The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 10262004 - C2 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: MAURICE M. SHIU,PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR Costa DATE: October 26, 2004 ( u my SUBJECT: San Francisco Bay Tail Carquinez Strait Segment,Development Plan,Martinez area WO# 4009 SPECIFIC REQUEST{S}OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND 7ND"JUSTIFICA70"N RECOMMENDED ACTION: ACCEPT San Francisco Bay Trail Carquinez Strait Segment,Development Plan,and SUPPORT efforts to obtain funding to implement the plan, as recommended by Supervisor Uillcema. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no impact to the County General Fund. Continued on Attachment: SIGNATURE: `f [ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ❑ RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE a APPROVE ❑ OTHER { SIGNATURE(S): ' ACTION OF BOAF1 N OCTOBER 26, 2004 APPROVED AS I*OMMENDEll OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS xx UNANIMOUS(ABSENT NONE ) I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action AYES: NOES: taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on ABSENT: ABSTAIN: the date shown. AS jo G:1TransEng\2004tB0-TE\B0 SF Bay Trail„Development Plan.doc ATTESTED:—_ --QC"I0 EP 26 s 2004 C}rig,Div:Public Works{Transportation Division} JOHNSWEETEN,Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator Contact. {AI Schaal 313-2234} cc: County Administrator By - � ,Deputy SUBJECT: San Francisco Bay Trail Carquinez Strait Segment,Development Plan, Martinez area TATO# 4009 DATE: October 26, 2004 PAGE: 2 of 2 REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS AND BACKGROUND: The San Francisca Bay Trail Carquinez Strait Segment, Development Plan outlines the construction necessary to repair the closed section of the trail to facilitate the use of the trail by pedestrians,bicyclists and equestrians,and a phasing plan for the construction of the facilities. On April 24,2001 the Board of Supervisors authorized the County to apply for and accept a$75,000 San Francisco Bay Trail Regional Development Program Funds Grant. On December 3,2002 the Board of Supervisors approved a Consulting Services Agreement with Cal Engineering and Geology to perform soils testing,prepare a Soils Report,a Design Alternatives Report, a Planning Study Report, and a .Development Plan. The East Bay Regional Park District,and the City of Martinez reviewed and commented on the draft plans and attended an Agency Coordinating meeting on January 6,2003. A public meeting to obtain comments from the public on the draft Development Plan was held on February 26, 2004. CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Failure to accept the San Francisco Bay Trail Carquinez Strait Segment, Development Plan may delay securing funding for the repairs needed to open the trail to pedestrians and bicyclists. SAN FRANCISCO BAY 'TRAIL CARQUINEZ STRAIT SEGMENT DEVELOPMENT PLAN REPORT MAY 2004 a' _y { Prepared for Contra Costa County Public Works Department Prepared by Cal Engineering &. Geology, Inc. Alta Planning + Design E&G 1870 Olympic Blvd, Supe 100 Walnut Creek CAL ENGINE RING &GEOLOGY California 94596 Tel:(925)935-977! Fax:(925)935-9773 www.caleng.com 15 ,Tune 2004 Contra Costa County Public Works Department 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, California 94553 Attention: Al Schaal RE: Development Plan Report San Francisco.Bay Trail Carquinez Strait Segment Project No. 076766-6P4009-02 Dear Mr. Schaal: We have completed the Development Plan Report for the San Francisco Bay Trail - Carquinez Strait Segment project. Five bound copies and two stapled copies and one clipped copy of the report are enclosed for your use. This report is the final deliverable under our contract. We trust the attached material provides you with the information required to proceed. After reviewing this draft report, please your comments to us so that we can finalize the report. Should you have questions please call me at your convenience. Sincerely, CAL ENGINEE G& GEOLOGY, INC. ._. Phillip rego E., G.E. Priv 'p En ine r IN enclosures: copies of Dev meat Plan Report as copy: Ian Moore,Alta Planning+Design 021690.004 Cal ngineering eo ogy,Inc. ' . � TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCT10N.......................— ............................ ................ ......................................... ....l 1.1 Project Description~—'---------~—^---''------~~~''----^^—'-- / 1.2 Project Plan Development..................................................................—'....................... ...... 1 1.3 Development Plan ~_............................................. .....................—........................1 2 SITE .—._--..—~—'.—~..~~'.---.''.—__--~—_--.—~—_3 2.1 ................ ............ _................................,.............. ........ ...................................._.3 2.2 Roadwav Conditions ........................................................................................................_..3 2.3 Natural and Cultural Features...................................................................................— ........h 3 PREFERRED DESIGN ALTERNATIVE.................................................. ......................... .D 3.1 Design Alternatives Study........ .......................... .......... ............ ............................. .........11 3.2 Preferred Design Concept ...... .....................--... .............— ........... —...... ....................12 3.3 Construction Cost Estimates........ ................ .............. ................................................. ....21 34 Operations and Maintenance......................... ..... —. .... .......................................... ..........21 4 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN................................................. ............... ...............2j 4.1Phasing—.................................................................................... ........ ....................................29 42 Implementation Plans............... ...................................................... —. ............ ..................24 5 PROJECT FUNDING STRATEGIES......................................................................................28 5.1 Plan Adoption and Inclusion................. ................. .....—................................... ...............20 52 '---_—.—..,----.—'^-----.-----.-----------.20 _ 205.3 Sources..................................................................................................................... 5,4 Financing........................................ ........................................................................................3u TABLES Table 1: Existing EoJbsokzueut / Cot Sknzc / Pavement Features and Proposed Design Concepts Table 2: Existing Cross Drainage Features and Proposed Design Concepts Table 3: Summary of Proposed Embankment Stabilization Measures Table 4: Summary of Proposed Cut Slope Stabilization Measures Table 5: Summary ofProposed Pavement Overlay / New Section Table 6: Comparison ofDesign 6l1cooucbes Table 7: Conceptual-Level Construction Cost Estimate Table 8: Sample Phasing Plan and Costs Table 9: Funding Sources FIGURES Figure 1: Vicinitv Map Figure 2: Site Map Key Figure 3: Site Map vithDesign Concepts (Z sheets) Figure 4: Alignment Profile Figure 5: Drainage FcuUoem Figure 6: Design Coucepzm—Typical I}coailm (2 sheets) Figure 7: Design Concepts—Failure Area utStation 154 Figure Design Cnuoepts—Euiloze Area ucStation 161 S.F. Bay Trail-Carquinez Strait Segment Cal Engineering Development Plan Report mtaPlanning~Design iii Figure 9: Design Concepts—Failure Area at Station 172 Figure 10: Design Concepts—Failure Area at Station 176 Figure 11: Design Concepts—Failure Area at Station 191 APPENDICES Appendix A—Operation and Maintenance Plan Appendix B—Public Workshop Summary S.F. Bay Trail-Carquinez Strait Segment Cal Engineering Et Geotogy, Inc. Devetopment Pian Report Atta Planning+Design ......................................... 1 1 INTRODUCTION 1 . 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The San Francisco Bay Trail - Carquinez Strait Segment project is a proposed multi-use trail to be constructed along a closed 1.7 mile section of Carquinez Scenic Drive. The proposed trail segment is located in unincorporated Contra Costa County west of Martinez, California (Figure 1). The completed trail will become part of the San Francisco Bay Trail system which, when complete, will encircle San Francisco and San Pablo Bays with a continuous, 440-mile network of bicycling and hiking trails connecting the shorelines of all nine Bay Area counties, linking 47 cities, and crossing the major toll 'bridges in the region. The proposed new Carquinez Strait segment will provide a vital link between existing trail segments and improved access to the Carquinez Regional Shoreline. Development of the project will be managed by Contra Costa County and the trail segment will eventually be owned,operated,and maintained by the East Bay Regional Park District(EBRPD). 1 .2 PROJECT PLAN DEVELOPMENT Development of the San Francisco Bay Trail is coordinated by the Bay Trail Project, a nonprofit organization associated with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). A grant to prepare a development plan for the Carquinez Strait Segment project was awarded by the Bay Trail Project to Contra Costa County. The County contracted with Cal Engineering & Geology /Alta Planning + Design (CEG/Alta) to provide engineering and planning services needed to prepare the development plan for the project. Services being provided by the CEG/Alta team include completion of a Preliminary Geotechnical Report, a Design Alternatives Report, and a Planning Study Report, and preparation of this Development Plan Report. The completed Preliminary Geotechnical Report and Design Alternatives Report provide engineering recommendations for development of the project and serve as the basis for the planning recommendations included in the Planning Study Report and this report. 1 .3 DEVELOPMENT PLAN REPORT This report presents a preliminary plan for implementing the recommended engineering design concept for converting the closed portion of Carquinez Scenic Drive into the Carquinez Strait Segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail. The plan addresses improvements to be made within the project limits. The project limits include the currently closed portion of the Carquinez Scenic Drive alignment (gate to gate) and extend from the Port Costa Materials processing plant to the Point Ozol military fuel storage facility (Figures 2 and 3). The plan also considers potential use of the existing paved access road through the Point Ozol facility as a possible alternate trail alignment or emergency and maintenance vehicle access route. S.F. Bay Trait-Carquinez Strait Segment Cal Engineering 8 Geology, Inc. Devetopment Plan Report Alta Planning+Design The following tasks were undertaken as part of the planning study: 1. completing a detailed assessment of the site conditions along the proposed project alignment 2. summarizing and presenting the recommended engineering design concepts developed in the Design Alternatives Report 3. providing conceptual recommendations for elements of the project not covered in the Design Alternatives Report 4. developing criteria for logical phasing of project implementation 4. meeting with County, Bay Trail Association, and EBRPD staff to solicit input regarding phasing priorities and funding limitations 5. developing preliminary project phasing G. developing preliminary project funding strategies and identifying potential funding sources i. coordinating a public meeting to present the results of the above items and to solicite public comments S.F. Bay Trait-Carquinez Strait Segment Cat Engineering£t Geology, Inc. Development Plan Report Alta Planning+Design 3 2 SITE CONDITIONS 2.1 SETTING Carquinez Scenic Drive is a narrow, winding, two-lane paved road extending along the northeast-facing bluff overlooking the south shore of Carquinez Strait from Crockett to Martinez. The road was originally developed along the steep bluffs along the shore to provide a link between the towns situated on the south side of the Carquinez Strait. It was the first unproved road that linked east and west Contra Costa County. The road traverses along one of the least developed coastal areas of the county and provides access to a setting and environment unique to the county. The 1.7-mile long segment that is the subject of the project has been closed to the public since 1983 due to pavement deterioration and landslide activity that occurred primarily during the winter of 1981-1982. The closed segment of the road is currently gated and is impassable to vehicular traffic. Very little maintenance to the closed segment has been carried out over the past twenty years. Despite its generally poor condition, the roadway is a developed facility that even in its current condition presents an unmatched opportunity to develop a superior multi-use trail facility in a unique setting. The current conditions of the roadway and the natural and cultural features present along its alignment are presented in more detail below. 