERMED/ATE S�"M/N POSTS W/TAI //4"0 /,/EX AtEA0 ,,ELF S'`ONMAX TAPPING SCR WS Z14 '•X 3116",�O'-/� " ACING 4--WASAV46 R @ /4" 1'/AX. o� R�rS IV SEE [.)ETA/L 7 GLU"A.f STRINGER SHOE � a Gt4. C14AIAl L WK FABRIC U _7 C-7A "MESS/. - �T.S- 3 X Z"X ./875 " �TVP. '7 SURFACE — Pi 0V/,DE 3~ WEARING .AZ4 A057 S) •, « „ o 1 t PiF I ENo of APORa4c-H 4E L s xa x <2) _�/8 N8 SLAB TO A4 YL/GNT_ BOTH E�llG25 Gl= �8 �S[.1/ BR10rmc GrQ4QE TO BE EST ,SHED C-7A ! G`n ':.:: A F F " 6Y CGK/TRAGT0� �/O o MA C. 8 Tla� '" CK CONCRETE � . . . . . �. AFwROAC44 SLAB. Z) 5/8a A6 � : NG�ri STEEL lac//RE aRACIAGS (TYP- i i SEE TAIL6c� J.P. KAPP dt ASSOCIATES INC. CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS /� AND PLANNERS , _ AOLAGA1EW EXIST. CONCRETE Cl 5AR iS882 PASADENA AVENUE O c y _ TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA9i880 WRFACE U/VOERNEAT/•/ • i 1 1 1 L 4 yL/G la T T BEAR/LAG R4D. ,�,,; 714 s, '� t � ao-s� e0op 1 /� 4 almond brad ge hilisi r site RECAMA4GT Q 911 VOIDM symux o�aoarrioNs a►>� Anu0vµ F eoTram z � sv ,D,E 3 W S *� r 3 y REVISIONS T 95/� -•f h0 � i DETA/L 2 ani �,c al �� J.P. KAPP a ASSOCIATES U. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT SEE /L I LOS ANGELES V X .� • • g . x � � CORPS f ENGINEERS ' � ti�� r 1 G '� d o 9t � � oeslc*t� eta SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN,CALtFORNIA • - c = St �� CUCAMONGA AND DEMENS CREEK, I r 0 W > SAN BERNARDINO AND RIVERSIDE COUNTIES " NOTE .32base i e ave. ` of " •Y$ CUCAMONGA AND DEMENS CREEK .4L Z_ DIME IS1awS SNOUI.o BE F�ELO VEF?/F/EO � � i � � PRIOR ro cgsr1M& 00= q�PRGz4c�•/ sLA,e s�7-r RECREATION MIAIOR VARZ4TIONS O.f WALL p/tiiS_MS,OwS ,GLAD PARK CUCAMONGA/DEMENS CREEK }' SECTIONrA EL EVA rACWS MA V OCCUR. . A, _ t HER�T AGE(I o+Eaac �Y, _ SGAC.E / =5 foQ'hljj%0 d• RANCHO WASH BRIDGE STA. 13+50 ISUl1MITTED EYe SHEET -- - - SPEC. NO. DAC A 09- __k$D-Q.QA5 DRAWING NO. �1 - VICINITY MAP LOCATION MAP • DATE: DISTRICT FILE N0. � SAFETY PAYS . 114 •5 APPENDIX 3 BRIDGE WIDTH = 10' APPROX. BRIDGE WIDTH = 10' APPROX. CLEAR WIDTH = 8' APPROX. CLEAR WIDTH = 8' APPROX. 22" APPROX. 22" APPROX. BRIDGE C - EQUESTRIAN BRIDGE D - EQUESTRIAN NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE ---� --------------J --- :il --J L-------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I N I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 00 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I BRIDGE D- EQUESTRIAN I I I I PLAN VIEW NOT TO SCALE I I I I 1 BRIDGE C - EQUESTRIAN PLAN VIEW NOT TO SCALE EXISTING BRIDGES BRIDGE WIDTH = 8.5' APPROX. BRIDGE WIDTH = 27' APPROX. BRIDGE WIDTH = 10.5' APPROX. CLEAR WIDTH = 8' APPROX. CLEAR WIDTH = 10' APPROX. CLEAR WIDTH = 25' APPROX. 21" APPROX. 22" APPROX. 22" APPROX. 0 0 0 0 BRIDGE E- PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE F-VEHICULAR BRIDGE G - EQUESTRIAN NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ---------------------- ------------------------- I I I I ------------------- ------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I BRIDGE F -VEHICULAR L PLAN VIEW J L NOT TO SCALE BRIDGE G - EQUESTRIAN PLAN VIEW BRIDGE E - PEDESTRIAN NOT TO SCALE PLAN VIEW NOT TO SCALE EXISTING BRIDGES APPENDIX 4 CLEAR WIDTH = 8'-0" CLEAR WIDTH = 10'-0" o o o o o 0 CO a- o d ~ 12" 7 ~ 12" 6" 6" N � N 11'-0" 13' 0" BRIDGE E - PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES C, D,AND G - EQUESTRIAN OPTIONAL FENCING NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE CLEAR WIDTH = 28'-0" o � I � o 12" 26'-0" 12" o I 0 CO d I � 12" 6" 22° BRIDGE F-VEHICULAR OPTIONAL FENCING NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE ALTERNATIVE 1 - CONSTRUCTION OPTION 1 : CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE DECK CONCEPTUAL CLEAR WIDTH - 8' CLEAR WIDTH - 10' o o o 12" 12" 6" 6" E BRIDGE E- PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES C, D,AND G - EQUESTRIAN OPTIONAL FENCING NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE CLEAR WIDTH = 28' o 0 o 12" 26' 12" I 0 CO d I � 4 12" 6" 18" BRIDGE F -VEHICULAR OPTIONAL FENCING NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE ALTERNATIVE 1 - CONSTRUCTION OPTION 2: PRECAST PRESTRESSED CONCRETE DECK PANELS CONCEPTUAL CLEAR WIDTH = 8'-0" CLEAR WIDTH - 10'-0" o o o o o o o o a_ 9" EQ EQ EQ 9" 9" EQ EQ F Q 9- L13'-0" OPTIONAL FENCING BRIDGE E - PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES C, D, AND G - EQUESTRIAN NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE CLEAR WIDTH = 28'-0" o o 26'-0" 12" �I 0 6" 8" 22" 9" EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ 9" 31'-0" OPTIONAL FENCING NOT TO SCALE BRIDGE F-VEHICULAR NOT TO SCALE ALTERNATIVE 1 - CONSTRUCTION OPTION 3: STEEL GIRDERS, CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE DECK CONCEPTUAL CLEAR WIDTH = 10'-0" CLEAR WIDTH = 8'-0" 0 I 0 0 I 0 22 22" N N I I N N BRIDGE E - PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES C, D, AND G - EQUESTRIAN NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE O I 0 r--I r--1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SIDE VIEW- EQUESTRIAN BRIDGE NOT TO SCALE ALTERNATIVE 1 - OPTION 4: STEEL TRUSS BRIDGE WITH WOOD PLANK DECKING CONCEPTUAL 12" (TYP) (TYP) 9' 0„ 9, o„ 11'-2" 1, 5„ 6„ 13'-2„ (TYP) (TYP) BRIDGE E- PEDESTRIAN NOT TO SCALE BRIDGES C, D, AND G - EQUESTRIAN NOT TO SCALE 12" (TYP) 9' o„ (TYP) 31 ' 2" (TYP) BRIDGE F -VEHICULAR NOT TO SCALE ALTERNATIVE 1 - OPTIONS 1 , 2, AND 3 - ABUTMENTS AND FOOTINGS CONCEPTUAL CLEAR WIDTH = 10'-0" o a o I � I o ~ o 'o d 7 ~ 12" 6" N 13' 0" OPTIONAL FENCING BRIDGES C, D, AND G - EQUESTRIAN NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE CLEAR WIDTH = 35-0" o � I � o 8' 0" 26' 0" 12" o I PEDESTRIAN VEHICULAR o o a_ I � r7 12" 6" 22" 38'-0" BRIDGES E AND F - COMBINED PEDESTRIAN &VEHICULAR OPTIONAL FENCING NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE ALTERNATIVE 2 - CONSTRUCTION OPTION 1 : CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE DECK CONCEPTUAL CLEAR WIDTH = 10' o o � I o o o � ~ 12" 6J IF N 1 3' BRIDGES C, D, AND G - EQUESTRIAN OPTIONAL FENCING NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE CLEAR WIDTH = 35' o � _ � o o 8'-0" 26' 12'' PEDESTRIAN VEHICULAR I � 12" 6" 18" BRIDGES E AND F - COMBINED PEDESTRIAN &VEHICULAR OPTIONAL FENCING NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE ALTERNATIVE 2 - OPTION 2: PRECAST PRESTRESSED CONCRETE DECK PANELS CONCEPTUAL CLEAR WIDTH = 10'-0" o o I � I o o CO 0 9" EQ EQ EQ 9" 13'-0" OPTIONAL FENCING BRIDGES C, D, AND G - EQUESTRIAN NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE CLEAR WIDTH = 35'-0" o � o o 8'-0" 26'-0" 12" PEDESTRIAN VEHICULAR 6„ 8" 22„ 9"T- L EQ EQ EQ 7 EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ 9" 38'-0" OPTIONAL FENCING BRIDGES E AND F-COMBINED PEDESTRIAN &VEHICULAR NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE ALTERNATIVE 2 - CONSTRUCTION OPTION 3: STEEL GIRDERS, CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE DECK CONCEPTUAL (TYP) I 1 I 1 9'-0„ 6" 13'-2„ (TYP) BRIDGES C, D,AND G - EQUESTRIAN 12" NOT TO SCALE (TYP) I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 9' 0„ (TYP) 3'-8„ 38' 2" (TYP) BRIDGES E AND F - COMBINED PEDESTRIAN &VEHICULAR NOT TO SCALE ALTERNATIVE 2 - OPTIONS 1 , 21 AND 3 - ABUTMENTS AND FOOTINGS CONCEPTUAL CLEAR WIDTH = 10'-0" o o � � cl� 412" 6" N N � 13' 0" BRIDGES C AND D - EQUESTRIAN NOT TO SCALE CLEAR WIDTH = 35-0" CLEAR WIDTH = 10'-0" o EQUESTRIAN CD 8'-0" 26'-0" 12" 0 PEDESTRIAN VEHICULAR � 1 12" (TYP) 8" (TYP) 6" 22" 6" 22" 'I j 50'-0" BRIDGES E, F, AND G - COMBINED PEDESTRIAN, VEHICULAR, AND EQUESTRIAN NOT TO SCALE ALTERNATIVE 3 - CONSTRUCTION OPTION 1 : CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE DECK CONCEPTUAL CLEAR WIDTH = 10' o � I � o � I � 6" 13' APPROX. BRIDGES C AND D - EQUESTRIAN NOT TO SCALE CLEAR WIDTH = 35' CLEAR WIDTH = 10' o EQUESTRIAN Lo o 8'-0" 26' 12" I 0 PEDESTRIAN VEHICULAR I � 12 TYP) 18" (TYP) " ( 6" 18 18" 6" 50 BRIDGES E, F, AND G - COMBINED PEDESTRIAN, VEHICULAR, AND EQUESTRIAN NOT TO SCALE ALTERNATIVE 3 - CONSTRUCTION OPTION 2: PRECAST PRESTRESSED CONCRETE DECK PANELS CONCEPTUAL CLEAR WIDTH = 10'-0" o ~ 1g„ 7„ 9" EQ EQ EQ 9" 13'-0" BRIDGES C AND D - EQUESTRIAN NOT TO SCALE CLEAR WIDTH = 35-0" CLEAR WIDTH = 10'-0" CD EQUESTRIAN Q0 26'-0" 12" 1 0 PEDESTRIAN VEHICULAR CO a- I � (TYP) 12" (TYP) 6" 8" 22„ 22„ 8" --------------------- 9" W1 W1 W1 W1 W1 W1 W1 W1 W2 W2 W2 (TYP) 49'-6" BRIDGES E, F, AND G - COMBINED PEDESTRIAN, VEHICULAR,AND EQUESTRIAN NOT TO SCALE ALTERNATIVE 3 - CONSTRUCTION OPTION 3: STEEL GIRDERS, CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE DECK CONCEPTUAL V 1" (TYP) 9' 0„ 6" 13'-2„ (TYP) BRIDGES C AND D - EQUESTRIAN NOT TO SCALE 12" (TYP) 9'-4„ (TYP) 3' 8" 50'-2,> (TYP) BRIDGES E, F AND G - COMBINED PEDESTRIAN,VEHICULAR, AND EQUESTRIAN NOT TO SCALE ALTERNATIVE 3 - OPTIONS 1 , 2, AND 3 - ABUTMENTS AND FOOTINGS CONCEPTUAL CLEAR WIDTH - 28'-0" CLEAR WIDTH = 10'-0" o SHARED EQUESTRIAN & PEDESTRIAN I � � CD 12" 26'-0" 12" 0 VEHICULAR 12 (TYP) 6" 22 (TYP)" 6" 22" 42'-6" BRIDGES E, F, AND G -VEHICULAR AND SHARED EQUESTRIAN AND PEDESTRIAN NOT TO SCALE ALTERNATIVE 4 - CONSTRUCTION OPTION 1 : CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE DECK CONCEPTUAL CLEAR WIDTH = 28'-0" CLEAR WIDTH = 10'-0" o SHARED EQUESTRIAN & PEDESTRIAN _ o 12" 26' 0" 12" 0 VEHICULAR 18 (TYP) 12" (TYP) 6" 18 F 6" 18" cV 42'-6" BRIDGES E, F, AND G -VEHICULAR AND SHARED EQUESTRIAN AND PEDESTRIAN NOT TO SCALE ALTERNATIVE 4 - CONSTRUCTION OPTION 2: PRECAST PRESTRESSED CONCRETE DECK PANELS CONCEPTUAL CLEAR WIDTH - 28'-0" CLEAR WIDTH = 10'-0" o SHARED EQUESTRIAN & PEDESTRIAN Q0 o 12" 26'-0" 12" 0 VEHICULAR 6" (TYP) 12" (TYP) 8" 22" F 22 8" 9" 1 W1 W1 W1 W1 W1 W1 W2 W2 W2 (TYP) 42'-6" BRIDGES E, F, AND G -VEHICULAR AND SHARED EQUESTRIAN AND PEDESTRIAN NOT TO SCALE ALTERNATIVE 4 - CONSTRUCTION OPTION 3: STEEL GIRDERS, CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE DECK CONCEPTUAL 12" (TYP) 10' 2" (TYP) 3'-8" 42' 8„ (TYP) BRIDGES E, F, AND G -VEHICULAR AND SHARED EQUESTRIAN AND PEDESTRIAN NOT TO SCALE ALTERNATIVE 4 - OPTIONS 1 , 2, AND 3 - ABUTMENTS AND FOOTINGS CONCEPTUAL APPENDIX 5 Alternative 1 - Construction Option 1 Cast-In-Place Reinforced Concrete Deck Equestrian Bridge C: Deck Width = 13', Deck Span =26' 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(ft) = 260 $35 $9,100 Reinforced Concrete Deck Width(ft) = 13 Span(ft) = 26 Thickness(inch) = 16 Volume(ft) = 451 Volume(yd3) = 17 $1,200 $20,030 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area(ft) = 7 Length(ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume(ft) = 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 $115,000 137 Alternative 1 - Construction Option 1 Cast-In-Place Reinforced Concrete Deck Equestrian Bridge D: Deck Width = 13', Deck Span = 18' 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(ft) = 180 $35 $6,300 Reinforced Concrete Deck Width(ft) = 13 Span(ft) = 18 Thickness(inch) = 16 Volume(ft) = 312 Volume(yd3) = 12 $1,200 $13,867 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area(ft) = 7 Length(ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume(ft) = 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.,000 138 Alternative 1 - Construction Option 1 Cast-In-Place Reinforced Concrete Deck Pedestrian Bridge E: Deck Width = 11', 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 Concrete Wearing Slab Width(ft) = 8 Length(ft) = 20 Area(ft) = 160 $35 $5,600 Reinforced Concrete Deck Width(ft) = 11 Span(ft) = 20 Thickness(inch) = 16 Volume(ft) = 293 Volume(yd3) = 11 $1,200 $13,037 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area(ft) = 7 Length(ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume(ft) = 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 $95,000 139 Alternative 1 - Construction Option 1 Cast-In-Place Reinforced Concrete Deck Vehicular Bridge F: Deck Width = 31', Deck Span = 20' 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(ft) = 520 $35 $18,200 Reinforced Concrete Deck Width(ft) = 31 Span(ft) = 20 Thickness(inch) = 16 Volume(ft) = 827 Volume(yd3) = 31 $1,200 $36,741 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area(ft) = 7 Length(ft) = 35 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume(ft) = 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 $190,000 140 Alternative 1 - Construction Option 1 Cast-In-Place Reinforced Concrete Deck Equestrian Bridge G: Deck Width = 13', 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 Concrete Wearing Slab Width(ft) = 10 Length(ft) = 20 Area(ft) = 200 $35 $7,000 Reinforced Concrete Deck Width(ft) = 13 Span(ft) = 20 Thickness(inch) = 16 Volume(ft) = 347 Volume(yd3) = 13 $1,200 $15,407 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area(ft) = 7 Length(ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume(ft) = 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 $100,000 141 Alternative 1 - Construction Option 2 Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck Panels Equestrian Bridge C: Deck Width = 13', Deck Span =26' 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(ft) = 260 $35 $9,100 Reinforced Concrete Deck Width(ft) = 13 Span(ft) = 26 Thickness(inch) = 12 Area(ft) = 338 $80 $27,040 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area(ft) = 7 Length(ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume(ft) = 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 $125,000 142 Alternative 1 - Construction Option 2 Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck Panels Equestrian Bridge D: Deck Width = 13', Deck Span = 18' 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(ft) = 180 $35 $6,300 Reinforced Concrete Deck Width(ft) = 13 Span(ft) = 18 Thickness(inch) = 12 Area(ft) = 234 $80 $18,720 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area(ft) = 7 Length(ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume(ft) = 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 $100,000 143 Alternative 1 - Construction Option 2 Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck Panels Pedestrian Bridge E: Deck Width = 11', 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 Concrete Wearing Slab Width(ft) = 8 Length(ft) = 20 Area(ft) = 160 $35 $5,600 Reinforced Concrete Deck Width(ft) = 11 Span(ft) = 20 Thickness(inch) = 12 Area(ft) = 220 $80 $17,600 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area(ft) = 