2.2 ROADWAY CONDITIONS GENERAL Within the project limits the Carquinez Scenic.Drive roadway generally consists of two 10 to 12 foot wide paved lanes except where embankment failures or cut slope sloughing has reduced the width. At most locations there are typically no effective shoulders. The roadway appears to have been originally constructed by cutting into the natural slope and placing fill on the downslope side. The exceptions are a few locations where the road crosses swales and ravines and the roadway is entirely on fill. Cut slope inclinations vary but are generally between 0.5H:1 V (horizontal to vertical) to 1H:1V. Embankment fill slope inclinations are generally between 1H:1V and 2H:1V. Cut and fill slopes appear to have maximum heights of about 50 and 40 feet, respectively. Existing drainage facilities consist of a v-Glitch along the uphill side of the roadway and a number of cross-drainage facilities. The extensive visible distress to the pavement, embankments, and cut slopes within the project limits are indications of unfavorable underlying geotechnical conditions. The Preliminary Geotechnical Study carried out for this project included a document review, site reconnaissance of the entire alignment, and subsurface investigation at critical sites. Refer to the Preliminary Geotechnical Report, dated 18 July 2003, for identification of areas along the alignment that currently have, or appear to have the potential for, stability problems and for generalized geotechnical recommendations for stabilization and repair. S.F. Bay Trail-Carquinez Strait Segment Cal engineering Et Geology, Inc. Development Plan Report Alta Planning+Design 4 ALIGNMENT Existing Road The 8975-foot long Carquinez Scenic Drive alignment within the project limits traverses the hili slopes above the south shore of the Carquinez Strait. The alignment has a number of tight curves with radii under 100 feet (95 foot radius at station 121, 85 foot radius at station 127, 70 foot radius at station 147, and 75 foot radius at station 166). For the most part, the extensively curving alignment of the road is a result of the steep topography. The existing road alignment shows some improvements when compared to the original 1914-1917 road plans, however, for the most part there appears to have been little opportunity for realignment without initiating significant up or down hill slope failures. The road climbs from about the 80 foot elevation at the west gate (station 102+80) to a high point at about the 150 foot elevation before descending into and crossing a canyon at about the 100 foot elevation. The road again climbs reaching the 200 foot elevation below Point Ozal before descending to the 120 foot elevation at the east gate (station 192+55). The profile along the project stationing line is shown on Figure 4. The maximum grade is approximately 5.8%. Point O.Zol The 2520-foot long Point Ozol access road alignment was studied as a possible alternative trail alignment that could potentially avoid the landslide conditions along the southeastern portion of Carquinez Scenic Drive. This road accesses and runs through the Point Ozol military fuel storage facility,which is currently closed to the public. The access road departs Carquinez Scenic Drive at station 171+50 (elevation 180), climbs to the 335 foot elevation at the storage tank site, and then descends to the 115 foot elevation where it returns to Scenic Drive at station 193+50, located just to the southeast of the project limit at the east gate. The Point Ozol access road has curves and grades that are significantly tighter and steeper (the maximum grade is over 25%) than those of the Caqrquinez Scenic Drive roadway and is not considered feasible for use as a multi- purpose trail. However, the access road could potentially be used for a hiking trail alternative route or for service and emergency vehicle access. Point Ozol access road at station 171+50 S.F. Bay Trait-Carquinez Strait Segment Cat Engineering Fs Geology, Inc. Development Plan Report Alta Planning+Design 5 EMBANKMENTS Embankment fill materials for the Carquinez Scenic Drive within the project limits appear to have been obtained from the uphill cuts and consist of colluvial soil and weathered bedrock. Based on the age of the road it is unlikely that the embankments were constructed with keyways and/or benched into the steep slopes or that subsurface drainage was provided. At many locations, progressive downslope creep of the fill embankment has occurred and caused significant damage to the roadway pavement. In general, the most severe creep areas appear to be associated with steep and high fill slopes or with fill embankments situated on existing inactive landslides prone to creep. More distinct embankment failures have occurred at a number of locations and have resulted in either the partial or entire loss of the roadway. In some cases the failures involve only embankment materials. In other cases the failures also involve deeper native colluvial and residual soil, weathered bedrock, or older landslide material upon which the embankment was constructed. At most of the embankment failure locations, significant hazardous conditions exist because of the existing unprotected drop offs. The location and description of observed embankment conditions that warrant stabilization measures are identified in Table 1. The most significant embankment failure areas are located in the vicinity of stations 128, 154, 161, 172, 176,and 191 and are described below. Embankment Fafl re Area at Station 128 The embankment failure at this location is approximately 3001 feet wide with a 10 foot high headscarp. The failure of the embankment and underlying older landslide material has resulted in the loss of the outer lane. Embankment Failure Area at Station 154 The embankment failure at this location is approximately 100 feet wide with a headscarp of up to 12 feet high. The failure of the embankment and underlying older landslide material has resulted in the loss of both lanes. Ern bankment Fa ime Area at Station 161 The embankment failure at this location is approximately 200 feet wide with a 15 foot high headscarp. The failure of the embankment and underlying older landslide material has resulted in the loss of the outer lane. Embankment Failure Area at Station 172 The embankment and slope failure at this location is approximately 50 feet wide at the road with a 10 foot high headscarp and has resulted in the loss of 3 feet of the outer lane. The failure is within a larger slope failure that extends approximately 325 feet down to the railroad at the toe of the slope. The railroad has historically removed landslide debris from the toe of the slope in order to keep the rail line open. These operations have inadvertently worsened the conditions upslope at the road. S.F. bay Trait-Carquinez Strait Segment Cal Engineering£t Geology, Inc. Development Plan Report Alta Planning+Design 6 Embankment Failure Area at Station 176 The embankment and slope failure at this location is approximately 200 feet wide with a headscarp of up to 18 feet high and has resulted in the complete loss of 100 feet of road embankment. The failure extends approximately 310 feet , .= ....... down to the railroad at the toe of the slope. Note that there is an associated significant cut slope failure at this site described in a later section. Embankment Failure Area at Station 191 The embankment failure at this location is approximately 50 feet wide with a headscarp of up to 15 feet high. The failure of the embankment and underlying colluvial material has resulted in the loss of outer lane. View of the large scarp at Station 176. CUT SLOPES The materials exposed along Carquinez Scenic Drive within the project limits in the cuts generally consist of colluvial soil or weathered bedrock. The outer surface of the weathered bedrock exposed in the cut slopes is in many cases severely weathered and prone to raveling, sloughing, and filling the drainage ditch. Deeper failures of cut slopes are present at a few locations. The location and description of observed cut slope conditions that warrant stabilization measures are identified in Table 1. The most significant cut slope failure areas are located in the vicinity of stations 162, 167, 176,and 191 and are described below. Cut Slope Failure Area at Station 16.2 This cut slope failure is a 50 foot wide earthflow-type failure onto road. Cut Slope Failure Area at Station 167 This cut slope failure is a 50 foot wide earthflow-type failure onto road. Cut Slope Failure Area at Station 176 This cut slope failure is a 150 foot wide veneer-type failure of weathered rock with a flow of material onto the road. The slide debris varies from fine Several earthflow failures have flowed onto and across the road. material up to large boulders. There is a high potential for future slope failures with a particular hazard from rock fall. Note that there is an associated significant embankment slope failure at this site described in a previous section. S.F. Bay Trail•Carquinez Strait Segment Cal Engineering Et Geology, Inc. Development Plan Report Alta Planning+Design 7 Cut Slope Farlure.Area at Station 191 This cut slope failure is a 250 foot wide raveling-type failure of weathered rock cut with deposition of material onto road. Failure debris is predominately fine material. There is potential for future raveling. PAVEMENT The pavement width along Carquinez Scenic Drive within the project limits varies between 20 and 24 feet but in many locations the roadway is now significantly narrower as a result of embankment failures and encroachment of up slope material onto the road. The upper pavement material is asphalt concrete. A narrower width of Portland cement concrete pavement under the asphalt pavement is apparent in many locations. This concrete pavement probably dates from the original roadway construction and could underlay the asphalt for the entire alignment but this has not been confirmed. The existing pavement for over half of the 8975 foot alignment can be characterized as being in very poor condition. In almost all cases this poor condition is a result of subgrade failure associated with embankment instability. At locations where long-term embankment creep has occurred there is typically severe cracking, settlement, and deformation of the roadway pavement. Particularly prevalent are open cracks and displacement along the outer edge of the roadway. In contrast, at the few locations where the roadway passes entirely through cut, usually where the road rounds the prominent ridge noses, the pavement shows almost no cracking although the surface is, in almost all such cases,weathered and friable. The condition of the remainder of the pavement can be characterized as moderate. Extensive random cracking exists, but with little apparent opening of the cracks. In addition, the pavement surface in these areas is in almost all cases weathered and friable. The lack of The most severe pavement cracking is at the observed movement of the pavement indicates relatively embankment repair sites. stable subgrade conditions and typically correlates to locations where the roadway is situated on more gently sloping hillsides with minimal, or stable,hillside fill or at the few locations where the roadway crosses a ravine and is constructed on a non-hillside embankment. Notable pavement conditions along the alignment are summarized in'fable 1. S.F.Say Trail-Carquinez Strait Segment Cal Engineering ft Geology,Inc. Development Plan Report Atta Planning+Design 8 DRAINAGE Existing drainage facilities within the project limits include a v-ditch along the uphill, or eastbound, side of the roadway and a number of cross-drainage facilities. The drainage facilities have not been maintained for many years and are typically in poor condition. The roadside v-ditch is typically a few feet wide and is generally located immediately adjacent to the edge of the pavement. Along most of the alignment the v-ditch is filled with soil, rock, and vegetation debris and at many locations is allowing runoff to cross the road onto the embankment slopes. The existing cross-drainage facilities include at least 14 corrugated metal pipe (CMP) culverts. A few of the pipes are in good condition and fully functional. However, most are filled or partially filled with soil and plant debris. Many of the culvert inverts are rusted with some completely rusted through. Most of the culvert installations include concrete drainage inlets or headwalls located in or adjacent to the roadside v-ditch. Many of the drainage inlets are filled with soil and vegetation debris. Some culverts have concrete endwalls, although most simply have pipe extending out over the embankment slope. At a few locations there are erosion problems at the culvert outlets. The most significant cross drainage facility at the site is a concrete box culvert located at station 147+57. The culvert is approximately 90 feet long and is under a 15 to 20 foot high embankment crossing a ravine. The culvert is approximately 4 foot wide by 4 foot high and handles runoff from a drainage area of approximately 130 acres. For the most part the box culvert and concrete endwalls appear to be in good condition except that there is no concrete invert slab and approximately 1 foot of down cutting of the invert has occurred partially exposing the footings of the concrete walls. The locations of existing cross drainage facilities (and associated drainage areas) are shown on Figure 5. The condition of these facilities is summarized in Table 2. 