7 Length(ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume(ft) = 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 $100,000 144 Alternative 1 - Construction Option 2 Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck Panels Vehicular Bridge F: Deck Width = 31', Deck Span = 20' 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(ft) = 520 $35 $18,200 Reinforced Concrete Deck Width(ft) = 31 Span(ft) = 20 Thickness(inch) = 12 Area(ft) = 620 $80 $49,600 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area(ft) = 7 Length(ft) = 35 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume(ft) = 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 $205,000 145 Alternative 1 - Construction Option 2 Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck Panels Equestrian Bridge G: Deck Width = 13', 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 Concrete Wearing Slab Width(ft) = 10 Length(ft) = 20 Area(ft) = 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(ft) = 7 Length(ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume(ft) = 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 $105,000 146 Alternative 2 - Construction Option 1 Cast-In-Place Reinforced Concrete Deck Equestrian Bridge C: Deck Width = 13', Deck Span =26' 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(ft) = 260 $35 $9,100 Reinforced Concrete Deck Width(ft) = 13 Span(ft) = 26 Thickness(inch) = 16 Volume(ft) = 451 Volume(yd3) = 17 $1,200 $20,030 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area(ft) = 7 Length(ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume(ft) = 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 $115,000 147 Alternative 2 - Construction Option 1 Cast-In-Place Reinforced Concrete Deck Equestrian Bridge D: Deck Width = 13', Deck Span = 18' 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(ft) = 180 $35 $6,300 Reinforced Concrete Deck Width(ft) = 13 Span(ft) = 18 Thickness(inch) = 16 Volume(ft) = 312 Volume(yd3) = 12 $1,200 $13,867 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area(ft) = 7 Length(ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume(ft) = 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 $95,000 148 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 Concrete Sidewalk/Barrrier Protection Slab Width(ft) = 11 Length(ft) = 20 Area(ft) = 220 $35 $7,700 Concrete Wearing Slab Width(ft) = 26 Length(ft) = 20 Area(ft) = 520 $35 $18,200 Reinforced Concrete Deck Width(ft) = 38 Span(ft) = 20 Thickness(inch) = 16 Volume(ft) = 1013 Volume(yd3) = 38 $1,200 $45,037 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area(ft) = 7 Length(ft) = 46 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume(ft) = 644 Volume(yd3) = 24 $1,200 $28,622 Reinforced Concrete Piles Pile Diameter(inch) = 18 Pile Length(ft) = 11.5 Number of Piles = 10 Total Pile Length = 115 $900 $103,500 Total= $229,059 Use $230,000 149 Alternative 2 - Construction Option 1 Cast-In-Place Reinforced Concrete Deck Equestrian Bridge G: Deck Width = 13', 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 Concrete Wearing Slab Width(ft) = 10 Length(ft) = 20 Area(ft) = 200 $35 $7,000 Reinforced Concrete Deck Width(ft) = 13 Span(ft) = 20 Thickness(inch) = 16 Volume(ft) = 347 Volume(yd3) = 13 $1,200 $15,407 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area(ft) = 7 Length(ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume(ft) = 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 $100,000 150 Alternative 2 - Construction Option 2 Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck Panels Equestrian Bridge C: Deck Width = 13', Deck Span =26' 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(ft) = 260 $35 $9,100 Reinforced Concrete Deck Width(ft) = 13 Span(ft) = 26 Thickness(inch) = 12 Area(ft) = 338 $80 $27,040 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area(ft) = 7 Length(ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume(ft) = 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 $125,000 151 Alternative 2 - Construction Option 2 Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck Panels Equestrian Bridge D: Deck Width = 13', Deck Span = 18' 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(ft) = 180 $35 $6,300 Reinforced Concrete Deck Width(ft) = 13 Span(ft) = 18 Thickness(inch) = 12 Area(ft) = 234 $80 $18,720 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area(ft) = 7 Length(ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume(ft) = 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 $100,000 152 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 Concrete Sidewalk/Barrrier Protection Slab Width(ft) = 11 Length(ft) = 20 Area(ft) = 220 $35 $7,700 Concrete Wearing Slab Width(ft) = 26 Length(ft) = 20 Area(ft) = 520 $35 $18,200 Reinforced Concrete Deck Width(ft) = 38 Span(ft) = 20 Thickness(inch) = 16 Area(ft) = 760 $80 $60,800 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area(ft) = 7 Length(ft) = 46 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume(ft) = 644 Volume(yd3) = 24 $1,200 $28,622 Reinforced Concrete Piles Pile Diameter(inch) = 18 Pile Length(ft) = 11.5 Number of Piles = 10 Total Pile Length = 115 $900 $103,500 Total= $244,822 USE $245,000 153 Alternative 2 - Construction Option 2 Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck Panels Equestrian Bridge G: Deck Width = 13', 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 Concrete Wearing Slab Width(ft) = 10 Length(ft) = 20 Area(ft) = 200 $35 $7,000 Reinforced Concrete Deck Width(ft) = 13 Span(ft) = 20 Thickness(inch) = 16 Area(ft) = 260 $80 $20,800 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area(ft) = 7 Length(ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume(ft) = 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 $105,000 154 Alternative 3 - Construction Option 1 Cast-In-Place Reinforced Concrete Deck Equestrian Bridge C: Deck Width = 13', Deck Span =26' 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(ft) = 260 $35 $9,100 Reinforced Concrete Deck Width(ft) = 13 Span(ft) = 26 Thickness(inch) = 16 Volume(ft) = 451 Volume(yd3) = 17 $1,200 $20,030 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area(ft) = 7 Length(ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume(ft) = 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 $115,000 155 Alternative 3 - Construction Option 1 Cast-In-Place Reinforced Concrete Deck Equestrian Bridge D: Deck Width = 13', Deck Span = 18' 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(ft) = 180 $35 $6,300 Reinforced Concrete Deck Width(ft) = 13 Span(ft) = 18 Thickness(inch) = 16 Volume(ft) = 312 Volume(yd3) = 12 $1,200 $13,867 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area(ft) = 7 Length(ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume(ft) = 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 $95,000 156 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 Concrete Sidewalk/Barrrier Protection Slab Width(ft) = 11 Length(ft) = 20 Area(ft) = 220 $35 $7,700 Concrete Wearing Slab Width(ft) = 36 Length(ft) = 20 Area(ft) = 720 $35 $25,200 Reinforced Concrete Deck Width(ft) = 50 Span(ft) = 20 Thickness(inch) = 16 Volume(ft) = 1333 Volume(yd3) = 49 $1,200 $59,259 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area(ft) = 7 Length(ft) = 58 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume(ft) = 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 $295,000 157 Alternative 3 - Construction Option 2 Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck Panels Equestrian Bridge C: Deck Width = 13', Deck Span =26' 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(ft) = 260 $35 $9,100 Reinforced Concrete Deck Width(ft) = 13 Span(ft) = 26 Thickness(inch) = 12 Area(ft) = 338 $80 $27,040 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area(ft) = 7 Length(ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume(ft) = 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 $125,000 158 Alternative 3 - Construction Option 2 Precast Prestressed Concrete Deck Panels Equestrian Bridge D: Deck Width = 13', Deck Span = 18' 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(ft) = 180 $35 $6,300 Reinforced Concrete Deck Width(ft) = 13 Span(ft) = 18 Thickness(inch) = 12 Area(ft) = 234 $80 $18,720 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area(ft) = 7 Length(ft) = 14 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume(ft) = 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 $100,000 159 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 Concrete Sidewalk/Barrrier Protection Slab Width(ft) = 11 Length(ft) = 20 Area(ft) = 220 $35 $7,700 Concrete Wearing Slab Width(ft) = 36 Length(ft) = 20 Area(ft) = 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(ft) = 7 Length(ft) = 58 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume(ft) = 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 $315,000 160 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 Concrete Sidewalk/Barrrier Protection Slab Width(ft) = 3 Length(ft) = 20 Area(ft) = 60 $35 $2,100 Concrete Wearing Slab Width(ft) = 26 Length(ft) = 20 Area(ft) = 520 $35 $18,200 Reinforced Concrete Deck Width(ft) = 42.5 Span(ft) = 20 Thickness(inch) = 16 Volume(ft) = 1133 Volume(yd3) = 42 $1,200 $50,370 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area(ft) = 7 Length(ft) = 42.5 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume(ft) = 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 $240,000 161 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 Concrete Sidewalk/Barrrier Protection Slab Width(ft) = 3 Length(ft) = 20 Area(ft) = 60 $35 $2,100 Concrete Wearing Slab Width(ft) = 36 Length(ft) = 20 Area(ft) = 720 $35 $25,200 Reinforced Concrete Deck Width(ft) = 42.5 Span(ft) = 20 Thickness(inch) = 16 Area(ft) = 850 $80 $68,000 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap Cross Sectional Area(ft) = 7 Length(ft) = 50 Number of Pile Caps = 2 Volume(ft) = 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 $270,000 162 HJERITAGE COMMUNITY PARK BRJDGE INSPECTION REPORT i F a � I j ti y _ 6 BRIDGE G BRIDGE D . 1 x 1 ....BRIDGE C PREPARED BY: Aufbau Corp. p RANCHO JAN UARY 2020 C;UCAMONGA 163 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. PROFESS/0�V q 0 No. 38893 rz*, w r77 M' Exp. 03-31-21 � s� c w\- �P 9TF OF C P 0 I11a4 eI I/ 01-29-2020 Vartan Vartanians Date: Registered Civil Engineer Aufbau Corporation 164 ; . 6L_ 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. 1 165 kk',',UFl3AU 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 %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 %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 2 166 ; . 6�__ 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 Y8 x 16 % 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 % 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%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. 3 167 kk',',UF13AU 6;�__ 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 %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 % 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. 4 168 kk',',UF13AU 6;�__ 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 5 169 ; . 6;�__ 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 F = 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. 6 170 ; . 6�__ 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 s'rtdrr , 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 7 171 ; . 6�__ 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 in' x .6 x 40,000 pounds/in') — 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. 8 172 ; . 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 9 173 ; . 6;�__ 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. 10 174 ILI ; . 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. 11 175 q - A 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. 12 176 AufbauCorp, Consulting Engineers • Civil & Structural Engineering Construction Management • Project Management • Plan Review Services January 14, 2020 City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Services Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Attention: Mr. Gianfranco Laurie Subject: Heritage Community Park— Bridge Construction Cost Estimates Dear Mr. Laurie; This letter is to augment the Heritage Community Park Bridge Evaluation Report, prepared by Aufbau, dated September 2019 - to introduce rough order of magnitude construction costs for the bridges identified in said report under alternative construction methods/options. Reference is made to the tabulation below. Option 1 and Option 2 were discussed in the above- mentioned report. The tabulation provides rough order of magnitude construction costs for Options 3, 4, and 5, as alternative construction methods. The construction costs associated with the removal and disposal of existing bridge structures, new bridge abutments - independent of the sidewalls of the channels, and the improvements of the approach pathways to the bridges are included in the tabulated costs. Estimated Construction Cost of Bridge -Year 2021 Construction Start Date Includes New Bridge Abutments and Approach Pathway Modifications Bridge Bridge Type Cast-In-Place Precast Concrete Wood Planks Prefabricated 10 Concrete Prestressed Deck Supported Steel Truss Deck Concrete Supported on Glued- Bridges - {Option 1) Deck on Wide Laminated Galvanized (Option 2) Flange Steel Beams Steel Beams (Option 4) (Option 5) (Option 3) C Equestrian/Pedestrian $284,000 $277,000 $250,000 $252,000 $225,000 D Equestrian/Pedestrian $235,000 $229,000 $210,000 $205,000 $192,000 E Pedestrian $309,000 $304,000 $286,000 $280,000 $258,000 F vehicular $532,000 $520,000 $465,000 $440,000 $510,000 G Equestrian/Pedestrian $328,000 $322,000 $302,000 $295,000 $268,000 Bridges Constructed Under Five Separate Construction Contracts $1,688,000 $1,652,000 $1,523,000 $1,471,999 $1,453,000 All Bridges Constructed Under One Construction Contract $1,270,000 $1,220,000 $1,116,000 $1,080,000 $1,070,000 639 West Broadway, Glendale, CA 91204 Tel: (818) 240-3655 Fax: (818) 240-7991 177 www.aufbau.com The rough order of magnitude costs for the replacement of the existing bridges with in-kind construction materials, each constructed under a separate contract — assuming that the existing bridge abutments are permitted by San Bernardino County Flood Control District/ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to be kept in place and be utilized are as follows: Bridge C: $170,000 Bridge D: $140,000 Bridge E: $180,000 Bridge F: $310,000 Bridge G: $190,000 Please note that the construction cost estimates identified in this letter do not include fees for geotechnical studies, environmental studies, engineering design, construction management and inspection, engineering support during construction, materials testing, construction survey, and permits. The fee for the above services can be assumed to range between 35% and 45% of the construction costs. The construction costs noted above are estimated for January 2021 construction start date —an annual construction cost increase of 6%can be anticipated for construction start dates thereafter. We recommend construction of the above bridges under either Option 1 or under Option 2 construction methods. Although the initial construction costs of said bridges under these options are somewhat higher than the other opinions considered, the reduced maintenance costs of the bridges constructed under Option 1 and Option 2, during the service life of the bridges, is anticipated to justify the additional initial construction costs. Please let me know, should you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Vartan Vartanians, P.E. Aufbau Corporation 178 FIRE Emergency Vehicle APPARATUS MANUFACTURERS' Size and Weight Guide ASSOCIATION :.'