2.3 NATURAL AND CULTURAL FEATURES VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE x: The major plant communities that occur in the ter{ vicinity of the project site include plant species w�� typical of annual grassland oak woodland and4 coastal scrub vegetation. Localized wooded communities are composed of oak and oak/bay woodland. Buckeye can be found in protected east- facing slopes and ravines. Plantings of eucalyptus groves are also present at scattered locations. � x r �'S" The grasslands provide habitat to western meadowlark, horned lark, house finch, western bluebird, and American goldfinch,which forage and Cooper's Hawk perched on an existing light pole on the Point Ozol site S.F. Bay Trait-Carquinez Strait Segment Cal Engineering B Geology, Inc. Development Plan Report Alta Planning+Design 9 nest in the area. Valley oaks offer perches and nest sites for the red-tailed hawk, American kestrel, golden eagle, northern harrier, great horned owl and barn owl. Cooper's hawks depend on the riparian ravines for nesting and for providing cover for ambushing prey. Mammals include the gray fox, mule deer, raccoon, eastern fox squirrel, Botta's pocket gopher, and a variety of other species. Small rodents are prey to gopher snakes, sharp-tailed snakes, and western garter snakes. VIEWS As one would expect by the roadway name, Carquinez Scenic Drive offers a variety of views, ranging from long vistas and panoramas to intimate foreground views. The position On the slope affords several opportunities for long views across and along the Strait. Visible are the Strait itself,with tugboat and freighter traffic, the railroad below, the northern shore of the Strait with hills above, the City of Benicia, the Ozol Pier, the Benicia- Martinez Bridge, the City of Martinez, and Mount Diablo. Close-in views along the route include mature oak/bay laurel woodland, ravines, and the materials handling facility at the Example of view to the east from an exposed northwest end. ridge along Carquinez Scenic Drive The alternating close-in views in the drainages and the long views across the ridge noses create a sequence of experiences for those traveling along the route. A variety of localized environments provide differing sensations of light and shadow, open and closed space, exposure and protection, and diverse vegetation and wildlife communities that together increase the enjoyment of the user. ADJACENT LAND USES Aim The land immediately adjacent to Carquinez Scencic Drive is both privately and publicly owned. At the northeast project limit is the Port Costa quarry and materials processing facility, where rock products are produced. The active Southern Pacific Railroad runs on tracks at the base of the slope along the Strait. Above the road at the east end of the project site is the Point Ozol military fuel storage facility,which is currently closed to the public for security and operational reasons. To the east of the site is the eastern section of Carquinez Regional Shoreline, a 2,795 acre Example of existing adjacent land uses,at Port Costa materials processing facility S.F. Bay Trait •Carquinez Strait Segment Cat Engineering ti Geology, Inc. Development Plan Report Alta Planning+Design 10 park owned by the EBRPD. This eastern section of the park is separated from the western section by private land,including the lands adjacent to Carquinez Scenic Drive. S.F. Bay Trait-Carquinez Strait Segment Cal Engineering It Geology,inc. Development Plan Report Alta Manning+Design 11 3 PREFERRED DESIGN ALTERNATIVE 3.1 DESIGN ALTERNATIVES STUDY The primary objective of the Design Alternatives study was to develop and evaluate design alternatives and recommend a preferred engineering design concept for converting the currently closed portion of Carquinez Scenic Drive to a safe, low maintenance,paved multi-use trail. The design objectives used to guide the development and evaluation of the conceptual-level design alternatives included: 1. reestablish an acceptable geometry and operating function of embankment, cut slope, drainage,pavement,and other facilities to allow for safe use by pedestrians,wheel chair users, and bicyclists, as well as emergency and maintenance vehicles (including occasional trucks with equipment trailers) 2. minimize routine maintenance requirements and likelihood of future repairs 3. minimize adverse environmental impacts both during and after construction 4. maintain the aesthetic characteristics of the site to be compatible with the surrounding area 5. favor safe conventional construction methods which maximize the use of on-site materials 6. minimize construction costs Due to the steep togography and generally unfavorable geotechnical conditions at the site, deviating significantly from the existing alignment to avoid embankment or cut slope failure is not considered a viable option. Therefore,specific improvements required to effectively convert the closed section of existing roadway to a multi-use trail were evaluated in depth as part of the Design Alternatives Study. The preferred design elements were identified based on the evaluation and are presented in the Design Alternatives Report, dated 18 July 2003. Engineering design criteria considered in development of the details of the conceptual-level design include applicable sections of Caltransi, ADA', and FHWA3 design guidelines, as well as Caltrans, Contra Costa County, and EPRPD standard plans and/or special design criteria. The published design criteria cannot always be strictly applied to the reconstruction of an existing facility but should be followed where entirely new elements are being designed. 1 California Department of Transportation,Highway Design Manual,Fifth Edition. 2 Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access Part II of 11: Best Practices Design Guide,USDOT,Federal Highway Administration:Chapter 14.Shared Use Path Design 3 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Falls and.Reinforced Soil Slopes,Design and Construction Guidelines,U.S. Department of Transportation,Federal Highway Administration,March 2001,Publication No.FH IA-NHI- 00-043. S.F.Say Trail-Carquinez Strait Segment Cat Engineering ft Geology, Inc. Development Plan Report Alta Planning+Design 12 3.2 PREFERRED DESIGN CONCEPT GENERAL The preferred conceptual-level design presented in the Design Alternatives Report, defines the needed improvements and allows for estimating the construction costs for the prosect. Descriptions of the various recommended components of the conceptual-level design are briefly presented in this report. Refer to the Design Alternatives Report for more complete descriptions and evaluations as well as descriptions and evaluations of design alternatives developed but not recommended. The overall design concept for the project is composed of various components that are designated as either "standard conceptual designs" that are to be constructed along an estimated length of alignment or "site-specific conceptual designs" that were developed for five specific,more significant, failure areas. The estimated construction cost for the overall project conceptual-level design is included in Table 7. Detailed construction cost estimates for the various components of the design concept are included in the Design Alternatives Report. The preferred conceptual-level design was presented to the public during a workshop held in February 2004. A summary of the comments provided by the public are presented in Appendix B. ALIGNMENT The recommended horizontal and vertical alignment for the multi-use trail within the project limits essentially conforms to the existing 8975 foot long Carquinez Scenic Drive alignment as shown on the site map on Figures 3A and 313 and profile on Figure 4. Due to the steep topography and generally unfavorable geotechnical conditions at the site, deviating significantly from the existing alignment to avoid embankment or cut slope failure areas is not considered a viable option. Introducing sharp jogs in the trail alignment to avoid failure areas is also not recommended as this could create a hazardous condition for cyclists. Therefore at some of the failure areas, the original roadway alignment is reestablished in conjunction with the recommended embankment or cut slope stabilization design concepts presented in the following sections. The roadway alignment has a number of tight curves with radii less than those recommended by Caltrans for this type of facility (approximately 140 foot minimum radius recommended for design speeds of 25 mph and 250 foot minimum for 30 mph, depending on superelevation). However, as discussed above, deviating significantly from the existing horizontal alignment to increase curve radii is not considered a viable option. At locations where curves are tighter than desired appropriate caution signs and possible centerline stripping should be installed. There are a number of locations along the alignment that have inadequate sight distances. Most of these conditions can be improved considerably by trimming vegetation along the edge of the roadway. S.F. Bay Trait-Carquinez Strait Segment Cal Engineering Ex Geology, Inc. Development Plan Report Alta Planning+Design 13 No changes to the existing roadway grades along the alignment are recommended. Within the project limits, there is one 1200 foot long 5.8% grade that is steeper than the Caltrans recommended 5.0% maximum for this type of facility. However, because of the length of this segment, adjusting the existing vertical alignment to improve the grade is not considered a viable option. The use of the 2520 foot long Point Ozol access road for a portion of the multi-use trail alignment is not recommended. The use of this route was considered in order to bypass the significant embankment and cut slope failure areas on the Carquinez Scenic Drive alignment between station 171+50 and the end of the project at station 192+55. This option was rejected because the tight curves and steep grades of the Point Ozol access road alignment are not considered acceptable. In particular the 25% grade at the south end of the alignment is excessive. While the use of the Point Ozol access road for a portion of the multi-use trail alignment is not recommended, the use of this road is considered as a possible hiking trail route or an alternative route for emergency and maintenance vehicles. EMBANKMENT'S Standard embankment crest reconstruction, embankment reconstruction, and segmental retaining wall design concepts as well as site-specific design concepts for five of the more significant embankment failure areas are described below. Standard Embankment Crest Reconstructson The embankment crest reconstruction design concept is recommended for stabilizing and restoring the roadway embankment at locations where only the crest area of the embankment has moved or is unstable and has resulted in the loss of shoulder and/or distress to the outer edge of the pavement. Construction work will typically consist of removal of all existing pavement material, excavation of embankment material at the crest to a depth of 2 to 6 