. ..................................................................................,.....--—.....I..�.--.—...�..,..,. Appendix A - Typical Fire Apparatus Configurations COMMERCIAL CHASSIS PUMPER — SINGLE REAR AXLE Minimum Maximum Front GAWR (Ibs) 12000 18000 Rear GAWR (Ibs) 21000 31000 Width (in.) 98 100 Height (in.) 9 12 Length (ft.) 24 35 CUSTOM CHASSIS PUMPER — SINGLE REAR AXLE O 8 ® 8 Minimum Maximum Front GAWR (Ibs) 18000 24000 Rear GAWR (Ibs) 24000 31000 Width (in.) 98 100 Height (in.) 9 12 Length (ft.) 30 34 Page 12 of 20 ©Fire Apparatus Manufacturers'Association TC009-1 -Emergency Vehicle Size and Weight Guide 171130 179 FIRE Emergency Vehicle APPARATUS MANUFACTURERS' Size and Weight Guide ASSOCIATION ........................................................................................ .,..,........�..�.,,......�..,..,. COMMERCIAL CHASSIS TANKER —TANDEM REAR AXLE ir O � a 0 B Minimum Maximum Front GAWR (Ibs) 12000 18000 Rear GAWR (Ibs) 34000 56000 Width (in.) 98 100 Height (in.) 10 12 Length (ft.) 30 40 CUSTOM CHASSIS TANKER —TANDEM REAR AXLE i 80 0 �® Minimum Maximum Front GAWR (Ibs) 18740 22800 Rear GAWR (Ibs) 40000 56000 Width (in.) 98 100 Height (in.) 10 12 Length (ft.) 34 40 Page 13 of 20 ©Fire Apparatus Manufacturers'Association TC009-1 -Emergency Vehicle Size and Weight Guide 171130 180 FIRE Emergency Vehicle APPARATUS MANUFACTURERS' Size and Weight Guide ASSOCIATION ........................................................................................ .,..,........�..�.,,......�..,..,. INDUSTRIAL FOAM PUMPER — SINGLE REAR AXLE 1 Minimum Maximum Front GAWR (Ibs) 20000 24000 Rear GAWR (Ibs) 24000 31000 Width (in.) 98 100 Height (in.) 10 12 Length (ft.) 30 36 INDUSTRIAL FOAM PUMPER —TANDEM REAR AXLE —SA. Minimum Maximum Front GAWR (Ibs) 20000 24000 Rear GAWR (Ibs) 40000 46000 Width (in.) 98 100 Height (in.) 10 12 Length (ft.) 36 40 Page 14 of 20 ©Fire Apparatus Manufacturers'Association TC009-1 -Emergency Vehicle Size and Weight Guide 171130 181 FIRE Emergency Vehicle APPARATUS MANUFACTURERS' Size and Weight Guide ASSOCIATION ........................................................................................ .,..,........�..�.,,......�..,..,. AERIAL LADDER — SINGLE REAR AXLE Qb i ' o T 0 Minimum Maximum Front GAWR (Ibs) 20000 22800 Rear GAWR (Ibs) 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 (Ibs) 20000 22800 Rear GAWR (Ibs) 34000 54000 Width (in.) 98 100 Height (in.) 10.5 12.5 Length (ft.) 39 43 Page 15 of 20 ©Fire Apparatus Manufacturers'Association TC009-1 -Emergency Vehicle Size and Weight Guide 171130 182 FIRE Emergency Vehicle APPARATUS MANUFACTURERS' Size and Weight Guide ASSOCIATION :.'. ......................................................................... .........,..... .,..,.....r..�..�.,,......�..,..,. AERIAL PLATFORM MID MOUNT —TANDEM REAR AXLE a a C3 Minimum Maximum Front GAWR (Ibs) 21500 24000 Rear GAWR (Ibs) 40000 62000 Width (in.) 98 100 Height (in.) 9.5 11 .5 Length (ft.) 46 51 AERIAL PLATFORM REAR MOUNT —TANDEM REAR AXLE O Minimum Maximum Front GAWR (Ibs) 21500 24000 Rear GAWR (Ibs) 46000 62000 Width (in.) 98 100 Height (in.) 11 .5 13 Length (ft.) 46 48 Page 16 of 20 ©Fire Apparatus Manufacturers'Association TC009-1 -Emergency Vehicle Size and Weight Guide 171130 183 FIRE Emergency Vehicle APPARATUS MANUFACTURERS' Size and Weight Guide ASSOCIATION :.. .......... ........' ..................... ....................... ....................,.....——........ .......�..,..,. AERIAL LADDER —TILLER SINGLE REAR TRACTOR AXLE a o a 1:3 �' LA Minimum Maximum Front GAWR (Ibs) 21500 24000 Rear GAWR (Ibs) 27000 31000 Tiller GAWR (Ibs) 21500 24000 Width (in.) 98 100 Height (in.) 10.5 11 .5 Length (ft.) 56 63 AERIAL LADDER —TILLER TRACTOR TANDEM REAR AXLE o - o 0 + Lj M Minimum Maximum Front GAWR (Ibs) 21500 24000 Rear GAWR (Ibs) 34000 44000 Tiller GAWR (Ibs) 21500 24000 Width (in.) 98 100 Height (in.) 10.5 11 .5 Length (ft.) 56 63 Page 17 of 20 ©Fire Apparatus Manufacturers'Association TC009-1 -Emergency Vehicle Size and Weight Guide 171130 184 FIRE Emergency Vehicle APPARATUS MANUFACTURERS' Size and Weight Guide ASSOCIATION :'.. .................................................................,................,.......,..,.....—. ..�.,1......——1. Appendix B - State Fire Apparatus Size and Weight Regulations WEIGHT General Exemption Specific Emergency Special Permits Allowed No Data Vehicle Regulations 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 18 of 20 ©Fire Apparatus Manufacturers'Association TC009-1 -Emergency Vehicle Size and Weight Guide 171130 185 FIRE Emergency Vehicle APPARATUS MANUFACTURERS' Size and Weight Guide ASSOCIATION :.'. .................................................................,................,..... .,..,........�..�.,,......�..,..,. 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 19 of 20 ©Fire Apparatus Manufacturers'Association TC009-1 -Emergency Vehicle Size and Weight Guide 171130 186 FIRE Emergency Vehicle APPARATUS MANUFACTURERS' Size and Weight Guide ASSOCIATION :.'. .................................................................,....... .........,..... .,..,.....r..�..�.,,......�..,..,. HEIGHT Exempt Less Than 162 in. 162 in. 168 in. No Data (13.5 ft) (13.5 ft) (14 ft) 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 Page 20 of 20 ©Fire Apparatus Manufacturers'Association TC009-1 -Emergency Vehicle Size and Weight Guide 171130 187 APPENDIX A � ff tiv L �. 1 2v v i j P Bridge C-Figure 1 —Looking upstream - Underside of bridge deck 1 E � j (! E�I Bridge C-Figure 2- Girder 1-A termite pocket near the wood surface is detected by sounding with a hammer. 189 \��\1 � �\�d\� ? \ •�����\���\ : \ /\■ ' � � � < y� � ? Bridge C-Figure 3 Underside of bridge deck and co m6 at north &GII ©- a�� Bridge C-Figure 4-Underside of bridge de c and co m6 G£south moll 190 - - z R _ Bridge C-Figure S-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 193 = -- Poo— Bridge C-Figure 7-Frass from deck planks above Beam 5 As /r i` r7 i�4 A'/ i Bridge C-Figure 8-Observation of fractures at deck planks 192 Bridge D-Figure 1 - Underside of bridge deck—Looking downstream F Bridge D-Figure 2-Corbel at south wall 195 j Bridge D-Figure 3-Girder 1 Bridge D-Figure 4-Girder 1 and overhanging deck planks 195 N 1� �a Bridge D-Figure 5-Girder 2 and overhanging deck planks -ems T R [h Bridge D-Figure 6-Corbel at north wall 195 f r S IJ i q Bridge D-Figure 7-Deck planks between Beam 1 and 2 Bridge D-Figure 8- Visible cracks on Girder 1 196 . �ry fy Bridge D-Figure 9—Frass above corbel at south abutment 199 AW rtFwi Bridge E-Figure 1 -Looking upstream - Underside of bridge deck I t Bridge E-Figure 2-Bridge abutments ��e �r �I �� k 0 f 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 209 r' Bridge F-Figure 5—Underside of bridge- Observation of fractures of deck planks s T r I Bridge F-Figure 6—Corbel at north wall 203 , a "1 — - -- Bridge G-Figure 1- Underside of bridge deck T Y Bridge G-Figure 2-Bridge abutments 204 APPENDIX B � 76" q APPROX. SEE DETAIL 2 THIS SHEET SEE DETAIL 1 THIS SHEET F--►B AND DETAILS A,B,AND C ON SHEET 6 FOR ADDITIONAL FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION INFORMATION --, �--------------- T-- r-- —, REINFORCED CONCRETE WALL AND CORBEL- --1 I r-- -----1 I I CONSTRUCTED AS PART OF BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION -- A --------------a I ❑5 I I vLj❑5 Imo® ❑3 I I I IL3 ICI 1❑ I I C--------------7 I I I I I 3Y2"x9" SAWN TIMBER PLANKS I I II I� L----J I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I 68 I L1-- --j y I TENON (TYP) j APPROX. I j I I I I I I I I I I I A 1 ------®------a 18'-0" i AC PAVEMENT --� r--------------1 -- I Y2" PLYWOOD SHEATING I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ❑3 I I I ------------ ry I I FLOW ` I I I U I ❑2 I � —a I I 1 ------------- r--� I I Ld I I I I I I I I I I I I t Lo o f I I I I I I I I �I L — I I r 1 I L--L o o l I I I I I I I I I L ,�----- --------- 1❑ -------------------------------------------------------J 83/a"xl 5" I GLUED—LAMINATED --------------i SECTION B-B GIRDER ---4 1 -------------- 1 NOT TO SCALE --J—�--------------J—�-- I ix CORBEL — CONSTRUCTED AS PART OF I O B O BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION PLAN 3Y2"x9" SAWN TIMBER PLANKS i SEE DETAILS ON SHEET 6 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NOT TO SCALE I I I I I TENON (TYP) SIDEWALL OF CHANNEL BRIDGE WIDTH = 10' APPROX. I AC PAVEMENT Y2" PLYWOOD SHEATING CLEAR WIDTH = 8' APPROX, Lim DETAIL 2 ���. NOT TO SCALE 83/4 X 1 5„ GLUED—LAMINATED GLUED-LAMINATED GIRDER ID O O GIRDER FLOOR BEAM ID 16" �76„ (TYP) APPROX. SECTION A-A DETAIL 1 NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE BRIDGE C-DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL APPENDIX "B" - SHEET 1 OF 6 SEE DETAIL 2 THIS SHEET AND DETAILS A,B,ANDC ON SHEET 6 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SEE DETAIL 1 THIS SHEET 76„ FOR ADDITIONAL REINFORCED CONCRETE WALL AND CORBEL- APPROX. INFORMATION CONSTRUCTED AS PART OF BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION �B r,---- -- -� T I x x x x IXI j X x x j Imo❑ i 3Y2"x9" SAWN TIMBER PLANKS --J L-------------L L-- I I II ❑3 ❑2 r� I I 1I� I ---- f------ �T I �-r ----- L-----J ~ 3 -� xy I TENON (TYP) 70" i Li_� _J i AC PAVEMENT I I I APPROX. I z I I I I I I j I i I Yz'� PLYWOOD SHEATING A A __J ______❑2______ L__ I I II �- C-------------� I w I 10'-0"I I � �Li I � I I I I I I FLOW I I I L I 1❑ I I I I I ---------------- I I I II I --_l F- - I I 1 II �, II I I I o °O BOFL-------------------------JIy o I ---------� Li-- ----- -__-- --------- �---- 63/4"x15" GLUED-LAMINATED PLAN SECTION B-B GIRDER NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE xx CORBEL - I xx x� CONSTRUCTED AS PART OF BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION I r____----7J SEE DETAILS ON SHEET 6 3Y2"x9" SAWN TIMBER PLANKS i FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION I I I I I I BRIDGE WIDTH = 10' APPROX. TENON (TYP) j I I I SIDEWALL OF CHANNEL AC PAVEMENT CLEAR WIDTH = 8' APPROX. Y2" PLYWOOD SHEATING DETAIL 2 NOT TO SCALE 10 22 63/4"x15" 16 76 GLUED-LAMINATED GLUED-LAMINATED GIRDER ID (TYP) APPROX. GIRDER [� FLOOR BEAM ID SECTION A-A NOT TO SCALE ——————— -------- DETAIL 1 NOT TO SCALE BRIDGE D - RANCHO WASH CHANNEL APPENDIX"B" - SHEET 2 OF 6 96" APPROX. SEE DETAIL 1 THIS SHEET 91" FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION , APPROX. TT 7-1 T e 4 I -----i -----i I i----- x® I I �3 ❑2 x 1❑ I I rt-----� F-----I r-----t -----I--_------r---------------------------------- 2"x7%" SAWN TIMBER PLANKS I I F S I L T I_7 I__—_—� I I I I I I I I I I I I 12'-0" I <—=- I" �_x__ ��-x_ �I�— ----JJ�- X _ I _____ II __❑3__ II _____ I I I I, I I, 2 7 A I APPROX.I I I A O I I I I I I j (TYP). I I I I z I I I I w I I I I I U Ld I z I I NryI I I I OI OI I FLOW Ld ILLI L'J ———————————— —————————————————— I I I ❑2 I I I w I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5Y8"x16y2" I GLUED—LAMINATED I I I I I I I I I I I I I r J L J L GIRDER I I I I I I � I I I I I I I I I I I I +----- J L—————J L-----+ ----------------------------J I I I I I I �----------- I I I I I SECTION B-B i i SIDEWALL ----- -----� F-----1 I B I NOT TO SCALE OF CHANNEL I I I I I I I all_____L1_____1J_____-L JeLlI I I 0 I I I PLAN NOT TO SCALE BRIDGE WIDTH = 8.5' APPROX. DETAIL 1 NOT TO SCALE CLEAR WIDTH = 8' APPROX. GLUED-LAMINATED GIRDER ID INA 0 GLUED-LAMINATED STRINGER ID O O Ej GLUED-LAMINATED FLOOR BEAM ID 8' APPROX. SECTION A-A BRIDGE E-DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL NOT TO SCALE APPENDIX "B" - SHEET 3 OF 6 35" 35" 35" 35" 35" 35" 35" 35" (� SEE DETAIL 2 THIS SHEET SEE DETAIL 1 THIS SHEET REINFORCED CONCRETE APPROX. APPROX. APPROX. APPROX. APPROX. APPROX. APPROX. APPROX. AND DETAILS A, B,AND C ON SHEET 6 FOR ADDITIONAL WALL AND CORBEL— B FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION INFORMATION CONSTRUCTED AS PART OF BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION 7 T-----r r----- ------� -1-----7 T-----r r----- -----� ,-----� F -------� i------- --1 I I I I I I 1 r-- -,t-,_ 515,� 3%"x9" SAWN TIMBER PLANKS --4 ------4 —————4 -----4 l------l l------4 -----4 -----4 l------4 1- 1xi11 xi 1 1 I 12 1 TENON (TYP) I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 11 I I 1 1 1 1 11 I I I I �--------+--------�------ 1❑ 1 ® �7 1 Q 1 1 11 1 1 13 1 1 15 1 1 1❑ 1 � � L--------J T ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----� I i 1 I Y2" PLYWOOD SHEATING 30° I 1 1 1 1 1 L*_y ____J 'IA I I I AC PAVEMENT j I APPR0X.I I FLOW I I I 1 I I (TYP). 30" I 1--am— 1 1 12'-0" I I I I APPROX. I I I l l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I A I I I �5 (TYP). I I I 16 I I I A 1 I �2 1 ---- ----� 1 1❑ --4 l------4 I I I I I I I I l------4 I I r — -- — — — I 1 1 1 w I I I __- = =—_ — I �3 I © I 10 I 1 12 1 1 14 1 1 17 1 1 20 I � I I I I ----1 r----� r----� r----� r-- 1 1 1 1 1 1 w I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 I I 1 w 1 1 I I 11 1 1 1 1 I I �� 11--� r-----� r----� r---- 1 r-————— r----� r----- r----- r-----� r-- I I I I I 1 I F------ o o � --1—J -----L—L-----L------J— -----1-1-----L—L-----L------J—J-----1-1 I I I I I l o o l J L------- -----------------J z B© 0 1 4"x15" L———————————————— ----------------J I I GLUED—LAMINATED PLAN 1 GIRDER NOT TO SCALE SECTION B-B / I NOT TO SCALE CORBEL — CONSTRUCTED AS PART BRIDGE WIDTH = 27' APPROX. I OF BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION 1 SEE DETAILS ON SHEET 6 I 1 3%"x9" SAWN TIMBER PLANKS 1 1 FOR ADDITIONAL 1 INFORMATION I 1 CLEAR WIDTH = 25' APPROX. ;IF N I TENON (TYP) SIDEWALL AC PAVEMENT OF CHANNEL Y2" PLYWOOD SHEATING DETAIL 2 NOT TO SCALE 14" 35" 35" 35" 35" 35" 35" 35" 35" GLUED-LAMINATED GIRDER ID (TYP) APPROX. CL APPROX. CL APPROX. CL APPROX. CL APPROX. CL APPROX. CL APPROX. CL APPROX. CL 83/4"x15" Ej FLOOR BEAM ID GLUED—LAMINATED SECTION A-A GIRDER NOT TO SCALE ------------------------------------- BRIDGE F- DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL DETAIL 1 NOT TO SCALE APPENDIX "B" - SHEET 4 OF 6 120" APPROX. SEE DETAIL 1 THIS SHEET FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 115" APPROX. I I I ❑ I I I I �B I 7C,< =�7C-]C-����t� �=7C x�_�-]C-�� ��C_x�=7C x 7C x�_ ]C_ 1 x 4 I I x3 2 x x > > r---- ---- ---- ----y ❑ I I ❑ ❑ ❑ 2"x7/' SAWN TIMBER PLANKS I I I I I -------- r I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 L 1_ 1-----J II ;� 11 11 11 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I 12 —0 j I I I____ I__❑3 I I I I I I I I I I I ___ I I____— 1 I_____ z 34 I I O A 1AP RP OX 1 1 1 A z j (TYP). I I u 1 I I I I I I I I zLd I N I II II � --------------------- ------------------ I 1 2 I 1 Oil I FLOW L� I II II w I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I j I I I II II r I ____ I I ❑2 I I ____ I I ____ I � II II � I I 5yg"x18" ----� F---- ----� F---_�IX GLUED—LAMINATED I I j I I I I I I j I I I 1 i II GIRDER 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I I I I 1 11 1 — ♦-----J L----_1 L----J L----� I 1 I I I I I I 1 I ----- 1 I-----i ----I ----j i i SIDEWALL I___1❑__ I I I I 1 SECTION B-B OF CHANNEL - NOT TO SCALE B I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I PLAN NOT TO SCALE DETAIL 1 NOT TO SCALE BRIDGE WIDTH = 10.5' APPROX. CLEAR WIDTH = 10' APPROX. GLUED-LAMINATED GIRDER ID 0 GLUED-LAMINATED STRINGER ID O O O ❑ GLUED-LAMINATED FLOOR BEAM ID 10' APPROX. CL BRIDGE G- DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL SECTION A-A NOT TO SCALE APPENDIX "B" - SHEET 5 OF 6 AC PAVEMENT r REINFORCED CONCRETE WALL AND CORBEL- AC PAVEMENT "-;, -�' , CONSTRUCTED AS PART OF ,1 I -\\777-_-\\77- BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION II I , a j r ° i GLUED-LAMINATED j I GIRDER ROUGHENED SURFACE j ji i j GLUED-LAMINATED ----------- I I r-------� ROUGHENED SURFACE ------ GIRDER I I--------------------------------- # ----:,I 4 - TOTAL 2 I I O 0 1 #4 _\ @ 6" #4 - TOTAL 2 I ,•------a j WITHIN TWO FEET OF THE STRINGER I I 4 - TOTAL 4 PLACED IN 1" DRILLED HOLE #4 �' @ 6" Y' # REINFORCED CONCRETE CORBEL- WITHIN TWO FEET OF THE STRINGER I I I FILLED WITH EPDXY , CONSTRUCTED AS PART OF I '�t PLACED IN 1" DRILLED HOLE I I I I � i I BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION ; I #4 @ 12" FILLED WITH EPDXY ;(� ; . �� ROUGHENED SURFACE PLACED IN 1" DRILLED HOLE ,1 _ L FILLED WITH EPDXY #4 @ 12" I J PLACED IN 1" DRILLED HOLE I ; /% SWACUT LINE #4 - TOTAL 4 I ; \�; j #4 @ 1'-6" FILLED WITH EPDXY I ; #4 @ 2'-0" I � I #4 @ 12 I ; #4 @ 1'-6" - I #4 @ 12„ #4 @ 2'-0" SIDEWALL , I 1 #4 @ 2'-0" i SIDEWALL OF CHANNEL I # WITHIN TOP 2 FEET 4 @ 2'-0" L_______J OF CHANNEL WITHIN TOP 2 FEET OF THE SIDEWALL DETAIL A of THE SIDEWALL jl NOT TO SCALE � AC PAVEMENT DETAIL B REINFORCED CONCRETE WALL AND CORBEL- NOT TO SCALE CONSTRUCTED AS PART OF _ m BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION L ��� II II II II _ II NOTES: Ii 0 0 GLUED-LAMINATED ROUGHENED SURFACE i 0 0 GIRDER DETAIL A- PER ORIGINAL BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS I L_ L / 7/ DETAIL B - POSSIBLE CONSTRUCTION METHOD DETAIL C - POSSIBLE CONSTRUCTION METHOD I REMOVED PORTION OF +H f THE SIDEWALL OF - f- -- - 1-- ------ ' i CHANNEL = / 1 1 7�-- F- -- i1 . i j1 X SWACUT LINE - I I i I _-_ ir ROUGHENED SURFACE I SIDEWALL OF - CHANNEL DETAILS DETAIL C NOT TO SCALE APPENDIX "B" - SHEET 6 OF 6 APPENDIX C 76" � APPROX. LEGEND - CONDITION OF PLANKS - SEE PLAN PORTIONS OF THE WOOD PLANKS THAT ARE SEVERELY DECAYED T AND DETERIORATED --------------� -- I I I ❑5 I I I I PORTIONS OF THE WOOD PLANKS THAT EXHIBIT MODERATE AMOUNT OF I DECAY AND DETERIORATION II I I I I I I I 68" I I � ❑ PORTIONS OF THE WOOD PLANKS THAT EXHIBIT MODERATE AMOUNT OF APPROX. I j = SPLITTING LENGTHWISE I I I I ® I O A --------------� r-- A r--------------y w LEGEND - CONDITION OF GIRDERS - SEE SECTION A-A I O I z I . GIRDERS THAT ARE HEAVILY DETERIORATED- I HAVE COMPROMISED STRENGTH I w I I I ❑3 I I r--------------y GIRDERS THAT ARE MODERATELY DETERIORATED- FLOW HAVE COMPROMISED STRENGTH I I I I I I I I I I I ❑2 I I I --------------� r GLUED-LAMINATED GIRDER ID r--------------y -- I I FLOOR BEAM ID I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10 TERMITE DAMAGE. BOLT HOLES IN MOMENT-MODERATE DONE/TENSION GONE RESULT IN LOAD CAPACITY REDUCTION. -------------- a GIRDER EXHIBITS MODERATE HORIDONTAL FRACTURE DUE TO POSSIBLE OVERSTRESS IN BENDING. Ell - r--------------7 r-- O2 BOLT HOLES IN MOMENT-MODERATE DONE/TENSION DONE RESULT IN LOAD CAPACITY REDUCTION. -- I -- GIRDER EXHIBITS MODERATE HORIDONTAL FRACTURE DUE TO POSSIBLE OVERSTRESS IN BENDING. --J- ----------------- PLAN NOT TO SCALE BRIDGE WIDTH = 10' APPROX. CLEAR WIDTH = 8' APPROX. SAWN TIMBER PLANKS AC PAVEMENT O 16" 76" OVERHANG (TYP) APPROX. (TYP) SECTION A-A NOT TO SCALE BRIDGE C-DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL BRIDGE C APPENDIX "C" - SHEET 1 OF 5 LEGEND - CONDITION OF PLANKS - SEE PLAN 76 PORTIONS OF THE WOOD PLANKS THAT ARE SEVERELY DECAYED APPROX. . AND DETERIORATED ❑ PORTIONS OF THE WOOD PLANKS THAT EXHIBIT MODERATE AMOUNT OF T DECAY AND DETERIORATION --J L-------------L L-- I I I I L--------------I I PORTIONS OF THE WOOD PLANKS THAT EXHIBIT MODERATE AMOUNT OF I 0 I I SPLITTING LENGTHWISE 70" l APPROX. I I o A i i A w LEGEND - CONDITION OF GIRDERS - SEE SECTION A-A J I ❑2 L__ I v C-------------� I w GIRDERS THAT ARE HEAVILY DETERIORATED- I I HAVE COMPROMISED STRENGTH I w I I I I I I FLOW � I f� GIRDERS THAT ARE MODERATELY DETERIORATED- I HAVE COMPROMISED STRENGTH 1❑ I r-------------, I I --1 I r- GLUED-LAMINATED GIRDER ID ------------__- FLOOR BEAM ID 0 PLAN 1 2 BOLT HOLES IN MOMENT-MODERATE _iONE/TENSION uONE RESULT IN LOAD CAPACITY REDUCTION. NOT TO SCALE GIRDER EXHIBITS MODERATE HORIEONTAL FRACTURE DUE TO POSSIBLE OVERSTRESS IN BENDING. BRIDGE WIDTH = 10' APPROX. CLEAR WIDTH = 8' APPROX. SAWN TIMBER PLANKS AC PAVEMENT 7— = 2 16" 76 OVERHANG (TYP) APPROX, (TYP) SECTION A-A NOT TO SCALE BRIDGE D BRIDGE D- RANCHO WASH CHANNEL APPENDIX"C" - SHEET 2 OF 5 96" APPROX. LEGEND -CONDITION OF PLANKS - SEE PLAN 91" APPROX. ❑ PORTIONS OF THE WOOD PLANKS THAT ARE SEVERELY DECAYED AND DETERIORATED I I I ® I I ❑ PORTIONS OF THE WOOD PLANKS THAT EXHIBIT MODERATE AMOUNT OF L-----11 F-----1 DECAY AND DETERIORATION r-----7 r-----1 r-----y I I I I I I I I I I I I T 1 r-----i r-----t ❑ PORTIONS OF THE WOOD PLANKS THAT EXHIBIT MODERATE AMOUNT OF I I I I I I +------ r-----1 ------+ SPLITTING LENGTHWISE I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 ❑s 1 I LEGEND - CONDITION OF GIRDERS AND STRINGERS - SEE SECTION A-A 1 I _____ I I _____ I _____ I PORTIONS OF THE GIRDERS AND STRINGERS THAT ARE HEAVILY DETERIORATED- I 27" I I I I o REQUIRES REPLACEMENT OF GIRDERS AND STRINGERS A I AP RP OX I I I A z I I I I I 1 (TYP). I I I I U I I I I I I I I I I z ❑ PORTIONS OF THE GIRDERS AND STRINGERS THAT ARE MODERATELY DETERIORATED Ld N I I I I I Ld I OI 1 OI 1 1 FLOW L I I I I I 1 w Ll I I I I I I I I I I GLUED-LAMINATED GIRDER ID ❑2_ 1 1 I GLUED-LAMINATED STRINGER ID 1 I I I 1 EJ GLUED-LAMINATED FLOOR BEAM ID 1 I I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 1 I I I 1 O DISCOLORATION DUE TO PRESENCE OF MOISTURE. +-----J L-----J L-----+ GIRDER EXHIBITS MODERATE HORIjONTAL FRACTURE DUE TO POSSIBLE OVERSTRESS IN BENDING. I I I I I 1 I I I I -----B r-----1 -----j O2 DISCOLORATION DUE TO PRESENCE OF MOISTURE. I I I I I 41 1 ----- L----- L----- I I I I 1 2 DISCOLORATION DUE TO PRESENCE OF MOISTURE. I I I I I L-----L1-----1_J----_-L 1❑❑� ❑3 �4 DISCOLORATION DUE TO PRESENCE OF MOISTURE. PLAN NOT TO SCALE BRIDGE WIDTH = 8.5' APPROX. CLEAR WIDTH = 8' APPROX. SAWN TIMBER PLANKS 0 0 O O 8' APPROX, SECTION A-A BRIDGE E-DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL NOT TO SCALE BRIDGE E APPENDIX "C" - SHEET 3 OF 5 35" 35" 35" 35" 35" 35" 35" 35" LEGEND - CONDITION OF PLANKS - SEE PLAN APPROX. APPROX. APPROX. APPROX. APPROX. APPROX. APPROX. APPROX. PORTIONS OF THE WOOD PLANKS THAT ARE SEVERELY DECAYED AND DETERIORATED T F_ -I 7 T r r F_-1 � �-- I I I I I I I I I I r-- PORTIONS OF THE WOOD PLANKS THAT EXHIBIT MODERATE AMOUNT OF ------4 --- 4 �------4 -----4 -----4 �------4 -----4 -----4 DECAY AND DETERIORATION I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --1❑--4 -4 --4 -4 �- 11 --4 �- 13--4 �- 15--4 �- 10--4 ❑ PORTIONS OF THE WOOD PLANKS THAT EXHIBIT MODERATE AMOUNT OF r 30-30 r ----� r-----1 r ----� r ----� r ----� r ----� r ----� SPLITTING LENGTHWISE � I " I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I j I APPROX-.I I I I I I I FLOW (TYP). I I I I 3 0" I 1 I I I ��_ I I I I APPROX I I LEGEND - CONDITION OF GIRDERS - SEE SECTION A-A I I I I I I I A 5 I I (TYP). I I 16 I A - �2 1 ----- I 1 1 1 1 1 1 ------4 1 1 u 1 r . GIRDERS THAT ARE HEAVILY DETERIORATED- -----4 ----1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 r-----1 4 k r-----1 I I I r ----1 = HAVE COMPROMISED STRENGTH I I I O I I I I I I I I GIRDERS THAT ARE MODERATELY DETERIORATED I �3 LEII ❑L I 10 I 12 14 17 I I 20 u 11 I I I I I I I I w I I I 0 GLUED-LAMINATED GIRDER ID I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I r---- 1 r---- 1 r---- 1 r---- 1 r---- 1 r 1 FLOOR BEAM ID I I I I I I I I I I I I I -- --1-1-----L-L-----L-1------ -1------ -1-----L-L-----L-1-----J-J-----1-1-- O O 0 ® O © O 0 0 10 DISCOLORATION DUE TO PRESENCE OF MOISTURE-POSSIBLE SURFACE FUNGI. BOLT HOLES IN MOMENT-CRITICAL GONE/TENSION DONE RESULT IN LOAD CAPACITY REDUCTION. GIRDER EXHIBITS SIGNIFICANT HORI-IONTAL FRACTURE DUE TO POSSIBLE OVERSTRESS IN BENDING. PLAN Qo DISCOLORATION DUE TO PRESENCE OF MOISTURE-POSSIBLE SURFACE FUNGI. NOT TO SCALE BOLT HOLES IN MOMENT-CRITICAL uONE/TENSION uONE RESULT IN LOAD CAPACITY REDUCTION. LENGTHWISE CRACK AT THE BOTTOM LAYER OF THE LAMINATION. 4 D DISCOLORATION DUE TO PRESENCE OF MOISTURE-POSSIBLE SURFACE FUNGI. LENGTHWISE CRACK AT THE BOTTOM LAYER OF THE LAMINATION. BRIDGE WIDTH = 27' APPROX. © DISCOLORATION DUE TO PRESENCE OF MOISTURE-POSSIBLE SURFACE FUNGI. 00 DISCOLORATION DUE TO PRESENCE OF MOISTURE-POSSIBLE SURFACE FUNGI. BOLT HOLES IN MOMENT-CRITICAL uONE/TENSION uONE RESULT IN LOAD CAPACITY REDUCTION. CLEAR WIDTH = 25' APPROX. LENGTHWISE CRACK AT THE BOTTOM LAYER OF THE LAMINATION. SAWN TIMBER PLANKS © DISCOLORATION DUE TO PRESENCE OF MOISTURE-POSSIBLE SURFACE FUNGI. BOLT HOLES IN MOMENT-CRITICAL GONE/TENSION DONE RESULT IN LOAD CAPACITY REDUCTION. AC PAVEMENT GIRDER EXHIBITS MODERATE HORIEONTAL FRACTURE DUE TO POSSIBLE OVERSTRESS IN BENDING. 0 0 0 0 © 0 0 0 14" 35 35 35 35" 35" 35" 35" 35 OVERHANG (TYP) APPROX. CL APPROX. CL APPROX. CL APPROX. CL APPROX. CL APPROX. CL APPROX. CL APPROX. CL (TYP) SECTION A-A NOT TO SCALE BRIDGE F BRIDGE F- DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL APPENDIX "C" - SHEET 4 OF 5 120" APPROX. LEGEND -CONDITION OF PLANKS - SEE PLAN 115" APPROX. ❑ PORTIONS OF THE WOOD PLANKS THAT ARE SEVERELY DECAYED AND DETERIORATED F�17-1-----Tz-----rT T j I ® I I I I ❑ PORTIONS OF THE WOOD PLANKS THAT EXHIBIT MODERATE AMOUNT OF ---- ---- ---- ----� DECAY AND DETERIORATION r----� r----� r----� r----� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I r F , F r ❑ PORTIONS OF THE WOOD PLANKS THAT EXHIBIT MODERATE AMOUNT OF -----1 r----1 r----1 r---- SPLITTING LENGTHWISE I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LEGEND - CONDITION OF GIRDERS AND STRINGERS - SEE SECTION A-A I I I ❑s I I I I I C----� F----� F---- ----� PORTIONS OF THE GIRDERS AND STRINGERS THAT ARE HEAVILY DETERIORATED- I 4" I I I I j 0 REQUIRES REPLACEMENT OF GIRDERS AND STRINGERS A IAPPROX, I I I I I A F1 I (TYP). I I I I I U N I I I I I ❑ PORTIONS OF THE GIRDERS AND STRINGERS THAT ARE MODERATELY DETERIORATED Li OI I OI I OI I FLOW I I I I I I I I I I I I I GLUED-LAMINATED GIRDER ID I ❑2 I I I I GLUED-LAMINATED STRINGER ID I I I I I I � GLUED-LAMINATED FLOOR BEAM ID I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 2 DISCOLORATION DUE TO PRESENCE OF MOISTURE. I I I I I I I I +-_-_-J I I I I L----J L----J ---- DISCOLORATION I I I I I I DISCOLORATION DUE TO PRESENCE OF MOISTURE. �_ I _0_ I I I � 1❑�2 �3 El DISCOLORATION DUE TO PRESENCE OF MOISTURE. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O O PLAN NOT TO SCALE BRIDGE WIDTH = 10.5' APPROX. CLEAR WIDTH = 10' APPROX. SAWN TIMBER PLANKS 0 0 O O O 0 10' � APPROX. SECTION AA BRIDGE G- DEMENS CREEK CHANNEL NOT TO SCALE BRIDGE G APPENDIX "C" - SHEET 5 OF 5 APPENDIX D Heritage Park Bridge Capacities Rancho Cucamonga,CA Multiple Simple Beam Description Wood Beam Design : Bridge C - Plank Shear Capacity-Two point loads applied at 6 inches from both supports Calculations per NDS 2015,IBC 2018,CBC 2016,ASCE 7-10 BEAM Size : 9.0 X 3.50, Sawn, Fully Braced Using Allowable Stress Design with ASCE 7-10 Load Combinations,Major Axis Bending Wood Species: Douglas Fir-Larch Wood Grade: No.2 Fb-Tension 900.0 psi Fc-Prll 1,350.0 psi Fv 180.0 psi Ebend-xx 1,600.0 ksi Density 31.20 pcf Fb-Compr 900.0 psi Fc-Perp 625.0 psi Ft 575.0 psi Eminbend-xx 580.0 ksi 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 D o.020 fb:Actual: 984.61 psi at 2.834 ft in Span#1 Fb:Allowable: 792.00 psi Load Comb: +D+L+H 9.0 X 3.50 Max fv/FvRatio= 0.949: 1 5.667 ft fv:Actual : 136.59 psi at 5.384 ft in Span#1 Fv:Allowable: 144.00 psi Load Comb: +D+L+H Max Deflections Max Reactions (k) D L Lr s w E H Transient Downward 0.188 in Total Downward 0.200 in Left Support Ratio 361 >360 Ratio 339 >180 Right Support LC:+L+23.OH LC:+D+L+H Transient Upward 0.000 in Total Upward 0.000 in Ratio 9999 Ratio 9999 LC: LC: Wood Beam Design : Bridge C - Plank Flexural Capacity Calculations per NDS 2015,IBC 2018,CBC 2016,ASCE 7-10 BEAM Size : 9.0 X 3.50, Sawn, Fully Braced Using Allowable Stress Design with IBC 2018 Load Combinations,Major Axis Bending Wood Species: Douglas Fir-Larch Wood Grade: No.2 Fb-Tension 900.0 psi Fc-Prll 1,350.0 psi Fv 180.0 psi Ebend-xx 1,600.0 ksi Density 31.20 pcf Fb-Compr 900.0 psi Fc-Perp 625.0 psi Ft 575.0 psi Eminbend-xx 580.0 ksi 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 D o. 20 fb:Actual: 791.87 psi at 2.834 ft in Span#1 Fb:Allowable: 792.00 psi Load Comb: +D+L+H 9.0 X 3.50 Max fv/FvRatio= 0.152: 1 5.667 ft fv:Actual : 21.83 psi at 0.000 ft in Span#1 Fv:Allowable: 144.00 psi Load Comb: +D+L+H Max Deflections Max Reactions (k) D L Lr s w E H Transient Downward 0.100 in Total Downward 0.112 in Left Support Ratio 681 >360 Ratio 607 >180 Right Support LC:+L+23.OH LC:+D+L+H Transient Upward 0.000 in Total Upward 0.000 in Ratio 9999 Ratio 9999 LC: LC: 211 Heritage Park Bridge Capacities Rancho Cucamonga,CA Multiple Simple Beam Wood Beam Design : Bridge C - Plank Flexural Capacity-Two point loads applied at 6 inches from both supportE Calculations per NDS 2015,IBC 2018,CBC 2016,ASCE 7-10 BEAM Size : 9.0 X 3.50, Sawn, Fully Braced Using Allowable Stress Design with ASCE 7-10 Load Combinations,Major Axis Bending Wood Species: Douglas Fir-Larch Wood Grade: No.2 Fb-Tension 900.0 psi Fc-Prll 1,350.0 psi Fv 180.0 psi Ebend-xx 1,600.0 ksi Density 31.20 pcf Fb-Compr 900.0 psi Fc-Perp 625.0 psi Ft 575.0 psi Eminbend-xx 580.0 ksi 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 0.020 fb:Actual: 788.69 psi at 2.834 ft in Span#1 Fb:Allowable: 792.00 psi Load Comb: +D+L+H 9.o X 3.50 Max fv/FvRatio= 0.750: 1 5.667 ft fv:Actual : 108.02 psi at 0.000 ft in Span#1 i Fv:Allowable: 144.00 psi Load Comb: +D+L+H Max Deflections Max Reactions (k) D L Lr S W E H Transient Downward 0.148 in Total Downward 0.160 in Left Support Ratio 460>360 Ratio 425 >180 Right Support LC:+L+23.OH LC:+D+L+H Transient Upward 0.000 in Total Upward 0.000 in Ratio 9999 Ratio 9999 LC: LC: Wood Beam Design : Bridge C- Girder Flexural Capacity Calculations per NDS 2015,IBC 2018,CBC 2016,ASCE 7-10 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 Species: DF/DF Wood Grade: 24F-V4 Fb-Tension 2,400.0 psi Fc-Prll 1,650.0 psi Fv 265.0 psi Ebend-xx 1,800.0 ksi Density 31.20 pcf Fb-Compr 1,850.0 psi Fc-Perp 650.0 psi Ft 1,100.0 psi Eminbend-xx 950.0 ksi AAvplied 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 D o.060 fb:Actual: 1,740.13 psi at 9.000 ft in Span#1 Fb:Allowable: 2,259.35 psi Load Comb: +D+L+H 8.750 X 15.0 Max fv/FvRatio= 0.979: 1 18.0 ft fv:Actual : 259.31 psi at 0.000 ft in Span#1 Fv:Allowable: 265.00 psi Load Comb: +D+L+H Max Deflections Max Reactions (k) D L Lr S W E H Transient Downward 0.688 in Total Downward 0.735 in Left Support Ratio 314<360 Ratio 293 >180 Right Support LC:+L+23.OH LC:+D+L+H Transient Upward 0.000 in Total Upward 0.000 in Ratio 9999 Ratio 9999 LC: LC: 218 Heritage Park Bridge Capacities Rancho Cucamonga,CA Multiple Simple Beam Wood Beam Design : Bridge C - Plank Flexural Capacity w/Equestrian Load Calculations per NDS 2015,IBC 2018,CBC 2016,ASCE 7-10 BEAM Size : 9.0 X 3.50, Sawn, Fully Braced Using Allowable Stress Design with IBC 2018 Load Combinations,Major Axis Bending Wood Species: Douglas Fir-Larch Wood Grade: No.2 Fb-Tension 900.0 psi Fc-Prll 1,350.0 psi Fv 180.0 psi Ebend-xx 1,600.0 ksi Density 31.20 pcf Fb-Compr 900.0 psi Fc-Perp 625.0 psi Ft 575.0 psi Eminbend-xx 580.0 ksi 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 D(o.020) fb:Actual: 788.76 psi at 2.834 ft in Span#1 Fb:Allowable: 792.00 psi Load Comb: +D+L+H 9.0 x 3.50 Max fv/FvRatio= 0.221 : 1 5.667 ft fv:Actual : 31.83 psi at 0.000 ft in Span#1 Fv:Allowable: 144.00 psi Load Comb: +D+L+H Max Deflections Max Reactions (k) D L Lr S W E H Transient Downward 0.128 in Total Downward 0.140 in Left Support Ratio 530>360 Ratio 484 >180 Right Support LC:+L+23.OH LC:+D+L+H Transient Upward 0.000 in Total Upward 0.000 in Ratio 9999 Ratio 9999 LC: LC: 219 Heritage Park Bridge Capacities Rancho Cucamonga,CA Multiple Simple Beam Description Wood Beam Design : Bridge D - Plank Shear Capacity-Two point loads applied at 7 inches from both supports Calculations per NDS 2015,IBC 2018,CBC 2016,ASCE 7-10 BEAM Size : 9.0 X 3.50, Sawn, Fully Braced Using Allowable Stress Design with IBC 2018 Load Combinations,Major Axis Bending Wood Species: Douglas Fir-Larch Wood Grade: No.2 Fb-Tension 900.0 psi Fc-Prll 1,350.0 psi Fv 180.0 psi Ebend-xx 1,600.0 ksi Density 31.20 pcf Fb-Compr 900.0 psi Fc-Perp 625.0 psi Ft 575.0 psi Eminbend-xx 580.0 ksi 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 D 0.020 fb:Actual: 1,197.96 psi at 2.917 ft in Span#1 Fb:Allowable: 792.00 psi Load Comb: +D+L+H 9.0 X 3.50 Max fv/FvRatio= 0.999: 1 5.833 ft fv:Actual : 143.84 psi at 5.541 ft in Span#1 Fv:Allowable: 144.00 psi Load Comb: +D+L+H Max Deflections Max Reactions (k) D L Lr s w E H Transient Downward 0.244 in Total Downward 0.258 in Left Support Ratio 286<360 Ratio 271 >180 Right Support LC:+L+23.OH LC:+D+L+H Transient Upward 0.000 in Total Upward 0.000 in Ratio 9999 Ratio 9999 LC: LC: Wood Beam Design : Bridge D - Plank Flexural Capacity- Point load applied at center of span Calculations per NDS 2015,IBC 2018,CBC 2016,ASCE 7-10 BEAM Size : 9.0 X 3.50, Sawn, Fully Braced Using Allowable Stress Design with IBC 2018 Load Combinations,Major Axis Bending Wood Species: Douglas Fir-Larch Wood Grade: No.2 Fb-Tension 900.0 psi Fc-Prll 1,350.0 psi Fv 180.0 psi Ebend-xx 1,600.0 ksi Density 31.20 pcf Fb-Compr 900.0 psi Fc-Perp 625.0 psi Ft 575.0 psi Eminbend-xx 580.0 ksi 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 D 0.020 fb:Actual: 788.63 psi at 2.917 ft in Span#1 Fb:Allowable: 792.00 psi Load Comb: +D+L+H 9.0 X 3.50 Max fv/FvRatio= 0.147: 1 5.833 ft fv:Actual : 21.21 psi at 0.000 ft in Span#1 Fv:Allowable: 144.00 psi Load Comb: +D+L+H Max Deflections Max Reactions (k) D L Lr s w E H Transient Downward 0.105 in Total Downward 0.118 in Left Support Ratio 668>360 Ratio 591 >180 Right Support LC:+L+23.OH LC:+D+L+H Transient Upward 0.000 in Total Upward 0.000 in Ratio 9999 Ratio 9999 LC: LC: 220 Heritage Park Bridge Capacities Rancho Cucamonga,CA Multiple Simple Beam Wood Beam Design : Bridge D - Plank Flexural Capacity-Two point loads applied at 7 inches from both supports Calculations per NDS 2015,IBC 2018,CBC 2016,ASCE 7-10 BEAM Size : 9.0 X 3.50, Sawn, Fully Braced Using Allowable Stress Design with IBC 2018 Load Combinations,Major Axis Bending Wood Species: Douglas Fir-Larch Wood Grade: No.2 Fb-Tension 900.0 psi Fc-Prll 1,350.0 psi Fv 180.0 psi Ebend-xx 1,600.0 ksi Density 31.20 pcf Fb-Compr 900.0 psi Fc-Perp 625.0 psi Ft 575.0 psi Eminbend-xx 580.0 ksi 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 T D o.020 fb:Actual: 779.05 psi at 2.917 ft in Span#1 Fb:Allowable: 792.00 psi Load Comb: +D+L+H 9.o X 3.50 Max fv/FvRatio= 0.635: 1 5.833 ft fv:Actual : 91.45 psi at 5.541 ft in Span#1 Fv:Allowable: 144.00 psi Load Comb: +D+L+H Max Deflections Max Reactions (k) D L Lr S W E H Transient Downward 0.153 in Total Downward 0.167 in Left Support Ratio 457>360 Ratio 420 >180 Right Support LC:+L+23.OH LC:+D+L+H Transient Upward 0.000 in Total Upward 0.000 in Ratio 9999 Ratio 9999 LC: LC: Wood Beam Design : Bridge D - Plank Flexural Capacity w/Equestrian Loadinq Calculations per NDS 2015,IBC 2018,CBC 2016,ASCE 7-10 BEAM Size : 9.0 X 3.50, Sawn, Fully Braced Using Allowable Stress Design with IBC 2018 Load Combinations,Major Axis Bending Wood Species: Douglas Fir-Larch Wood Grade: No.2 Fb-Tension 900.0 psi Fc-Prll 1,350.0 psi Fv 180.0 psi Ebend-xx 1,600.0 ksi Density 31.20 pcf Fb-Compr 900.0 psi Fc-Perp 625.0 psi Ft 575.0 psi Eminbend-xx 580.0 ksi AAvplied 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 T D o.020 fb:Actual: 762.88 psi at 2.917 ft in Span#1 Fb:Allowable: 792.00 psi Load Comb: +D+L+H 9.0 X 3.50 Max fv/FvRatio= 0.205: 1 5.833 ft fv:Actual : 29.55 psi at 0.000 ft in Span#1 Fv:Allowable: 144.00 psi Load Comb: +D+L+H Max Deflections Max Reactions (k) D L Lr S W E H Transient Downward 0.130 in Total Downward 0.143 in Left Support Ratio 540>360 Ratio 488 >180 Right Support LC:+L+23.OH LC:+D+L+H Transient Upward 0.000 in Total Upward 0.000 in Ratio 9999 Ratio 9999 LC: LC: 225 Heritage Park Bridge Capacities Rancho Cucamonga,CA Wood Beam Design Description Wood Beam Design : Bridge F- Plank Shear Capacity Calculations per NDS 2015,IBC 2018,CBC 2016,ASCE 7-10 BEAM Size : 9.0 X 3.50, Sawn, Fully Braced Using Allowable Stress Design with IBC 2018 Load Combinations, Major Axis Bending Wood Species: Douglas Fir-Larch Wood Grade: No.2 Fb-Tension 900.0 psi Fc-Prll 1,350.0 psi Fv 180.0 psi Ebend-xx 1,600.0 ksi Density 31.20 pcf Fb-Compr 900.0 psi Fc-Perp 625.0 psi Ft 575.0 psi Eminbend-xx 580.0 ksi 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 fb:Actual : 587.66 psi at 0.300 ft in Span#1 Fb:Allowable: 720.00 psi Load Comb: +D+L+H Max fv/FvRatio= 0.992: 1 9.0 x 3.50 fv:Actual: 142.79 psi at 0.000 ft in Span#1 F 2.50 ft Fv:Allowable: 144.00 psi Load Comb: +D+L+H Max Deflections Max Reactions (k) D L Lr a iL E H Transient Downward 0.014 in Total Downward 0.014 in Left Support Ratio 2215>360 Ratio 2197 >180 Right Support LC:+L+23.OH LC:+D+L+H Transient Upward 0.000 in Total Upward 0.000 in Ratio 9999 Ratio 9999 LC: LC: Wood Beam Design : Bridge F - Plank Flexural Capacity Calculations per NDS 2015,IBC 2018,CBC 2016,ASCE 7-10 BEAM Size : 9.0 X 3.50, Sawn, Fully Braced Using Allowable Stress Design with ASCE 7-10 Load Combinations,Major Axis Bending Wood Species: Douglas Fir-Larch Wood Grade: No.2 Fb-Tension 900.0 psi Fc-Prll 1,350.0 psi Fv 180.0 psi Ebend-xx 1,600.0 ksi Density 31.20 pcf Fb-Compr 900.0 psi Fc-Perp 625.0 psi Ft 575.0 psi Eminbend-xx 580.0 ksi 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 fb:Actual: 881.03 psi at 1.250 ft in Span#1 Fb:Allowable: 900.00 psi Load Comb: +D+L+H Max fv/FvRatio= 0.286: 1 Ai 9.0 X 3.50 ; fv:Actual : 51.50 psi at 2.217 ft in Span#1 2.50 ft Fv:Allowable: 180.00 psi Load Comb: +D+L+H Max Deflections Max Reactions (k) D L Lc -a V E H Transient Downward 0.024 in Total Downward 0.024 in Left Support Ratio 1269>360 Ratio 1263 >180 Right Support LC:+L+23.OH LC:+D+L+H Transient Upward 0.000 in Total Upward 0.000 in Ratio 9999 Ratio 9999 LC: LC: 220 Heritage Park Bridge Capacities Rancho Cucamonga,CA Wood Beam Design CORPORATION Beam Design : Bridge F - Girder Shear Capacity Calculations per NDS 2015,IBC 2018,CBC 2016,ASCE 7-10 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 Species: DF/DF Wood Grade: 24F-V4 Fb-Tension 2,400.0 psi Fc-Prll 1,650.0 psi Fv 265.0 psi Ebend-xx 1,800.0 ksi Density 31.20 pcf Fb-Compr 1,850.0 psi Fc-Perp 650.0 psi Ft 1,100.0 psi Eminbend-xx 950.0 ksi 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 0.060 fb:Actual : 1,043.14 psi at 1.280 ft in Span#1 Fb:Allowable: 2,352.84 psi Load Comb: +D+L+H Max fv/FvRatio= 0.984: 1 nA 8.750 X 15.0 fv:Actual: 260.76 psi at 0.000 ft in Span#1 12 0 ft Fv:Allowable: 265.00 psi Load Comb: +D+L+H Max Deflections Max Reactions (k) D L L[ S -W E H Transient Downward 0.112 in Total Downward 0.121 in Left Support Ratio 1290>360 Ratio 1192 >180 Right Support LC:+L+23.OH LC: +D+L+H Transient Upward 0.000 in Total Upward 0.000 in Ratio 9999 Ratio 9999 LC: LC: Wood Beam Design : Bridge F - Girder Flexural Capacity Calculations per NDS 2015,IBC 2018,CBC 2016,ASCE 7-10 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 Species: DF/DF Wood Grade: 24F-V4 Fb-Tension 2,400.0 psi Fc-Prll 1,650.0 psi Fv 265.0 psi Ebend-xx 1,800.0 ksi Density 31.20 pcf Fb-Compr 1,850.0 psi Fc-Perp 650.0 psi Ft 1,100.0 psi Eminbend-xx 950.0 ksi 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 0.060 fb:Actual: 2,307.36 psi at 6.000 ft in Span#1 Fb:Allowable: 2,352.84 psi Load Comb: +D+L+H Max fv/FvRatio= 0.460: 1 8.750 X 15.0 fv:Actual : 121.95 psi at 10.760 ft in Span#1 12.0 ft Fv:Allowable: 265.00 psi Load Comb: +D+L+H Max Deflections Max Reactions (k) D L Lr _a W E H Transient Downward 0.289 in Total Downward 0.299 in Left Support Ratio 497>360 Ratio 482 >180 Right Support LC:+L+23.OH LC:+D+L+H Transient Upward 0.000 in Total Upward 0.000 in Ratio 9999 Ratio 9999 LC: LC: 223 CITY . ■ . ! . ! �l STAFF REPORT DATE: March 11, 2020 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Planning Director INITIATED BY: Vincent Acuna, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00069 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to construct a 24,512 square-foot concrete tilt-up warehouse building at the Rancho Cucamonga public works yard, within the General Industrial (GI) District, located at 8794 Lion Street — APN: 0209-013-85. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA guidelines under CEQA Section 15332 — In-Fill Development Projects. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission take the following action: • Approve Design Review DRC2019-00069 through the adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to construct a 24,512 square-foot concrete tilt-up warehouse building within the City of Rancho Cucamonga's public works yard. The Rancho Cucamonga public works yard is comprised of an approximately 22-acre, L-shaped site developed with an open-air service yard, vehicle parking, and several structures including a vehicle service building, an administration building, and a warehouse (Exhibit A). The portions of the yard abutting a public right of way (along 9th Street and Hellman Avenue) are screened by a 6-foot high concrete block wall, limiting public visibility into the property. The yard is accessed via the terminus of Lion Street from the north, and a private driveway off Hellman Avenue from the west. The existing Land Use, General Plan, and Zoning designations for the Rancho Cucamonga public works yard and adjacent properties are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Public Works Yard General Industrial General Industrial (GI) District North Industrial/Manufacturing General Industrial General Industrial (GI) District Building South Industrial/Manufacturing General Industrial General Industrial (GI) District Building 224 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00069 —CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA March 11, 2020 Page 2 East Industrial/Manufacturing General Industrial General Industrial (GI) District Buildings West Industrial/Manufacturing General Industrial General Industrial (GI) District Buildings ANALYSIS: A. General: The proposed 24,512 square-foot concrete tilt-up warehouse building will be constructed near the west property line of the public works yard, adjacent to an existing warehouse located to the north of the project area (Exhibit B). The project area, which is the total area of ground disturbed within the public works yard as a result of construction totals 0.92 acres, or 40,118 square feet. The proposed building will house a first-floor interior storage area, an interior drive aisle for the maintenance and repair of vehicles, a restroom, and a mezzanine (Exhibit C). The architecture of the proposed building will be similar to that of the building to the north. The building will be painted a tan color with white and brown accents (Exhibit D). A total of three roll-up doors are proposed — one along the south elevation and two along the east elevation. Steel shade canopies will be installed along the east elevation above the roll-up doors. Per the City's design policy, the building will feature internally routed downspouts, resulting in a clean, modern building appearance. The building will not be visible from the public right-of-way, or any publicly accessible area. No landscape changes are proposed with the project. The 144,137 square-feet of landscape area (15% of the public works yard) provided will remain unchanged and will continue to exceed the minimum 10% landscape required for the General Industrial (GI) District. No changes to the existing gates and fencing around or within the public works yard are proposed. As demonstrated in the table below, the project complies with all pertinent technical standards related to building height, site coverage, front/rear setbacks, and landscaping requirements. Development Standard Required Proposed Building Height Max. 75' 29'-8" Front Setback— Local/Collector Min. 25' 630' (North Property Line) Rear Setback 0' 0' (West Property Line) Side Setback 5' 260' (South Property Line) Landscape Percentage Min. 10% 15% B. Parkinq: As demonstrated in the table below, the public works yard will require a total of 229 parking spaces which includes the parking spaces required for the proposed warehouse. As 225 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00069 —CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA March 11, 2020 Page 3 386 parking spaces are provided on-site, the public works yard maintains a surplus of 157 parking spaces. Type of Use Floor Area Parking Number of (Square Feet) Ratio Spaces Required (E) Office Building Office/Admin 6,329 4/1000 26 Vehicle Maintenance 7,275 2.5/1000 18 Machine Shop 1,048 2/1000 2 Storage 3,681 varies' 15 (E) Warehouse Storage 24,975 varies' 23 (E) Administration Building Office 29,598 4/1000 118 (E) Public Pick Up Storage Shed Storage 400 varies' 1 (E) HHW Building Storage 2,736 varies' 3 (P) Warehouse Storage 24,512 varies' 23 Total Required/Total Provided: 229/386 1 - For storage/warehouse uses, the parking calculations are 1 space per 1,000 square feet for the first 20,000 square feet; 1 space per 2,000 square feet for the second 20,000 square feet; and 1 space per 4,000 square feet for additional floor area in excess of the first 40,000 square feet. C. Design Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee (Williams, Guglielmo and Smith)on February 18, 2020. No major or secondary issues were discussed, as reflected in the Design Review Committee Comments (Exhibit E). The Committee recommended approval of the project to the Planning Commission. D. Public Art: Public art does not apply to the proposed warehouse as this is a City initiated project. E. Environmental Assessment: The Planning Department Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies under a Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332- In-Fill Development Projects for the following reasons: (1) the project is consistent with the applicable General Plan designations and all applicable General Plan policies as well as with the applicable zoning designation and regulations, (2) the proposed development occurs within the City limits on a project area of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses, (3) the project area has no value as a habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species, (4) approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality, and (5) the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designation for the project site is General Industrial (GI) District, which permits the development and operation of a warehouse building of the 226 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00069 —CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA March 11, 2020 Page 4 proposed size and configuration. Additionally, the project site is developed with the City of Rancho Cucamonga's public works yard, and already has a number of similar buildings as the one proposed. The project complies with the City's development standards and design guidelines, including setbacks, height, lot coverage, and design requirements. The project area is located within the City limits, is under five acres, and is surrounded by existing industrial development and City infrastructure. The following are the five environmental factors that need to be analyzed in order to determine that the project qualifies for the Categorical Exemption: a) Traffic:A Trip Generation Memo (June 12, 2019)was prepared by the City's Engineering Department, which determined that the number of trips generated by the project would not create a significant impact. Trip rates were calculated based on the warehousing trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (101" Edition). It was determined that the project would generate 44 total daily trips, 4 morning peak hour trips, and 5 afternoon peak hour trips, which is below the 50 peak hours trips that would necessitate a Traffic Impact Analysis. b) Noise: A Noise Impact Analysis (Vista Environmental; August 28, 2019) was prepared for the project. The analysis determined that the project would comply with the construction and operational noise and vibration requirements. c) Air Quality: An Air Quality and Green House Gas Analysis (Vista Environmental: August 27, 2019) were prepared for the project. The analysis determined that emissions associated with construction and operation of the project would be below the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) thresholds for both Air Quality and Green House Gases. d) Water Quality: A preliminary water quality management plan for the project was reviewed by the Engineering Department. The Engineering Department determined that that the project would not result in a significant impact related to water quality of the site or surrounding properties. e) Biological: The Rancho Cucamonga public works yard is an active vehicle maintenance and storage yard developed with multiple structures. The area surrounding the public works yard is also developed with multiple industrial structures. Additionally, the area within the public works yard where the warehouse building is proposed is a highly disturbed, parking/staging area with a number of temporary structures and frequent vehicular traffic. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to result in any impact to federally or State-listed plants or animals listed as endangered or threatened or to any non-listed special-status species. No natural communities will be affected by the project, and the project is not within a Habitat Conservation Plan area. FISCAL IMPACT: The construction cost of the proposed warehouse is estimated to be $2,140,000. Currently, there is no funding for the project. However, the Public Works Department is pursuing the current entitlement so that the project is shovel-ready in the event that capital reserve funds are allocated in the future. 227 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00069 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA March 11, 2020 Page 5 COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: ENHANCING PREMIER COMMUNITY STATUS A second warehouse would put equipment and supplies, currently scattered among multiple containers, into a centralized location creating efficiency. This allows staff to provide superior service to internal and external customers which enhances and reinforces the City's position as the premier community in the inland region. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing with a regular legal advertisement in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site. To date, no written correspondence, phone calls, or in person inquiries have been received regarding the project notifications. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A - Aerial Exhibit B - Conceptual Master Site Plan Exhibit C - Floor Plan Exhibit D - Elevations Exhibit E - Design Review Committee Comments (February 18, 2020) and Action Agenda Draft Resolution 20-20 of Approval for Design Review DRC2019-00069 228 'r+ � ire YJ -7f- a u �^ 1 y�f �, , , D - Exhibit A 229 Ti I _4- T Project Data - ° T-I CTa C CT- - - - - - - - - I j PUBLIC 51DE1NALK �_' -- III IN ■ Public Works Service Center: I - - ' LANDSG. i PUBLIC PARKING c - - - r I -s _ = I A. Existing Service Yard 243,698 s.f. (5.59 ac) ( ' f 7 1 r T 1 10 I I C I J I I B. Admin./Crew Bldg. & Parking (incl. EV chg.) 257,033 s.f. (5.90 ac) r-FLLLLff S �,r - � IIII I I NI _ IIII I C. Household Hazardous Waste Facility 68,632 s.f. 0 .58 ac) GATE rL. 1 I I I D. "Project Area" (New Warehouse) 40,114 s.f. (0.92 ad EXISTING FLEET - PLPNTER 6 I; SERVICES ® I I IIII I E. Cell Tower (00.3% of site) 2,761 s.f. (0.06 ac) I 1 I BUILDING a / 1 IIII I I � N I F. Future Ex ansion (36.1 % of site) 346,058 s.f. (7.94 ac) - t - _ 1 ; I °� 1 IIII I I p Total Site Area: 958,296 s.f. (21 .99 ac) r !i E F I III I � N X1 E K � 4- - IIII I ■ Building I � EXIS P 1 , N Sq. Ft. x Parking Ratio: 1 IIII I ()f 1 f f STAFF PARKING I 6 11 L I I I I I I Existing - 1 st fl r. + 2 nd fl r. ( '� \ r I N (11 SPACES) , •-� � I I l 11 ___ III Old Bldg: I 14 14 �'�, 36' �' ��- I I I , N Corp.. Yard Office �� IIII I • Office/ Admin. Use (vacant) 4,071 s.f. + 2,258 s.f.@ 4/1000= 26 \ I ROUND FUEL 197 I IIII I N • Vehicle Maintenance Shop 7,275 S.f.� 1 P � @ 2.5/1000= 18 / \ I STORAGE I PL. a I , IIII I I • Machine Shop1 ,048 s.f. @ 2/1 000= 2 I ' TANKS -- --- i F- � � I I I I 1 11 I -�EXI5TING 1 11 L" I ` IIII I N • Storage 1 ,209 s.f. + 2,472 s.f.@ 4/1000= 15 1 � I I • • K I I CANOPY_ I LLI 13,603 s.f. + 4,730 s.f. re 61 s / L- - ---- - I ; . .I, o II sub-total IIaII. q. p. I � L,, t _I 11 III I - I �oVERE ell e _ _ �� ► - _ _ _ III - - - - - - - - - I ® Warehouse ("B.O.B. I") 15,000 s.f. + 5,000 s.f.@ 1 /1000= 20 4 7 .f. 2 1 ----- ! x x® A_ I I 9 5 s C� 1 / 000= 3 PARKING XI^MR: _ - I ` �- i-, I I - - - sub-total "b"_ - - - - - - - - - - - - ` 15,000 s.f. + 9,975 s.f. req. 23 sp XZ El \ ----------J 1Al ORIGINALSERVICEYARD , 1� ' -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -L - Vehicle Wash 2,409s.f. req. N/A I EXISTING GA.NOPY w/ O G N °-- COVERED PARKING I M I . - �I I I d0 Administration/ Crew Building 29,598 s.f. @ 4/1000= 118 sp. t (EXISTING) 1 ------i .`� ----- L _�"`"-�CF:------------- --- �-� � III N GVINDSEWER I I i i \ e Public Pick-up Storage Shed 400 s.f. @ 1 /1000= 1 sp. -` ' - 1 1 . � -_- i �. I III EASEMENT H.H.W. Warehouse 2,736 s.f. @ 1/1000= 3 sp. 1 I < -(EXISTING) I I I O p I STORM DRAIN5LO I I b V I PUELN G�TA�TIONS i I114 I �I I I II` EASEMENT I I New - s EXISTING - WAREHOUSE �� ;; ,I I \ ® Warehouse ("B.O.B. II") 15,000 s.f. + 5,000 s.f.@ 1 /1000= 20 / ` ' (EXIT; N,6) fIUB_IG u111 I �I' 4,512 s.f.@ 1/2000= 3 STORM DRAIN I LINE TO REl-IAdI� '1" / \ ` - - - - , I sub-total " "• 15 000 s.f. + 9 512 s.f. re 2 3 s . -- L1 I+ NI�I �I III��I- _ - � _� �- - �- - - - - - - 1 g • q p RAMP N. All f p � ` � ? � ` . • . - -~ / - � . I �. - Y ' I' I ,. ,..--�- - -f-�l - �,�, , �� h Fleet Maintenance future + 6,000 s.f. * @ 2.5 1000= 15 sp.] I - ----- - - - - y I1410 I I , NEhI A.G. - �` .• . .. I O LANDSCAPING LANDSCAPING LANDSCAPING Total 1st Floor Bldg. Area: 84,746 s.f. (8.8 /o of site) PAVING I �® ® � . q q FACILITY ;I.` I H.H.W. y . �1 I B. An I BLDG. & ARKING I Total Bldg. Area. 109,181 s.f. NEW , � a I - ----�� - - I 24,512 SQ.FT. FUT?�U-"'RE''"' p NEW (2= SPACES) v n I1 � iiI I Total parking required: 229 sp. /�, s • . , 5 F alJf�k I PL, l l l l I l l l l I l l l l I PL, LANDSGAPINCy r Lf�hIDSr:APING PAL, T I LU I I WAREHOUSE 6,000 s FTt �,' O PL. '�� sr . ' l / I WAREHOUSE PL. AR I I * p g I BUILDING' FLEET VEHILE a-- . . . PLp, __ ♦ ` provided at existing n I MAINTENA CE "Project II I 0 30-O ' \ '`'��* Vehicle Maintenance Shop r BUILDING ) I Project Area . I SECURE.''TAFFPARKING -�• 7:;�• I p (181)SPACES) i' PUBLIC �.. OA21 aG PL. d 4 I STORAGE DROP ' 11 Illll Ill�ll Illll Il YARD _ • .. I I ■ Parkin Provided: /� I � ADMINISTRATION/ � I 0 f g l f I r CREW BUILDING 1 1 I • _ .'.�' • " „0 �U LIC ��• HHW I l I --. - �11A � 1:'R"�fE I I (F.F. = 1�6.00 � � I PL. PL. � ii � \ �' �.��-� ,I' --� l 12 x35 SERVICE AIS_F_ e di -UP BUILDING Y - I Q r: EXIST. NEI^IA.C.PAVING I VEHICLEPARKINC ' I EXISTING PUBLIC, STORM� ;i f i� j III .�I I Visitor 9' x 18' (incl. 3 H.C.) 33 spaces CELL DRAIN SEE CIVIL DYVG5. �` ---i I I TOWER. I I I lilf '_ iI I Staff 9' x 18' (incl. 7 H.C.) 271 spaces I ------------------� I ,L -r L �~ I _ I � I i I i I1 ,�IiiffLiiiii ' TO I I ��"i�vGAPING " 'REMAINI __________-- I --- - - _V14 - - - - PLAN,- --____ _ Staff 9' x 19' (incl. 2 H.C.) 45 spaces i I PL. PL. . 7. I I F I 1p LL_ ---MENE--MENE--MENE--ONES- 15 1s I_ PL. ■ 1Or . ' . q .---- • - ---'�-----------� 4 _V - L \1 , I Staff 12' x 35' 30 spaces I ) 9'x19'STAFFPARKING 00 9*xrtsr �AlrKtnt� Q. - Q 4 I h I Public H.H.W. 9' X 18' (incl. 1 H.C. 7 spaces Q y (22 SPACES) Il� (23 SPACES) PRIVATE DRIVE .1[� \ ) p r NEN F4GMP INFILTRAI;IDN rtl I ` I Y -__-- Y m I b� TUR 300'-O" ---- / TRENCH -5EE CIVIL Ori&5. - i __ - ------ - - - - - - - s~ , �! I Total Provided (incl.c I. 13 H.C.) --------------------------------------- I 386 spaces EXISTING PUBLIC STORM I f 1 Ir I • DRAIN, SEE GIVIL DYVGS.