feet, installation of a subsurface drain, placement of compacted geogrid-reinforced fill. (using on-site earth material),and minor regrading of the adjacent embankment slope areas and roadside ditch as necessary. Cast-in-drilled-hole (CID-1) reinforced concrete piles are recommended for some locations to provide increased stability at the toe of the reinforced fill where conventional keys into competent material appear impractical. A new pavement structural section is recommended at all locations where embankment crest reconstruction is recommended. Pavement design concepts are described in a later section. All finished slope surfaces along the embankment crest will be vegetated by hydroseeding and installing a durable erosion control mat. A typical detail of the standard embankment crest reconstruction design concept is shown on Figure 6. The locations where the standard embankment crest design concept is recommended are shown on the site map on Figure 3 and described in Table 1 with the locations and lengths summarized on Table 3. The total estimated construction cost for the recommend embankment crest reconstruction and associated piles is summarized in Table 7. Standard Embankment Reconstruction The embankment reconstruction design concept is similar to the embankment crest reconstruction design concept described above except that it is recommended for stabilizing and restoring the roadway embankment at locations where a significant portion of the embankment S.F.Bay Trail-Carquinez Strait Segment Cal Engineering Et Geology,Inc. Development Plan Report Alta Planning+Design 14 has moved or is unstable. Construction work will typically consist of removal of all existing pavement material, excavation of embankment material and underlying unstable natural slope material, installation of a subsurface drainage system, placement of compacted geogrid- reinforced fill (using on-site earth material), and minor regrading of the adjacent embankment slope areas and roadside ditch as necessary. CIDH concrete piles,providing increased stability at the toe of the reinforced fill, are recommended in locations where a conventional key into competent material appears impractical. The height of the standard embankment reconstruction is not expected to exceed 30 feet. A new pavement structural section is recommended at all locations where embankment reconstruction is recommended. pavement design concepts are described in a later section. All finished embankment slope surfaces will be vegetated by hydroseeding and installing a durable erosion control mat. Additional planting of shrubs or trees on the embankment slope is possible. A typical detail of the standard embankment reconstruction design concept is shown on Figure 6. The site locations where the standard embankment design concept is recommended are shown on the site map on Figure 3 and described in Table 1 with the locations and lengths summarized on Table 3. The total estimated construction cost for the recommend standard embankment reconstruction and associated piles is summarized in Table 7. Standard Segmental Retarnmg WaB The segmental retaining wall design concept is similar to the embankment reconstruction design concept described above but is appropriate for stabilizing and restoring the roadway embankment at locations where limited space requires a steeper finished slope than is practical for an unfaced geogrid-reinforced embankment. A segmental retaining wall (SRW) is constructed similar to a geogrid-reinforced earth embankment but has precast concrete facing units attached to the geogrid layers. Construction work will typically consist of removal of all existing pavement material, excavation of embankment material and underlying unstable natural slope material, installation of a subsurface drainage system, incremental placement of SRW facing units with compacted geogrid-reinforced backfill (using on--site earth material), and minor regrading of adjacent embankment slope areas and roadside ditch as necessary. The use of CIDH concrete piles with a grade beam (pile cap) is recommended in some locations to provide increased stability at the toe of the wall where a conventional key into competent material appears impractical. The height of the standard segmental retaining wall is not expected to exceed 20 feet. A new pavement structural section would be needed at all locations where the segmental retaining wall is recommended. Pavement design concepts are described in a later section. The area immediately adjacent to the completed retaining wall may require minor grading to conform to the surrounding slope. All disturbed ground surfaces will be vegetated by hydroseeding and installing a durable erosion control mat. Adjacent tree, shrub, and vine planting and the use of SRW facing units with a rough texture and natural color would help to moderate the visual impact of the completed retaining wall. A typical detail of the standard segmental retaining wall design concept is shown on Figure 6. The segmental retaining wall design concept is recommended for this project because it allows for the maximum use of on-site moderate-quality soil backfill, because the relatively simple construction methods are familiar to most local road and earthwork contractors, and because non-proprietary engineering design can allow wall system components (facing units and geogrid) to be purchased from competing suppliers. S.F. Bay Trait-Carquinez Strait Segment Cat Engineering Et Geology, Inc. Development Plan Report Alta Planning+Design 15 There are currently no site locations where the standard segmental retaining wall design concept is recommended over the more cost-effective embankment crest or embankment reconstruction design concepts, however, segmental retaining walls are recommended design alternatives for two of the failure areas where site-specific design concepts were developed (stations 172 and 176). Station 154 Site-Speck Design Concept-Embankment Reconstruction with Piles The site-specific design concept developed for the embankment failure area in the vicinity of station 154 consists of a geogrid-reinforced earth embankment with CIDH concrete piles along the toe. The elements of this design concept are essentially the same as those described above for the standard embankment reconstruction. The reconstructed embankment at station 1.54 will be approximately 110 feet long and 28 feet high. The station 154 site location is shown on the site map on Figure 3 with a more detailed site plan and a representative cross-section for this design alternative shown on Figure 7. An evaluation of the recommended embankment reconstruction design concept for the station 154 failure area is presented in Table 6. An estimate of construction cost for this design concept is provided in Table 7. Station 1151 Site-Specific Design Concept-.embankment Reconstruction with Piles The site-specific design concept developed for the embankment failure area in the vicinity of station 161 is essentially the same as that presented for station 154. The reconstructed embankment at station 161 will be approximately 195 feet long and 24 feet high. The station 161 site location is shown on the site map on Figure 3 with a more detailed site plan and representative cross-sections for this design alternative shown on Figure 8. An evaluation of the recommended embankment reconstruction design concept for the station 161 failure area is presented in Table 6. An estimate of construction cost for this design concept is provided in Table 7. Station 17.2.Site-Speck Design Concept-Segmental Retairtmg Wall with Pries One of the site-specific design concepts developed for the embankment failure area in the vicinity of station 172 consists of a geogrid-reinforced segmental retaining wall with CIDH concrete piles and a grade beam along the toe. Elements of this design concept are similar to those described above for the standard segmental retaining wall. The segmental retaining wall at station 172 will be approximately 95 feet long with a maximum height of approximately 16 feet. In addition to the piles and grade beam providing support at the toe of the segmental retaining wall, this design concept includes the installation of CIDH concrete piles along the toe of the uphill slope to provide temporary excavation shoring and to contribute to the overall stability of the completed structure. As configured, this design alternative will accommodate the full pavement and shoulder widths of the standard new pavement section and provide a minimal but sufficient width for a guardrail and fence. The station 172 site location is shown on the site map on Figure 3 with a more detailed site plan and a representative cross-section for this design concept shown on Figure 9. S.F. Bay Trait-Carquinez Strait Segment Cal Engineering a Geology,Inc. Development Plan Report Alta Planning+Design 16 An evaluation of the various design alternatives for the station 172 failure area is presented in Table 6. The design concept described above, a segmental retaining wall with piles, is the recommended design alternative. An estimate of construction cost for this design concept is provided in Table 7. Station 176 Site-Specifre Design Concept - Segmental Retaining Wall with Piles and Debris Wall One of the site-specific design concepts developed for the embankment failure area in the vicinity of station 176 consists of a geogrid-reinforced segmental retaining wall with CIDH concrete piles and grade beam along the toe. The design concept also includes a soldier pile retaining and debris catchment wall located along the toe of the failing cut slope. Elements of this design concept are similar to the standard segmental retaining wall and solder pile debris wall. The segmental retaining wall at station 176 will be approximately 220 feet long with a maximum height of approximately 20 feet. Steel piles and lagging will be installed along the toe of the uphill cut slope. This structure will not only serve as a partial retaining wall and debris catchment structure for the raveling cut slope but the deeply embedded steel piles will also provide temporary excavation shoring and contribute to the overall stability of the completed structure. Due to the anticipated poor embedment conditions in some locations at this site,additional lateral support will be needed for the debris wall piles (particularly during the temporary shoring phase). The use of conventional tieback anchors is recommended. As configured, this design alternative will accommodate the full pavement and shoulder widths of the standard new pavement section without compromising the curve of the original roadway alignment. A minimal but sufficient width is provided for a guardrail and fence. The station 176 site location is shown on the site map on Figure 3 with a more detailed site plan and representative cross-sections for this design alternative shown on Figure 10. An evaluation of the design alternatives for the station 176 failure area is presented in Table 6. The design concept described above, the segmental retaining wall with piles and a debris wall, is the recommended design concept. An estimate of construction cost for this design concept is provided in Table 7. Station 191 Site-Specific Design Concept-Embankment Reconstruction with Piles The site-specific design concept developed for the embankment failure area in the vicinity of station 191 is essentially the same as that presented for the failure sites at stations 154 and 191. The reconstructed embankment at station 191 will be approximately 60 feet long and 28 feet high. An independent standard soldier pile debris wall is also located at this site. The station 191 site location is shown on the site map on Figure 3 with a more detailed site plan and representative cross-sections for this design alternative shown on Figure 11. An evaluation of the recommended embankment reconstruction design concept for the station 191 failure area is presented in Table 6. An estimate of construction cost for this design concept is provided in Table 7. S.F. Bay Trait-Carquinez Strait Segment Cat Engineering Ft Geology, Inc. Development Pian Report Alta Planning+Design 17 CUT SLOPES Recommended cut slope stabilization measures have generally been limited to two standard design concepts, either debris removal and regrading or a standard soldier pile debris wall. The three site-specific design alternatives discussed above for the failure area at station 176 all also include cut slope stabilization measures. Debris Rem ond and Regrading Slope locations where the debris removal and regrading design concept is recommended include those areas where raveling or