� I I ■ Paved Area. A. Existing Service Yard 171 ,051 s.f. 44 I B. (E) Admin./Crew Bldg. Parking & Drive Aisles 166,062 s.f. J \ (DFUTURE EXPANSION ' r {A FR.0 . EXISTING MATERIAL � I / 1� 1 __ I C. (E) H.H.W. Parking, Storage, & Drive Aisles 32,465 s.f. \ STORAGE BINS I l MATERIALS ` I° I + ; D. New Warehouse Area 11 ,016 s.f. STORAGE/ LAYOUT YARD y p - - / It � ' I I v I Total: 380,594 s.f. (39.7 /o of site) J \ ♦ 1 l I � ` I � 1 1® I ■ Lands ca ed Area: ; t I A. Existing Service Yard 41 ,650 s.f. _ B. E Admin. rew Bldg. Parkin Lot 61 ,369 s.f. �Jr rr` EXIST. PUBLIC STORM , I O /C g & g ~ t \ L L 1 I DRAIN, ILDrv*5. I C. (E) H.H.W. Site 32,926 s.f. D. New Warehouse Area 8,192 s.f. gN Total 1441137s.f. 05.0% of site) - - / I I ---- Con cetua ■ ■ - - - -- _ - - Q I � / - - - ew are ouse ui - - - - - - , s - - _ - - raj - 16111 October 10, 201Q 016 Ranc oCucamon aPu i cWor sServiceCenter . Curtis J . Dah le AIA, Architect C *1ty of R Cucamoa of 60' 120' 300' ■ 8439 White Oak Avenue, Suite. 105 ■ Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91730 ■ ■ Tel. 909-980-1361 ■ Fax. 909-944-5814 ■ e-mail. curtisdahle@gmail.com ■ 230 1 4 1 4 100'-O" 100'-O" 2O 3 2 3 1 .5 2.5 I 17-0" EXISTING CONCRETE RETAINING WALL j EXISTING BUILDING (TO REMAIN) @ LOADING DOCK (TO REMAIN) PROPERTY LINE NEW CONCRETE V-GUTTER _ (SEE CIVIL W65.) Stair — — Stair —STEEL CANOPY ABOVE EXIT 0 0 0 �i (0,°o°o°o°c (f) 000000O.0q O I O o°000000 —STEEL ROOF CANOPY I00000000 JI II 11 00 0000 o000000o0 u � 000000 °°, O 0000°00°DN. QII 0o 00 d EXIT PATH X0 0000DeIi Deliver TO EXIT 000000I 000 °0o°d 0000000000000 OOm ►� / u 0°0°'000°0°0 / II 000000000 00000000 0 0 0 0 o°o°o°o°cd / r I I STEEL COLUMN LINE OF MEZZANINE / / I I I STEEL ROOF (TYP.) ABOVE COLUMN (TYP.) o I I i II II A STEEL GUARDRAIL @ 13 �n Q EDGE OF MEZZANINE13 I I I O I EXITLD m I I °0- o — — - o �I ;I I Sto age OPEN Storage Area ;; TO I o Mezzan i ne BELOW o 0 o , I x Io � •— Future Fleet Vehicle AV C Q� SLOPE Main enance (2% MIN.) > Pii � Irlin g Q —TILT-UP CONCRETE BUILDING WALL (TYP.) O m O O m I m CONCRETE SLAB m BLD6. APRON (SEE CIVIL DW65.) I I 00 - CD O Q o 0 0 0 0 0000 000 00000 . o 0 0 00 00 00 0 II 000000 '0(0,00 0°00 0°� � pi II I 000000000000, —STEEL ROOF CANOPY ►� �t Qll 0 00000000 o°o°o°o° x III TO EXIT °o°o°o°o°d EXIT PATH 3III I 00000000000 �t JII 00.000000000 DN. '0000000�d O O ¢ JI II I 00000000 II 0000 °°°°°°°°° —STEEL CANOPY ABOVE o 00000 0 00 0 0 0 d 0°0000°0° It u� II II EXIT-) I m 0°00000000 000, Sir 0 0 0 0 Stair EXIT _ _ Stair o°o°o°°o°0d ° ° ° 14w. x 14h. - c� n n ROLL-UP DOOR 1 G'-8" 3'-4'' 4'-0" 14'-0" 25-0" 25-0" 25-0" First Plan Second Floor Plan Preiminar 00Exh b t Cr an0 0 New Warehouse Building 1C 111 May 1 , 201 cl Rancho Cucamon 9a Publ '16c Works Service Center Curtis J . Dahle, AIA, Architect C *1ty of R Cucamon a 8' 1 ■ 8439 White Oak Avenue, Suite. 105 ■ Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91730 ■ 9 ■ Tel. 909-980-1361 ■ Fax. 909-944-5814 ■ e-mail. curtisdahle@gmail.com ■ 231 .......... .... NO ' NQN01%1011' 0 r - - � - - - - u ;�M_L M�i �o �❑ 00 -9-- Illustrative East ev- at 'i o n PROP05EP _Q aX15TIHG (Nat To Scale) N5N 5TEEL SHADE CANOPY (TYP.) CD LINE OF FUTURE BUILDING MALL, Af:-) LINE OF FUTURE BUILDING r4ALL, EXISTING BUILDING PERPINDIGULAR TO NEW PERPINDIGULAR TO NEVV BUILDING YVALL BUILDING YVALL --- ----- Top of Bldg. Wall I 1 1 WALL PACK LIGHT FIXTURE ` BUILDING COLOR: FRAZEE (TYP.) I , #GWO25YV - RESTORATIVE G CD ACCENT COLOR 1;)UNN-EI7Y4AR1;)5 _ ' 0 +� '-Q #DEA14q - 5PIGED BERRY CD HEAVY 5AND BLAST TILT-UP CONCRETE PANEL BUILDING ^ALL (TYP.) _ A� I I r ...n I I STEEL EXTERIOR DOOR L — J— 8 FRAME (TYP.) - - - 0 0 0 Q 00 +O'-O" fn Flr. STEEL ANGLE CORNER GUARD @ OU7LET5 FROM ROOF DRAIN 8 FUTURE INTERIOR YVINDOW ROLL-UP METAL 5ERVIGE 5ERVIGE DOOR5 (TYP.) OVERFLOW DRAIN DOWNSPOUTS BETWEEN NEW 8 FUTURE DOOR (TYP.) st (TYP.) BUILDIN65 B +24-8" Top of ------ Bldg. Wall CD EQ. EQ. A 11-11 Fin. South North EXI57ING BUILDING Top of Bldg. WWII CD +14'-0" 011111— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ---------din Flr. West ExIi1bit D Exterior n N wWa I B 11 11 r r 16111 may 1 , 241 q Rancho Cucamon a Pub1 *1c Works Service Center imi Curtis J . Dahle, AIA, Architect C *Ity Rancho Cucamo a of 60' 120' 3001 ■ 8439 White Oak Avenue, Suite. 105 ■ Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91730 ■ ■ Tel. 909-980-1361 ■ Fax. 909-944-5814 ■ e-mail. curtisdahle@gmail.com ■ 232 RESOLUTION NO. 20-20 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00069, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 24,512 SQUARE- FOOT CONCRETE TILT-UP WAREHOUSE BUILDING AT THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PUBLIC WORKS YARD, WITHIN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (GI) DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 8794 LION STREET — APN: 0209-013-85. A. Recitals. 1. The applicant, The City of Rancho Cucamonga Public Works Department, filed an application for Design Review DRC2019-00069, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review is referred to as "the application." 2. On March 11, 2020, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on March 11, 2020, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located within the City; and b. The application applies to an approximately 18.1-acre, L-shaped piece of land within the General Industrial (GI) District, located at 8794 Lion Street; and C. The properties to the north, south, east, and west contains industrial/manufacturing buildings and are located within the General Industrial (GI) District; and d. The proposed project consists of the construction of a 24,512 square-foot warehouse building and ancillary on-site improvements; and e. The project complies with all pertinent development standards related to building height, site coverage, and front/rear setbacks; and f. The project complies with the landscaping requirements as prescribed in the Development Code; and 233 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 20-20 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00069 —CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA March 11, 2020 Page 2 4. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan. The site is located within land designated as General Industrial, which permits a wide range of industrial activities that include manufacturing, assembling, fabrication, wholesale supply, heavy commercial, green technology, and office uses. The project consists of a 24,512 square-foot warehouse building. All proposed site improvements are designed to be consistent with the existing public works yard use and are consistent with the General Industrial land use as designated in the General Plan. b. The proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The Development Code designates the project site as a General Industrial (GI) District. The proposed warehouse building is consistent with the land use intent of the General Industrial (GI) District. The zoning of the adjacent sites to the property are also within the General Industrial (GI) District and consist mainly of industrial/storage buildings. The overall design of the new building is similar in scale and intensity to neighboring lots. C. The proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The building is designed for the warehousing of vehicles and materials. The building meets all setbacks, floor area, height, and landscaping requirements. The building has been designed to meet the City's architectural standards. The project meets the minimum parking, loading, and access requirements. d. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The site is surrounded by industrial facilities of a similar scale and intensity. Furthermore, the proposed building is substantially surrounded by existing buildings. Operations on the site are expected to meet all Development Code standards regarding noise and odor. 4. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 - In-Fill Development Projects. The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres and surrounded existing industrial buildings and uses. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. The Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth in the Conditions of Approval, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. 234 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 20-20 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00069 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA March 11, 2020 Page 3 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2O20 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Tony Guglielmo, Chairman ATTEST: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Secretary I, Anne McIntosh, AICP, Secretary of the Planning Commission for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 11th day of March 2020, by the following vote- to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: 235 Conditions of Approval RANCHO CUCAMONGA Community Development Department Project#: DRC2019-00069 DRC2019-00828 Project Name: New Warehouse at Public Works Service Yard Location: 8794 LION ST - 020901385-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 1. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections shall be screened from all sides and the sound shall be buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Department. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Any roof-mounted mechanical equipment and/or ductwork, that projects vertically more than 18 inches above the roof or roof parapet, shall be screened by an architecturally designed enclosure which exhibits a permanent nature with the building design and is detailed consistent with the building. Any roof-mounted mechanical equipment and/or ductwork, that projects vertically less than 18 inches above the roof or roof parapet shall be painted consistent with the color scheme of the building. Details shall be included in building plans. 2. The applicant shall sign the Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval provided by the Planning Department. The signed Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval shall be returned to the Planning Department prior to the submittal of grading/construction plans for plan check, request for a business license, and/or commencement of the approved activity. 3. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 4. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval or Approval Letter, Conditions of Approval, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 5. The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Exemption fee in the amount of $50.00. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to public hearing or within 5 days of the date of project approval. 6. Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted. 7. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community, Specific Plans and/or Master Plans in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. www.CityofRC.us Printed:3/5/2020 236 Project#: DRC2019-00069 DRC2019-00828 Project Name: New Warehouse at Public Works Service Yard Location: 8794 LION ST - 020901385-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 8. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include Site Plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Department, the conditions contained herein, and the Development Code regulations. 9. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all California Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Services Department to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance and final acceptance granted prior to occupancy. 10. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 11. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. Development Impact Fees Due Prior to Building Permit Issuance: (Subject to Change / Periodic Increases - Refer to current fee schedule to determine current amounts) Drainage Impact Fee Transportation Impact Fee Police Impact Fee Standard Conditions of Approval 2. The building site is currently encumbered by Zone A, per current FEMA Flood Maps. It shall be the developer's responsibility to have the current FIRM Zone A designation removed from the project area. The developer shall provide drainage and/or flood protection facilities sufficient to obtain a Zone "X" designation. The developer's engineer shall prepare all necessary reports, plans, and hydrologic/hydraulic calculations. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) shall be obtained from FEMA prior to final map approval or issuance of Building Permits, whichever occurs first. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) shall be issued by FEMA prior to occupancy or improvement acceptance, whichever occurs first. Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit Standard Conditions of Approval www.CityofRC.us Printed:3/5/2020 237 Page 2 of 8 Project#: DRC2019-00069 DRC2019-00828 Project Name: New Warehouse at Public Works Service Yard Location: 8794 LION ST - 020901385-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit Standard Conditions of Approval 1. Fire Flow Fire flow shall be in accordance with Appendix B of the California Fire Code. The Fire District has adopted the appendix without local amendments. Proof of the availability of the required fire flow must be provided to the Fire District. Fire flow information is obtained from the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD). CVWD can be reached at 909-944-6000 or custserv@cvwdwater.com. Proof of available fire flow is required to be in the form of a letter from CVWD that is dated within the past 12 months. 2. Emergency Responder Radio Coverage The location, size, construction materials, or other features of this building and the associated project are such that adequate emergency responder radio coverage may not be achievable within the building that is proposed. It is highly recommended that the infrastructure necessary to install equipment capable of providing the required radio coverage is included in the construction plans and installed during construction. Upon substantial completion and final completion of construction, the fire code official will oversee a radio signal strength test that is in accordance with the California Fire Code. If acceptable radio coverage cannot be achieved after construction is completed, equipment necessary to increase the radio signal strength or otherwise allow adequate emergency responder radio communication will be required to be installed. 