erosion of the cut slope is relatively minor. In some cases regrading can be expected to exposed less weathered bedrock which will provide acceptable cut slope performance for a number of years. Regraded cut slopes may be partially vegetated by hydroseeding. Cut slope locations where debris removal and regrading is recommended are identified in Table 1 with the locations and lengths summarized on Table 4. An estimate of construction cost to regrade cutslopes is provided in Table 7. Standard Soler PVP Debris Wall The soldier pile debris wall design concept is recommended for retaining the toe of over- steepened cuts and catching additional falling debris at locations where earth or rock material from failing cuts or natural slopes have, over time, deposited significant quantities of material onto the roadway. Construction of a standard soldier pile debris wall will typically consist of removal of all debris which has encroached on the original roadway and roadside ditch as well as loose material on the slope above, installation of steel beams in drilled holes backfilled with concrete, installation of wood lagging between the beams,and backfilling of the lower(retaining) portion of the wall with pervious backfill. The heights of the standard debris walls are not expected to exceed 10 feet including both the retaining wall height and debris catchment height. Cut slopes above the completed debris wall which are relatively stable may be partially vegetated by hydroseeding. A typical detail of the standard soldier pile debris wall design concept is shown on Figure 6. The site locations where the standard soldier pile debris wall design concept is recommended are shown on the site map on Figure 3 and described in Table 1 with the locations and lengths summarized on Table 4. The total estimated cost for the recommend soldier pile debris wall construction is summarized in Table 7. Note that the estimated cost for the 160 linear feet of debris wall associated with the site-specific design concept for the failure area at station 176 is included with the other recommended work at that site. PAVEMENT Recommended pavement improvement measures have been limited to two standard design concepts, either an asphalt concrete overlay or a complete new pavement structural section. Both design concepts have a 14 foot wide asphalt concrete pavement and 2 foot wide crushed rock shoulders. S.F.Bay Trait-Carquinez Strait Segment Cat Engineering Et Geology, Inc. Development Plan Report Alta Planning+Design 18 The design pavement width was established through discussion with County, EBRPD, and ABAG staff. Based on EBRPD experience with similar facilities, the trail must readily accommodate emergency and maintenance vehicles. In particular, dump trucks with equipment trailers are likely to be used and could damage pavement edges if the width is too narrow. Therefore the pavement width for the project is set at 14 feet with a 12 foot minimum for limited distances if necessary. Shoulder widths of 3 feet are considered desirable but 2 foot wide shoulders are acceptable. Because space is limited along the entire alignment the use of standard 2 foot wide shoulders is recommended, however the possibility exists of occasionally widening the shoulders to 3 feet where space permits. Standard Pavement Overlay Construction of a pavement overlay is recommended at all locations where the existing pavement cracking has not opened significantly unless the existing pavement section is to be removed in conjunction with one of the embankment stabilization design concepts. In some locations where an overlay is recommended, the existing pavement does have some distress but it is limited to the extreme outer edge beyond the design width of the new pavement. In these cases it is recommended that the damaged pavement edge be saw cut and removed to eliminate a possible tripping hazard. Construction work for the pavement overlay will typically involve cleaning of existing pavement, installation of pavement reinforcment fabric, placement of asphalt concrete pavement, and placement of a surface layer of crushed rock on the shoulders. A typical detail of the standard pavement overlay design concept is shown on Figure 6. The locations where the standard pavement overlay is recommended are shown on the site map on Figure 3 and described in Table 1 with the locations and lengths summarized on Table 5. The total estimated construction cost for the recommend pavement overlay is summarized in Table 7. Standard New Pavement Section The new pavement structural section design concept is intended to minimize the likelihood of the development of open cracks in the pavement by reinforcing the aggregate base with one to two lavers of geogrid reinforcement. The geogrid-reinforced aggregate base layer will extend beyond the pavement edges and under the unpaved shoulders. The thickness of aggregate base layer will vary depending on the anticipated quality of the material used and on subgrade conditions. For this project it is recommended that recycled aggregate base be specified so that the asphalt and concrete pavement materials obtained from required pavement removal will be crushed and graded on site and used in the new pavement section. This will eliminate considerable construction traffic on Carquinez Scenic Drive. It is anticipated that there will be a close balance between the quantity of pavement materials removed and the quantity of aggregate base required for the new pavement section. Construction of a completely new pavement section is recommended at all locations where the existing pavement has extensive open cracking or other signs of significant distress. Regardless of the existing pavement condition,a new pavement section will be needed at all locations where the existing pavement section will be removed in conjunction with one of the embankment stabilization design concepts. Construction work will typically consist of removal of existing S.F. Bay Trail-Carquinez Strait Segment Cat Engineering Ex Geology, Inc. Development Plan Report Alta Planning+Design 19 pavement .material (including underlying concrete pavement where it exists), excavation of subgrade material to a depth of between 8 and 24 inches, placement of compacted geogrid- reinforced aggregate base (recycled), placement of asphalt concrete pavement, and placement of a surface layer of crushed rock on the shoulders. A typical detail of the standard pavement overlay design concept is shown on Figure 6. The locations where the standard new pavement section is recommended are shown on the site map on Figure 3 and described in'fable 1 with the locations and lengths summarized on Table 5. The total estimated construction cost for the recommended new pavement section is summarized in Table T DRAINAGE The recommended drainage improvement measures are described below and include reestablishing the roadside ditch and installation of new or refurbished cross drainage facilities. Regrade V-Ditch Some regrading of the roadside v-ditch will be required at nearly all locations along the trail alignment. For the purposes of conceptual design, the assumed length of ditch regrading excludes those locations where the recommended design concept, such as embankment reconstruction or debris wall installation, already includes the reestablishment of the roadside ditch. A conceptual-level construction cost estimate for regrading the v-ditch (where not included with other components) is listed in Table 7. Cross DrxnVe Facility Improvements Most of the recommended cross drainage facility improvements involve the replacement of deteriorated or undersized culverts. For the purposes of the conceptual design the use of CMI' culverts is assumed although the use of other available pipe materials such as high density polyethylene (HDPE',) could also be considered. Because of the tendency for culverts at the site to become filled with soil and vegetation debris a minimum culvert diameter of 18 inches is recommended. Associated with culvert replacement is the recommended cleaning and repair of existing drainage inlets, In some cases, where significant modification or repair of the existing drainage inlet is required,it may be more cost effective to replace the drainage inlet with a new structure. At most locations where gully erosion is present at culvert outlets, the installation of rock slope protection is recommended to both fill the existing gullies and to reduce the potential for future erosion. Except where pipe or flume downdrains currently exist, the installation of downdrains is not considered necessary if adequate erosion protection is provided. The existing concrete box culvert at station 147+57 should be improved by removing debris and installing grade control features to stabilize the observed down-cutting; of the gravel.invert. We recommend installing a series of reinforced concrete sills across the culvert invert. The top of the grade control sills should be notched or v-shaped to maintain a defined low flow channel. All proposed work within the stream banks should be reviewed by the California Department of Fish and Game. S.F. Bay Trait-Carquinez Strait Segment Cat Engineering&Geology, Inc. Development Pian Report Alta Planning+Design 20 Recommended cross drainage improvements are listed in Table 2. An estimate of the construction cost for cross drainage improvements is provided in Table 7. SAFETY FEATURES AND AMENITIES Signs and Pavement Marking Signs and pavement markings should conform to the standards for Class I bikeways developed by Caltrans. In addition, all signs and markings should conform to the standards developed in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and should be consistent with East Bay Regional Park District Standards. In general,all signs should be located 3 to 4 feet from the edge of the paved surface, have a minimum vertical clearance of 8.5 feet when located above the trail surface and be a minimum of 4 feet above the trail surface when located on the side of the trail. The designs (though not the size) of signs and markings should be the same as used for motor vehicles. With the exception of some tight curve locations, center line striping is not recommended for the proposed trail given the rural character of the surrounding environment. Fencing and Guard Railing Safety fencing is recommended along the steep drop-offs at retaining walls and steep embankment slopes associated with some of the repair areas. Fencing may also be desirable at other existing steep embankment slope locations. The safety fencing should conform to the Uniform Building Code regulations for pedestrian guardrails, which stipulate that the guardrail be a minimum 42 inches tall and have no openings greater than 4 inches. It is likely that chainlink fencing would be used for this application. To provide protection for service and emergency vehicles, vehicular guardrailing should be installed at significant drop-off locations along the alignment. Guardrails should conform to Caltrans design standards. Property-line fencing on either side of the alignment is not considered necessary at this time and is not recommended due to cost and aesthetics. Trarlhead Enures Development of trailhead facilities at each end of the alignment is recommended. Trailheads should include: • Vehicle Parking. The trail will draw substantial numbers of users during peak times. While some users will arrive by bicycle from Martinez or Crockett, many will use vehicles. A small parking lot at each trailhead would provide for this use and reduce conflicts associated with on-street parking. At the east of the trail,the existing parking at the Carquinez Strait Regional Shoreline may be incorporated into the overall parking plan. S.F. Bay Trail-Carquinez Strait Segment Cal Engineering 8 Geology, Inc. Development Plan Report Alta Planning+Design 21 • Vehicle Control. To prevent motor vehicles from entering the trail an East Bay Regional Park District standard entry structure should be placed at each trailhead entrance. • Entrance Signage. Entrance signs should identify the trail as part of the Bay Trail system and EBRPD system (Carquinez Strait Regional Shoreline). The signage should include regulations, hours of operation, and trail speed limit, and should include the approved Bay Trail identification. Signage may also include sponsorships by local agencies, organizations,and/or corporations. • Amenities. The trailheads may also contain information panels, drinking fountains (if a convenient water supply is available), restrooms, and other features as desired by EBRPD. Conceptual design of trailhead amenities is not in the scope of this project and costs for these facilities are not included in the construction cost estimates in this report. Rest Stops and Viewpoints Rest stops and viewpoints along the proposed trail are an important feature that can promote safe and low-impact interaction between trail users and the surrounding landscape along the Carquinez Strait. The environment surrounding the proposed trail segment is highly scenic, affording excellent views from various points along the trail. Excellent locations for viewpoints exist where the existing roadway crosses the north facing ridges on the outside of the existing roadway curves. Rest stops and viewpoints should be minimally developed with low maintenance benches and potentially interpretive signage to provide trail users with a place to rest and to learn about the ecology and history of the Carquinez Strait area. PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION The Carquinez Strait Segment will be located mostly= on EBRPD and Contra Costa County properties. At the northernmost end of the alignment is the materials processing plant that is accessed via the east end of Carquinez Scenic Drive. The only likely private property protection issue would be separation between the trail and former fuel tank storage facility. Fencing and landscaping may be installed if determined to be the most appropriate means for separating the properties. Fire concerns should be addressed in part by adequate weed abatement. 3.3 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES Cost estimates for each of the above described conceptual construction elements were developed during the Design Alternatives Study and are included in the Design Alternatives Report. A summary of the costs estimated is included in Table 7. 3,4 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE The elements of the design concept recommended in this report are intended to provide a facility that will not have higher than normal long-term maintenance requirements. Regular maintenance activities should be anticipated for trail pavement and shoulders, signage and stripping, fencing, drainage facilities (ditches and culverts), earth embankments, retaining walls, debris structures, site amenities, and vegetation. Specific comments regarding maintenance S.F. Bay Trait•Carquinez Strait Segment Cat Engineering Et Geology, Inc. Development Plan Report Atta Planning+Design 22 issues associated with the various proposed design concepts for the failure areas at stations 154, 161, 172, 176,and 191 are provided in the Design Alternative Report. Maintenance costs for the completed 1.7 mile trait are expected to range from $30,000 to $38,000 per year based on, EBRPD per mile estimates for typical multi-use trail facilities. An operations and maintenance plan is included as Appendix A. S.F. Bay Trait-Carquinez Strait Segment Cat Engineering 8 Geology, Inc. Development Flan Report Alta Planning+Design 23 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION PIAN 4. 1 PHASING Due to the current funding climate,it is considered unlikely that full funding for construction of the preferred design concept will be available at one time. It is more likely that partial funding will be available for development of the project in phases which are completed over a period of several years. This will require that the overall preferred design concept be broken down into several well defined smaller projects which can be completed as funding allows. A phasing plan should take into account the need to: 1. mitigate hazardous conditions 2. provide through vehicle traffic for emergency,maintenance,and construction vehicles 3. consider project funding amounts and timing 4. minimize further deterioration of the existing facilities 5. develop logical approach to grouping of projects to provide for the most cost efficient construction A possible phasing plan has been preliminarily developed and is presented in Table 8. It is clear that the first phase of the project construction should focus on mitigation of the safety concerns along the alignment. Specifically, it will be necessary to address the major slope instabilities which were primarily responsible for the closing of the road in 1983. This would include construction of the repairs to the landslides located at Station 154, Station 161, Station 172, Station 176; and Station 191. If the recommended work at these locations together with selected crack sealing, temporary overlaying of selected areas, and installation of trail entries and safety signage are completed as the first phase of work, then the trail could be reopened to the public for restricted usage. The items associated with this potential first phase of work and the estimated construction costs are identified in Table 8. The unit costs presented in Table 8 differ from those presented in the tables included in the Design Alternatives Report. In general, the unit costs have been increased incrementally to account for inefficiencies inherent to phasing of the project(ie,extra mobilization costs,lack of economy of scale, etc.). The next phase(s) of work should include completing the identified standard repairs to the embankments, cutslopes, and drainage facilities. Because the design concepts for these elements have been standardized, these improvements can be made incrementally as many smaller S.F. Bay Trail-Carquinez Strait Segment Cal Engineering a Geology, Inc. Development Plan Report Alta Planning+Design 24 projects constructed over a number or years as funding becomes available or as larger projects should more significant amounts of funding be obtained. If the improvements are made incrementally, then we recommend that the specific sites be prioritized based on funding availability and the potential that the level of required work would increase if left unaddressed. Such prioritization could be made by developing a simple decision matrix based on the information included in Tables 3, 4, and 5. The matrix could be adjusted annually prior to programming of future phases. It should be recognized that if the phasing is completed over a number of years, regulatory compliance may need to be updated one or more times over the course of the project implementation. After all of the standard repair sites have been addressed future phasing would then include the remaining pavement work and construction of the site amenities. These can be completed as one single phase or several small phases in accordance with funding availability. 4.2 IMPLEMENTATION PLANS OBTAIN FUNDING The first task in implementing the Development Plan will be to obtain funding for the environmental compliance, permitting, project design, and construction. Due to the extent of the work covered by the plan, it is likely that numerous funding sources will need to be obtained over several years. Potential funding sources are discussed in detail in Section 5. CEQA COMPLIANCE Construction of the recommended improvements are defined as a"project" under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and therefore will require the appropriate level of environmental review. The first step in the process will be preparation of an Initial Study under CEQA guidelines. The Initial Study will analyze possible environmental impacts, and will determine the form of environmental document required for the project. It is anticipated that a Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures will satisfy the environmental review requirements for the project. The environmental review will be completed by the lead agency. For this project, it is assumed that Contra Costa County would be the lead agency. Project design should be self-mitigating and environmental impacts avoided where at all possible. REQUIRED PERMITTING No federal agency permits are anticipated to be required for this project. Permits may be required from the following local and state agencies: Regional Water Quality Control Board and California Department of Fish and Game. PREPARE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS Once the project preliminary development plan has received environmental clearance and acceptance by the involved agencies, preparation of final design documents can proceed. The construction documentation process should include a preliminary design phase in which the exact scope of construction for each phase is defined, materials identified, and preliminary S.F. Bay Trait-Carquinez Strait Segment Cat Engineering ft Geology, Inc. Development Plan Report Alta Planning+Design 25 construction details developed. The construction documents will consist of plans, specifications, and estimates prepared to public works standards for bidding and construction by qualified contractors. S.F. Bay Trait-Carquinez Strait Segment Cat Engineering Et Geology, Inc. Development Plan Report Alta Planning+Design 26 5 PROJECT FUNDING STRATEGIES Because of the extent and cost of the recommended improvements needed to develop the Carquinez Strait Segment, obtaining project funding will be a key component of the overall project implementation. This section provides information and recommendations regarding securing funding for designing, constructing, and maintaining the Carquinez Strait Segment of the SF Bay Trail. 5. 1 PLAN ADOPTION AND INCLUSION The initial step in the funding strategy should be to adopt a Development Plan for the project. This helps to demonstrate to the potential funding sources that the project has political and public support and provides a measure of assurance to the funding agent that the project will move forward. This trail segment project has also been included in the recent Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and the MTC Regional Bicycle Transportation Plat'.. 5.2 PROJECT PHASING Project phasing, outlined in Chapter 4, should be clearly delineated once the potential for obtaining funds has been determined. Using the guidance presented in Chapter 4 and the recommended decision matrix, the phasing of the overall project should be tailored to anticipate funding amounts. A clear description of each phase should be developed from the information included herein in order to establish qualifications for anticipated funding criteria. 5.3 FUNDING SOURCES There are a variety of potential funding sources including local, State, regional, and federal funding programs that can be used to construct the proposed multi-use trail. Most Federal, state, and regional programs are competitive, and involve the completion of extensive applications with clear documentation of the project need, costs,and benefits. Local funding for projects involving bicycles typically comes from Transportation Development Act (TDA) funding, which is prorated to each community based on return of gasoline taxes. Table 9 presents a summary of available funding along with timing,criteria,and funding agency. S.F. Bay Trait•Carquinez Strait Segment Cat Engineering Et Geology, Inc. Development Plan Report Alta Planning+Design 27 CALT'RANS LOAN PROGRAMS (See http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/innovfinance/about—us.htm) Caltrans SHA,loan Program (AB 1012) This program offers short-term (maximum four-year) construction loans to local entities for State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)-eligible projects included within an adapted Regional Transportation Plan.Total project costs must be greater than$10 million. Michael Yee,Loan Officer (916) 324-7624 CAL TRANS GRANTANTIC.IPATION REVENUE VEHICLES(GAR VEE BONDS) GARVEE Bond funding offers local entities the means to accelerate construction of critical transportation projects to provide congestion relief benefits significantly sooner than traditional funding mechanisms. Debt service on the bonds is repaid through future county or interregional. share allocations. Projects must be STIP-eligible for federal funds apportioned to the State,have environmental clearance, a completed project design, and must meet all applicable federal requirements. Funding is limited to right-of-way and construction costs. Barbara Lewis, Finance Manager Innovative Finance (916) 324-7623 Transportation Finance Bank(TFB) The U.S. Department of Transportation (US DOT) designated California to participate in its State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) Pilot Program, authorized under the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995. The SIB Program was established to provide flexible project financing through loans, debt service guarantees, lines of credit, and other capital financing support. California established its SIB, the Transportation Finance Bank, to offer credit assistance to public and private entities