3. Standards Reproduced on the Plans All of the applicable Fire District Standards are required to be reproduced on the plans. The project is required to meet all of the applicable codes, regulations, and standards in effect and adopted at the time of plan check submittal. Fire District Standards can be found on the website at https://www.cityofrc.us/cityhall/fire_district/prevention/standards/default.asp 4. Commercial/Industrial Gates Gates installed across a fire lane are required to be in accordance with Standard 5-4. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 5. Roof Access Roof access is required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-6. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 6. Commercial Building Signage Building street address signage is required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-8. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. The building name or number needs to be installed in accordance with Standard 5-8. 7. Knox Box Knox Box(es) is/are required in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-9. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. If an installed Knox Box is available to this business, keys for the suite/unit are required to be provided to the Fire Inspector at the final inspection. www.CityofRC.us Printed:3/5/2020 238 Page 3 of 8 Project#: DRC2019-00069 DRC2019-00828 Project Name: New Warehouse at Public Works Service Yard Location: 8794 LION ST - 020901385-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit Standard Conditions of Approval 8. Water Supply Public and private fire service water mains, public and private hydrants, and other fire protection water related devices and equipment are required to be provided, designed, and installed in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-10. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. Building and Safety Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. A plumbing "First Release" from the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) is required for all projects that have plumbing work; your project requires a first release from CVWD. Their lead times for a "First Release" is up to 6 weeks, please contact CVWD at (909) 483-7448 ASAP to submit the necessary application and plumbing plans for their review; payment of fees and issuance of a first release. The City of Rancho Cucamonga will not issue building permits for your project until the applicant of the project submits a copy of the plumbing's "First Release" to Building and Safety (B&S). It is your responsibility to obtain a "First Release" from CVWD and submitted to B&S. When the Entitlement Review is approved submit complete construction drawings including structural calculations, energy calculations and a soils report to Building and Safety for plan review in accordance with the current edition of the CA Building and Fire Codes including all local ordinances and standards. The proposed structure is required to be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers as required by the CBC and the Current RCFPD Ordinance. Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 1. Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit the City of Rancho Cucamonga's "Memorandum of Agreement of Storm Water Quality Management Plan" shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Services Department and recorded with the County Recorder's Office. 2. The land owner shall provide an inspection report on a biennial basis for the structural storm water treatment devices, commonly referred to as BMPs, to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager. The land owner shall maintain on a regular basis as described in the Storm Water Quality Management Plan prepared for the subject project. All costs associated with the underground infiltration chamber are the responsibility of the land owner. 3. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current adopted California Building Code and/or the California Residential Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The Grading and Drainage Plan(s) shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan. 4. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. Two copies will be provided at grading and drainage plan submittal for review. Plans shall implement design recommendations per said report. www.CityofRC.us Printed:3/5/2020 239 Page 4 of 8 Project#: DRC2019-00069 DRC2019-00828 Project Name: New Warehouse at Public Works Service Yard Location: 8794 LION ST - 020901385-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 5. The final Grading and Drainage Plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the Engineering Services Department prior to the issuance of building permits. 6. A separate Grading and Drainage Plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and wet signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. 7. The applicant shall comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Dust Control Measures and place a dust control sign on the project site prior to the issuance of a grading permit. All dust control sign(s) shall be located outside of the public right of way. 8. If a Rough Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit are submitted to the Engineering Services Department for review, the rough grading plan shall be a separate plan submittal and permit from Precise Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit. 9. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the Final Grading and Drainage Plan shall show the accessibility path from the public right of way and the accessibility parking stalls to the building doors in conformance with the current adopted California Building Code. All accessibility ramps shall show sufficient detail including gradients, elevations, and dimensions and comply with the current adopted California Building Code. 10. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall implement City Standards for on-site construction where possible, and shall provide details for all work not covered by City Standard Drawings. 11. The final grading and drainage plan shall show existing topography a minimum of 100-feet beyond project boundary. 12. This project shall comply with the accessibility requirements of the current adopted California Building Code. www.CityofRC.us Printed:3/5/2020 240 Page 5 of 8 Project#: DRC2019-00069 DRC2019-00828 Project Name: New Warehouse at Public Works Service Yard Location: 8794 LION ST - 020901385-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 13. Grading Inspections: a) Prior to the start of grading operations the owner and grading contractor shall request a pre-grading meeting. The meeting shall be attended by the project owner/representative, the grading contractor and the Building Inspector to discuss about grading requirements and preventive measures, etc. If a pre-grading meeting is not held within 24 hours from the start of grading operations, the grading permit may be subject to suspension by the Building Inspector; b) The grading contractor shall call into the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Department at least 1 working day in advance to request the following grading inspections prior to continuing grading operations: i) The bottom of the over-excavation; ii) Completion of Rough Grading, prior to issuance of the building permit; iii) At the completion of Rough Grading, the grading contractor or owner shall submit to the Permit Technicians (Engineering Services Department Front Counter) an original and a copy of the Pad Certifications to be prepared by and properly wet signed and sealed by the Civil Engineer and Soils Engineer of Record; iv) The rough grading certificates and the compaction reports will be reviewed by the Associate Engineer or a designated person and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. 14. Prior to approval of the project-specific storm water quality management plan, the applicant shall submit to the Engineering Services Department, a precise grading plan showing the location and elevations of existing topographical features, and showing the location and proposed elevations of proposed structures and drainage of the site. 15. Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed per the latest adopted California Plumbing Code. Private storm drain improvements shall be shown on the grading and drainage plan. 16. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or final sign off by the Building Inspector the engineer of record shall certify the functionality of the storm water quality management plan (WQMP) storm water treatment devices and best management practices (BMP). 17. Prior to approval of the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), the WQMP shall include a copy of the project Conditions of Approval. 18. The Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP) has been deemed "Acceptable". Prior to the issuance of a grading permit a final project-specific Water Quality Management Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Services Department. 19. The land/property owner shall follow the inspection and maintenance requirements of the approved project specific Water Quality Management Plan and shall provide a copy of the inspection reports on a biennial basis to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager. 20. A final project-specific Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be approved by the Engineering Services Department, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga's "Memorandum of Storm Water Quality Management Plan" shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any building permit. www.CityofRC.us Printed:3/5/2020 241 Page 6 of 8 Project#: DRC2019-00069 DRC2019-00828 Project Name: New Warehouse at Public Works Service Yard Location: 8794 LION ST - 020901385-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 21. Prior to the issuance of a building permit or Engineering Services Department issued right of way permit, the applicant shall submit to the Engineering Services Department, a final project specific water quality management plan for review and approval, and shall have said document recorded with the San Bernardino County Recorder's Office. 22. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the Final Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan shall include a completed copy of "Worksheet H: Factor of Safety and Design Infiltration Worksheet" located in Appendix D "Section VII — Infiltration Rate Evaluation Protocol and Factor of Safety Recommendations, ..." of the San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans. The infiltration study shall include the Soil Engineer's recommendations for Appendix D, Table VII.3: Suitability Assessment Related Considerations for Infiltration Facility Safety Factors". 23. Prior to approval of the final project-specific water quality management plan the applicant shall have a soils engineer prepare a project-specific infiltration study for the project for the purposes of storm water quality treatment. The infiltration study and recommendations shall follow the guidelines in the current adopted "San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans". 24. The subject project, shall accept all existing off-site storm water drainage flows and safely convey those flows through or around the project site. If existing off-site storm water drainage flows mix with any on-site storm water drainage flows, then the off-site storm water drainage flows shall be treated with the on-site storm water drainage flows for storm water quality purposes, prior to discharging the storm water drainage flows from the project site. 25. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the Building Official, or his designee, the civil engineer of record shall file a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Post Construction Storm Water Treatment Devices As-Built Certificate with the Environmental Programs Coordinator, City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Services Department. 26. Section 1.5.1, Table 1-1 Priority Projects, Category No. 3 (future fleet vehicle maintenance building), of the San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans. As a condition of approval, the site shall be engineered for the treatment of storm water pollutants from the future fleet vehicle maintenance building. 27. The permitted grading plan and the final project-specific water quality management plan are proposing stormwater detention basin (commonly referred to as BMPs) for the treatment of storm water runoff as required in the current adopted Municipal Separate Storm Sewers Systems (MS4) Permit. The depth of the proposed retained water equals or exceeds 18-inches. Therefore prior to the issuance of a grading permit and approval of the final project-specific water quality management plan the applicant shall show a barrier a minimum of 60-inches above the finished ground surface. 28. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the precise grading and drainage plan shall follow the format provided in the City of Rancho Cucamonga handout "Information for Grading Plans and Permit". www.CityofRC.us Printed:3/5/2020 242 Page 7 of 8 Project#: DRC2019-00069 DRC2019-00828 Project Name: New Warehouse at Public Works Service Yard Location: 8794 LION ST - 020901385-0000 Project Type: Design Review Sign Permit Notice of Filing ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 29. Prior to approval of the final project-specific water quality management plan the applicant shall have a soils engineer prepare a project-specific infiltration study for the project for the purposes of storm water quality treatment. The infiltration study and recommendations shall follow the guidelines in the current adopted "San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans". Note: As this project has been previously graded and the site soils have been compacted for parking lot purposes, the use of the Custom Soil Resource Report for San Bernardino County Southwestern Part by the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service for natural soils is not acceptable for soil groundwater infiltration rates. www.CityofRC.us Printed:3/5/2020 243 Page 8 of 8