for any stage of an eligible highway construction or transit capital project. Michael Yee,Loan Officer (916) 324-7624 FEDERAL FUNDING Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century(YEA-21) Federal funding through the TEA-21 program provides the bulk of outside funding. TEA-21 currently contains three major programs, STP (Surface Transportation Program), TEA (Transportation Enhancement Activities), and CMAQ (Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement) along with other programs such as the National Recreational Trails Fund, Section 402 (Safety) funds,Scenic Byways funds, and Federal Lands Highway funds (see Table 9). S.P. Bay Trail-Carquinez Strait Segment Cal Engineering ii Geology,Inc. Development Plan Report Alta Planning+Design 25 TEA-21 funding is administered through the state (Caltrans or Resources Agency) and regional governments (Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, Contra Costa Transportation Authority). Most, but not all, of the funding programs are transportation versus recreational oriented, with an emphasis on (a) reducing auto trips and (b) providing an inter-modal connection. Funding criteria often includes completion and adoption of a master plan, quantification of the costs and benefits of the system(such as saved vehicle trips and reduced air pollution), proof of public involvement and support, CEQA compliance, and commitment of some local resources. In most cases, TEA-21 provides matching grants of 80 to 90 percent--but prefers to leverage other moneys at a lower rate. TEA-21 was to be renewed in 2003 as SAFETEA (Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003),but TEA-21 was extended until February 29, 2004 (Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2003). This new legislation, scheduled for fiscal years 2004 through 2009, will be a future source of funds and may come with additional categories of funding and guidelines. Contra Costa County should be in a good position to secure its fair share of future SAFETEA funding. It will be critical to get the local state assemblyman and senator briefed on these projects and lobbying Caltrans and the California Transportation Commission for these projects. STATE FUNDING Bicycle Transportation Account The State Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) is an annual statewide discretionary program that is available through the Caltrans Bicycle Facilities Unit. Available as grants to local jurisdictions, the emphasis is on projects that benefit bicycling for commuting purposes. Over$7 million is awarded annually throughout the state. Contra Costa County may apply for these funds through the Caltrans Bicycle Facilities Unit. TDA Article III(5B 8.21) Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article III funds are state block grants awarded annually to local jurisdictions for bicycle and pedestrian projects in California. These funds originate from the state gasoline tax and are distributed to local jurisdictions through the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). LOCAL FUNDING Transportation Fund For Clean Air(TFCA) 'I'FCA funds are generated by a $4 surcharge on automobile registration in the nine counties that make up the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). This collection funds two programs that can finance projects such as bicycle facility improvement projects that are included in an adopted countywide bicycle plan or Congestion Management Program (CMI'). Oneprogram is the Regional Fund, a regional competitive fund appropriated by the BAAQMD. S.F. Bay Trait-Carquinez Strait Segment Cat Engineering Et Geology, Inc. Development Plan Report Atta Planning+Design 29 In ICY 2002/03, $17.6 million was available in the Regional Fund, with grants ranging from $10,000 to $1 million per project. The second program, the Program Manager Fund (40% Fund), results from the return of 40% of funds collected in each county to be appropriated by its'CMA or Transportation Authority. In April, the Authority must submit an "Expenditure Plan" to the BAAQiYID that indicates which projects are to be funded in the upcoming year. East Bay Regional Park D District Measure AA In 1988,68% of voters in the East Bay Regional Park District(EBRPD) approved Measure AA, a$225 million bond initiative. Funds are earmarked according to the EBRPD Master Plan for protection of open space,wildlife,shoreline,and the expansion of park properties and trails for use by the general public. A portion of these funds may be available for construction of the trail and/or purchase of property. Measure C One potential new source of funding for trail projects is the renewal of Measure C. The original measure, approved by Contra Costa voters in 1988 and set to expire in 2008, established a half- cent sales tax to fund transportation improvements and growth .management programs, including regional trail facilities. Eighteen percent of Measure C money is given to local jurisdictions that comply with growth policies that can be used for maintenance and improvements. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority is charged with implementing Measure C and hopes to have a reauthorization measure on the November 2004 ballot. The renewed Measure C will provide more than$25 million toward bicycle and pedestrian circulation projects for 20 years. Direct Local_juxrs&ctron Fun&ng Local jurisdictions can fund bicycle and pedestrian projects using a variety of sources. The County's general funds are often earmarked for non-motorized transportation projects, especially sidewalk and ADA improvements. Impact Fees Another potential local source of funding is developer impact fees that typically tie to trip generation rates and traffic impacts produced by a proposed project. A developer may reduce the number of trips (and hence impacts and cost) by paying for on- and off-site bikeway improvements that will encourage residents to bicycle rather than drive. In-lieu parking fees may he used to help construct new or improved bicycle parking. Establishing a clear nexus or connection between the impact fee and the project's impacts is critical in avoiding a potential lawsuit. S.F. Bay Trail-Carquinez Strait Segment Cat Engineering ft Geology, Inc. Development Plan Report Alta Planning#Design 30 Mello Roos CommuratyFacil ties Disttr"cts Bike paths,lanes, and pedestrian facilities can be funded as part of a local assessment or benefit district. Defining the boundaries of the benefit district may be difficult unless the facility is part of a larger parks and recreation or public infrastructure program with broad community benefits and support. Future Contra Costa County Open Space Measure A draft proposal currently exists to advance a county-wide measure to create a $173 million benefit assessment district to fund needed open space projects throughout Contra Costa County. The proposed benefit district would fund numerous types of open space projects including scenic landscapes and regional parks, shorelines, trails/public access facilities,and wildlife habitat corridors. Other Local sales taxes, fees, and permits may be implemented, requiring a local election. Volunteer programs may substantially reduce the cost of implementing some of the proposed pathways. Use of groups such as the California Conservation Corps (who offer low cost assistance) will be effective at reducing project costs. Local schools or community groups may use the trail as a project for the year, possibly working with a local designer or engineer. Work parties may be formed to help clear the right-of-way where needed. A local construction company may donate or discount services. A challenge grant program with local businesses may be a good source of local funding, where corporations "adopt" a bikeway and help construct and maintain the facility. 5.4 FINANCING It is important to note that the majority of funding for multi-use trail projects is expected to be derived from federal sources. These funding sources are extremely competitive, and require a combination of sound applications,local support,and lobbying on the regional and state level. Local available matching funds, such as TDA, should be allocated whenever possible to these projects. The actual schedule for implementation on a year-to-year basis should be determined by (a) the readiness of each project in terms of local support, (b) CEQA approvals, (c) right-of- way control., (d) timing with other related improvements, and/or (e) success in obtaining competitive funding. The managing agencies and citizen support groups should monitor the project phases identified in this Development Plan Report and subsequent updates,and keep a year-to-year list of projects and their TDA and other local funding allocations. Should a project not be ready or able to utilize its allocation, it may trade with another short-term project. This process eliminates the constant evaluation of new projects and ensures that viable top priority projects have access to S.F. Bay Trail-Carquinez Strait Segment Cal Engineering ft Geology, Inc. Development Plan Report Alta Planning*Design 31 matching funding. It provides the County a five to ten year schedule so that it may program:its resources and feel assured that its projects will be implemented in the short-term. Each year the County staff should review the list of projects slated for that year, review the readiness of each project to be funded, and lister to requests for changes to the sequencing of the projects. S.F.Bay Trait-Carquinez Strait Segment Cat Engineering li Geology, Inc. Development Plan Report Alta Planning+Design on ..r " an on .n a v, +�. O •� tC c E5m p on •nn s lap y �i c -EL mi C3 i~ .t� ,v„ C ami ,. .� ,,,� C ^� +. •o ,,.; � "f LJ � c�i ani� � rn � v }; � •� � � w •?; •e`"i v a� "31G 0 op ea L v L V C1 u z LA 405 .2 G 4 3 � o� > Q � '~°- o > •� �'� o d vim` 3 CA y0y b > ani o n > m zs L „ > t � > � s•, 'G T C >> r 1 y U S! > O y �•/ O —. C C U O C � .rCi O C L G w U 6 C C L C .0 C V ° ,C G C L .r`•, es .� •� �p b is"on Ei rs -a 'off' v 'co' ci o rn z� a4 o zs a CID W Wm OmaW WmmwWC; CCW Wt17 nWut CO WWCn 6�i p j L C s'- o a in y v tom) N °° r [ 0 b � 4 1-8 o oo es c c i � •� .� 3 to ° L 0 41 to 0 0 � Q�j :� �y C � G .•�� C� � O '" � m � G r v LS, J KL C7 c � c ❑ � � ❑ � a. a c � :a -� o. I C� G+� W cLi s° 1� 0.1 G1 3 LLQ ca W W CL y a� j o C u � o -"> E my n°i °n LM tea' 5 a an E0 4 u CII ' cZ! 5 an 78 C >. 0 E Crn >E CL 9.S CL y a GJ 61 'd L"' O a E a m S -0ED on W ans " "ev cs cpcD �s an m cr no v a np > 5 ¢ 1 C� o S7 G:l m Cs, C13 CL s CS t.3 LYi 23 tai W W it7 tPi u 40 ,E W)l lu 7 ryvv7 'T r# <+s e1 morr lts co L is r r r t en ev rz ria c� cv cv en rn M on rn 4�1 xR SJ y, � � i °Cµ b7 ,� W?•F h � 1 � w E va r6 � � Ci � � uj ( C ar tr C> m� a� V2ou " 3 M 3 tA C1 G u' aMi as t7 a L3 yy $ v, o " ani o > > o as > cis o w yL s tea ° > '' iW; M •� ,C p •,; C ,C C M M C C d L7 •C+ • L C ,C "Y 'J .... . us ^a ro " v es ' c a �s ao a a " c y� a� U C as cciamwaaw ccm �awscr� cEars� �' � muai „ 9 i a o� 00 e1 i 04 3 rA O ny 1 i M a I rn C S v .e i 'IZ 'o, Vi M C y C 'b Y �J � 'C Uri V' CL' .L7 yj .8 V � N +.,d. .�.: .�.. may. - •-• � aL W s.. L' a.� s a aIt t:E � a „ c u v c c c v c o > 0 '� c ;a ,, ct oA ex y7 �ci u .w .w ai 'R x 8y ai7 W ami YC W tYS� W v ad) umi V: `• ca sa +u GCS .�+ 6�0 m .tl. ,.� <,i' .'� "n" •r{ �!' "�' `�'' S.... �.,.� 'mow a � coo- enCLd c >W o c I to 06 ,0 ZA b is G iJ U ayOt i � a a , c is C vi C a cam py o � c� mot w ° = ga,�r E x � E �t � a � � � �• ,� '� �, � ('O •� p„a nx o y � o. �, =� � (lc�� a a � � a o. yy cx sn ��,} a � 3 ar c`�' � �^�. y. � ] 6.. Cy.1 C w^1C'a C•• C W Cis'" ^J C a s., G 1.w Y•n (�. sn W C {-. b C _ 6? ,� C.0 es .o c n� c ar o as 0 a ar c G4 y e ani n� 3 Lid C4 G:d CES es tY1 Ys C� W M Ltd LYS w W m U; G 1to G 6 «o. � 67 `t7 Ln 4. +•� � tri V ,�} ��jj 'I"�.�� ' ,,�'r•,. y � O � � L. i3 � � � G7t 'adv {..� "xi �i �• 4/1 CY06 V3 d,1 • � rb L > A Y l CALG w ccs a» `� iw 0 00 a ' aui a aux � wS i u c 0 u as k tcs r•+ pp �s p �y 1 � .0 � ��y 4^4i vl" r- t- a, ni M �'3 3 I �, i ! 4 ! ' E ! ! Gt1 a � •L � m 3 at C i ,.•, � � � � u to tin ar m E ar u y a u v,( v G y�j v G: � a� y ,ce9, Z' 4 ft � Wim.. "`" �. � .�' 'C3 '� ..u.• y .7 C {() .0 U � �" •."'F ."1• G. SIA �.+ ', 4.•t ..a VS r` it ry a cs a u 3 a a - ar x y>' ! 79 1 S". CL W Wad L a Z < ttS ..lY I r IE -cl ��•, d'� ,� � s � i ca � CG 3 0 3 c Q3 Cas -c E v' f tea;oll ? � n vza od cz ZR r— "3v v� Gf5 W t:1 ad C: ;cra rr c ° u. 00 � .4 S7 G3. C QJ � I rer `c'' r° r r t ao oc oo as oa 00 E + L7 to y 9:. 06 'rod as u� ,x v o c1w n 3 41 CA un a• 64 r400 � N un ^� G�� 7 n gyp.i� ,'� � 1� ��i � �• .G bui tax V *� 19 o ab , .y U G ai 47> Y .� ��,, � � 'end � "•� .��` "4+d qU� 7 7� c bt) s Q U 0 CZ 25ell C � CL t� O L ice+ L V 6) y O 0. CC): d E W r, G 8 c ; ew c> O C N d d p > .may.. yVs 7d Ob i O GJ 04 c r ao c4 c' ° c° wOb ca c c c v Q c ' o c Ca ° v `cU0 OQ U, oo Y — c bra iyam{ d � ❑ VV a d7 :c iiY rJ p O U z z z O a > tti .E © .a z c C U � acs "or- t6 6 �. i � �' �' � � � � °' � .°o '� •ten � � a, � •� c m ,e u� d � '� � '� � •� .i� c� "' � � U '7 y "c ani cmc are j •{- .> 00 d M d 0 za U - ccG7UzQ U UWZNUMon � to a o •^� bd +1 +I +1 +� c a.+ Ch _ U U C7'sY aci N n E y v Wc et M O oca v� w ►' M C M U- yyY CCQ p g �^ N FM ll lln� IO c ^� �+ J cid G7 L Ca a E cis a _ ns a� no c o � c+n r u �j u ` tj C� Z Q ? � G> � a� �j�• cl � Uxtx � •� '� '� Sa p us in C3. v, kD a� O 2 > u is ami 4 79 J L)M Liu ixCJz cedz JU w o C +i +i +1 +1 +s +1 �y r eft e m kt) W + H c t int oc 00 cn y ei 0 un +CN c u�i c 00 00 T-9 Table 3: Summary of Proposed Embankment Stabilization Measures Embankment Embankment Soldier Pile Crest Reconstruction Reconstruction Retaining Wall Cather Embankment Stabilization Measures Station Std Design Std Design Std Design Site-Specir:c Design Concepts Cone e t Concept Concept (LF) Piles (LF) Piles (LF) Description (LF) 108+60-109+60 0 0 ; 100 18 0 0 112+60—115+20 260 44 0 0 0 0 i 117+30—117+95 65 12 0 0 0 ! 0 119+40—119+85 0 0 45 9 0 0 126+00—129+25 0 0 325 55 0 ? 0 130+50- 132+00 150 0 0 0 0 0- 133+00—135+00 133+00--135+00 200 34 , 0 0 0 0- 135+00—136+35 135+00-136+35 1.35 0 0 0 0 0 139+20- 141+20 200 34 ' 0 0 0 0 ! 141+20—143+00 0 0 180 31 1 0 0 ; 145+40—145+70 0 f 0 30 0 0 0 146+70—147+10 0 0 40 0 0 0 1 150+50—153+00 250 0 0 0 0 0 153+30— 154+40 0 0 0 0 0 Sta 154 Alt 1:Embankment 110 Reconstruction w/Piles 155+60--158+40 280 48 0 0 0 01 160+65—162+60 0 ' 0 0 0 0 Sta 161 Alt 1:Embankment 195 Reconstruction wt Piles 162+60—164+70 210 36 0 0 0 0 172+25—173+20 0 0 0 0 0 Sta 172 Alt 1:Segmental RW, 95 or Alt 2: Soldier Pile RW 174+20—176-40 0 0 0 0 0 Sta 176 Alt 1:Segmental RW, 220 Alt 2:Soldier Pile RW,or Alt 3:Steel Viaduct all alts w/debris wall 179+50—181+70 220 38 0 0 0 0 191+00—191+60 0 0 0 0 0 Sta 191 Alt 1:Embankment 60 Reconstruction w/Piles ` Total 1970 246 72U 113 0 680 Table 4: Summary of Proposed Cut Slope Stabilization Measures SolDebris Pile Remove Debris Other Cut Slope Stabilization Measures i Debris Wall Site-Specific Design Concepts Station Std Design Concept and Regrade(only} #� g P (LF) (LF) Description (LF) 162+00—162+60 0 60 ; 0 167+00-=167+60 0 60 0 175+00—176+60 0 0 Debris wall incorporated into embankment 160 stabilization design alternatives see Table 3} 178+80—179+20 0 40 0 180+20—180+40 20 0 0 185+00—186+70 0 170 i 0 186+70—187+40 70 0 0 ; 189+50—189+90 0 40 0 189+90—192+55 265 0 0 Total 355 370 160 S.F.Bay Trait•Carquinez Strait Segment Cal Engineering Ft Geology, inc. Development Plan Report Atta Planning+Design T-10 Table 5: Summary of Proposed Pavement Overlay I New Section Pvmt Overlay New Pvmt Section Station Std Design Concept Std Design Concept LF LF 102+80-108+150 580 0 108+60-109+60 0 100 109+60-112+60 300 0 112+60-115+20 0 260 115+20-117+30 210 0 117+30-117+95 0 65 117+95-119+40 145 0 119+40- 119+85 0 45 119+85- 122+60 275 0 122+60--124+75 0 215 124+75-125+60 85 0 125+60-129+25 0 365 129+25--130+50 125 0 130+50-138+10 0 760 138+10--139+20 110 0 139-20- 143+00 0 380 143+00--145+40 240 1 0 145+40-145+70 0 30 145+70-146+70 100 0 146+70-147+10 1 0 40 147+10--149+12 202 0 149+12-154+40 0 528 154+40-135+60 120 0 155+60-158+40 0 280 158+40 159+-90 1500 0 159+90--164+70 0 480 164+70-169+00 430 0 169+00-181+70 0 1270 181+70-186+00 430 0 186+00-W187+00 0 100 187+00-189+00 200 0 189+00-189+80 0 80 189+80--191+00 120 0 191+00-191+60 0 60 191+60-192+55 95 0 Total 3917 5058 S.F.Bay Trail-Carquinez Strait Segment Cal Engineering ft Geology, Inc. Development Plan Report Alta Planning+Design m V' law, z o � `� it � �:° rr u d ' ` u Vi w � L3 � 6 � `i G ar Ys u •i.. i � J S'S' epi y L v u4•. C r.1 w p. > � = Y m ,G '� G ... 4., •� e¢ G: C w 7ti C C 'Ci � a1 C p L 0 u v C3 e°n y o o a`+ o o u A C u d a`i o o a o Y v u ea 'G mac` E CL V y ar C m d Ix go 10 c � � c � � o � •� ,Q � a=, W o 0 s. �"� Y L 6�i •'�` OpD J. .'p.+ }.j"' > 4 epi .� �v. � ,c6 0tm.� cz .c u o .n.c, 3 > cYGoar o � cd w to W a. L W ,f- r G OA n`u v .. o .� .�. ayr 5 6`, W y L ct y y w 4 W eu yQj G L to -� 9 Y �. p tz „2, 6U o£ yam.., p 'y, d � :: p O �, r°j tl�7 � A] p •� O 'L7 y . •a C �etl U ccs Oct. C3 , 'in � oo _- cze erA d q6 W S. •¢ .o G z V IM cc IN E cc > c+ 0Cc °L' '�y •+ ED C. 4) � w -en « i i C d a> +`+ y,.a� '� ou LL '' �. v CA app = v �ne, y} 'yp = o C7 m v r "" ar n aW. ym y y . ., 0 w m °.. ir, CL W E 6 d °� $ 4.a C � ♦+ m u m � Ci euj .g N O w � 4� � d0�. L sm. fr '� �,.,� +•F � u 'y, di LCi. '.✓ ed O s yam, e`� aLi e C W p� dul u r� Y a��i > •.. .v = +d a as p Y n a em a=a o as aGa Lei Iz x rm ° 44 C6 Cal YY•iu y r4 •� o �� '� .�y sad ea c ye0.`+ "Z ej .� � ;� Wu L ° •� as '� � � � Co � ° W ��' r m d ZAC� � N n44 33 Y3 '" Chu C G N,O TP vy u tit ot ,s�lg3� ►`�+ O iW.� y 7U' �, "U��' ��O+ Ct7 .G U v� t8 a es .Q �V �+ .rte Gt rry�•Y�i r r��Ci° ~ � � Cg •� .:'� ,per +� �G '� �`'�'t'O C> � � � 00 t+.. ;; A I'S3 a ` z ;a - nn.C.." r lei �• V G A '��4A�'C'`�',S{v �tQ � w c�"M. O �n3� G� y Y .•-� OOO�i r✓ r y is 4) y A �cba G S? w G :� bD A on a w mi�i .5 a 'C3 At 4- N U t P oe j5; 2Foa v u s, LZ v C ^� v 22. a�tl y C g 0 + �+ ay .r GG1.+ 48 C„) 15� Wt. m U 8 ZIP' 11 4 :4 Cc 11-4 jal T; C Ai ed i4 E 21 t ot 0 T8 40. r E E Zq 8 -Cc A L4 C M 0 m ou 5 U 'S. 5 cg 's > 55 C N o C> cJ on C p ✓i �U .. tri �. t� y,,, C8 G 'moi uv `a C v� U ctl rn .� U •� C3 � '� tel 'gypp. 't7 s°' rn m E tt3 'O Ct %y 43 bz QI Zs d o to03 nny ami c U tu �s ^ate 8 r— cu v oa w N cz 101-110 um H rA �, i HC � o m w' a � •Ya L u V y G` m 4S G 6 .'•'. Y+ O C "� � � -��- ' C1 OC y y p H u w tA > u u m ea oOn aCa o l s, W ,�i � ice•, � o z I +• E I`� x ; ts o � �a `� •a y L �^+ Y L d •� 00 C. H y L ,�, •G> 51 .... L U w C r ' O ag k �+ y cm y, = � � > = � Es �L� W I cn 4) ce In lTS C +S Z p w 3 ♦r U A loop E Wso CA E a od � o � •Oe � ;d � aE � L � '�a o •�}•y..w�i b8 O. Lir r�i� aCr i 1 Y > C wo in d G C y q6 64 u wL. as U •.: Y n. 7 as �s .. as E !G .t5 t9A �, V p tl2 •y � (U W d � s Q $ , 140 bn 3Di Z v Q&> LS3 N T-16 Table 7: Conceptual-Level Construction Cost Estimate Item Item Unit Est Qty Unit Price Total No. 1 Mobilization(assume 5%of total) LS 1 $ 244,500 0$ 244,500 2 Traffic Control LS 1 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 3 Water Pollution Control LS 1 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 4 acilities_(sta&g area,water supg1j,etc. LS 1 $ 20.000 $ 20,000 5 lRemoveVSptation,Mise Areas LS 1 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 6 Std Embankment Crest Reconstruction(H=5') LF 1970 $ 205 $ 403,85 17__ Std Concrete Piles for Emb Crest Reconst EA 246 $ 1,875 $ 461,25 8 Std Embankment Reconstruction H=15' LF 720 $ 769 $ 553,680 9 Std Concrete Piles for Emb Reconst EA 113 $ 1,875 $ 211,880 10 Std Segmental Retaining Wall H=10') LF 0 $ 831 $ 11 Std Concrete Grade Beam with Piles for Se mental RW LF 0 $ 430 $ 12 Std Soldier Pile Retaining Wall(H=l 9) LF 0 $ 2,210 $ 13 Std Soldier Pile Debris Wall LF 335 $ 650 $ 217,750 14 Re.grade Cutslo a(incl debris removal) LF 370 $ 50 $ 18„500 15 Icross Drainage Facilities TOTAL j - $ 63,500 $ 63,500 16 Re ade V-ditch 1 LF 7240 $ 5 $ 36,20 17 ISta 154 Design Alt is Embankment Reconst w/Piles TOTAL - $ 267,385 $ 267,390 18 t ISta 161 Design Aft 1: Embankment Reconst w/Piles TOTAL - $ 393,365 $ 393,370 19 iSta 172 Design Alt 1: Segmental RW with Piles TOTAL - $ 158,215 $ 158,220 20 Sta.176 Design Alt 1: Se ental RW w/Piles&Debris Wall TOTAL - $ 570,850 $ 570,85 21 Sta 191 Design Alt 1: Embankment Reconst w/Piles TOTAL - $ 115,690 $ 115,690 22 AC Pavement Overlay 14'wide LF 3917 $ 65 $ 254,600 I 23 INew AC Pavement Section(14'wide) LF 5058 $ 211 $ 1,067,240 24 AEEegate Base,Misc Areas ullouts/turnarounds 2 LS 1 $ 4,000 $ 4,00 25 Gates/Bollards LS 1.$ 10,000 $ 10,000 26 Signing and Striping LS 1 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $ 5,132,470 OTHER HER COSTS Design Engineering 18%) LS 1 923,840 $ 923,840 Construction Engineering, 15% LS 1$ 769,870 $ 769,870 Pro am Management 5% LS 1$ 256,620 $ 256,620 Environmental LS J. 1$ 100,0001 $ 100,000 TOTAL OTHER $ 2,050,330 SUBTOTAL PROJECT $ 7,182,800 Contingency(15%) $ 1,077,420 $ 1,077,420 TOTAL PROTECT $ 8,260,220 S.F. Bay Trait-Carquinez Strait Segment Cat Engineering a Geology, Inc. Development Plan Report Atta Planning+Design T-17 Table 8: Sample Phasing Plan PHASE I -LEVEL"A"EMBANKMENT STABILIZATION AND TEMPORARY SAFETY MEASURES ear I Item No. Item Unit Esfd Unit Price Total I Sta 191 Desi Alt 1: Embankment Reconst w/Piles TOTAL - $ 115,69 115,6 2 Sta 176 Desi Alt l: Se ental RW w/Piles&I3ebris WaII TOTAL' - $5713,85 $ 570,85 3 Sta 172 Resign Alt 1: Se ental RW with Piles TOTAL; - $ 158,215 4 Mobilization,Traffic Control,Temporary Facilities,etc. LS I $145,8131 $ 145,813 $ 990,568 PHASE 2-LEVEL"B"EMBANKMENT STABILIZATION(Years 2-3 Item No. Item Unit €Est'd Qty Unit Price ITOtal 1 Sta 154 Desip Alt 1: Embankment Reconst w/Piles TOTAL - $267,385 $ 267,385 2 ISta 161 Design Alt I: Embankment Reconst w/Piles TOTAL -{ $393,365 S 393365 3Gates/Bollards,Signs LS I $ 10,000 $ 10,000 4 Temporary Safety Measures/Fencing LS 1! $ 20,000 $ 20,00 5 Mobilization,Trak Control,Tern rare Facilities,etc, LS I 1 $276,300 $ 276,3 $ 967,050 PHASE 3-LEVEL"C"EMBANKMENT STABILIZATION(Year 3) Item No. Item Unit 1EsVd Qty Unit Price Total I Std Embankment Deconstruction H=15') LF 720 $ 769 $ 553,68 2 td-Caancrete Piles for_Emb Reconst EA 113 .$ 1 875 _$ 211,87 3 1vlobilization,Traffic Control,Temporary Facilities,etc. LS I V $153,111 $ 153,111 $ 918,666 PHASE 4-LEVEL"D"EMBANKMENT STABILIZATION ears 4-5 Item No. Item Unit Est'd Unit Price Total I Std Embankment Crest Reconstruction =5' LF 1970 $ 205 $ 403,850 2 Std Concrete Piles for Emb Crest Reconst EA I 246 $ 1,875 $ 461,25. 3 Mobilization,Traffic Control,TepMr_#a Facilities,etc. LS 11 $ 273,020 $ 173.020 $ 1,038,120 PHASE 5-CUTSLOPE STABILIZATION AND DRAINAGE REPAIRS Years 4-5 Item No. 11 Item Unit Esfd Unit Price ITotal I 1Std Soldier Pile Debris Wall LF 335 $ 65 $ 217,750 2 Re rade Cutslo a incl debris removal LF 37 $ 50 $ 18,50 3 Gross Drainage Facilities TOTAL -1 $ 63,500 $ 63,506, 4 Re de V-ditch 1 I LF 72401 $ 5, $ 36.200 5 Mobilization Traffic Control,Temp2rn Facilities,etc, LS - $ 67,190' $ 67,19 $ 403,140 S.F.Bay Trait-Carquinez Strait Segment Cat Engineering Et Geology, Inc. Development Plan Report Alta Planning+ Design T-18 Table 8: Sample Pleasing Plan.. PHASE 6-PAVING Year 6 Item No. 11tern UnitIt Unit Price Total I AC Pavement Overlay I4'wide LF S 65 $ 254,605 2 New AC Pavement Section I4'wide LF $ 211 $1,067,238 3 A re ate Base,Misc Areas ullouts/tumarounds) 2 LS $ 4,Q09L $ 4,000 4 Signing and Striping LS 11 S 101000 $ 10,000 5 Mobilization,Traffic Control,Tem raKZ Facilities,etc. LS 1 $214,2481 $ 214,248 $ 1,550,091 PROJECT TOTAL $5,867,635 S.F. Bay Trail-Carquinez Strait Segment Cal Engineering Et Geology, Inc. Development Plan Report Alta Planning+Design JI an 'p `j e to cc t C i t I i Cc) < w W� • ° ,.. ,p U w 52 ICS w U �r14 ria i o c ' I 77!- Cd " fYn C l i js : O fn 'V i s j IM v , It u X ° U Ci i 11 C fl. C C� W C1 ai rIE a p p zr omcp � a o 0 c� ° i = k p f I is s 1 { v eta = w v pr o'0 c LA L] c ski v N � �•:' v � :r �� cs w 0 M � O � v r q� V � �CC}}7 IN14 u `•� ra �d o a ^ av a arcc u J I cac33rx ce un • .�..E w s„ ,r v w i7.' ,u�, 6 E U y w N v.c c o ev W U sy v '� x Cw c art 5 a u 'u W , N a oL ury „ u W ?',pC �"� '�w7, � Sa-•� � .'°�' ;� �C�S �� Vit)� d; .", �O" ,la.� � u � � � � v IX xx x 1 X x x w _ u u w E u v W o u o W4z. C 'D u u i u 10- x x Z E E E 7R p E E 64c 61* 'A u. n ra ern j ' 4^ a � � L ^ C y u C4 U 1 f u M v 4+ aul C: CJh i 'C .^.��+ `✓ Chi. to a rL T gr v � E E __ to to vi II cq ( \\ on cg'm � ( % . . . . �( s�/ . . . . . . . ` \ / ƒ ) [ � ) � _ •\ \ // � \ � \t > x CL 03 9,1- CL § cc, co ................. ......................................... ........................... ..... ..................... .............. ................................... L 'cm ir.«i•avy.• :v. 1 s� 1 :.. POR _... OSSITE �l l LOCATION ;: ' 4 r t „:'Rnk.. 3w? J aiz kt isir,C N T _ rN '"-- X {il sr.... 1/2 0 1/2 1 SCALE MILE v+ 0 a a DEVELOPMENT PLAN REPORT <* CE&G1870aiympic5hrd. SF BAY TRAIL — CARQUINEZ STRAIT SEGMENT "�`�'°° CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 1 Walnut Creak,CA 945% VICINITY MAF' ° CAL ENGINEERING&GEOLoGy Phone:(925)996.9771 N CEG REF' NO. 02169{) MAY 2t}04 FIGURE 1 ... AR c:iiz o za Uo 1 �` ,�� \� I t :�l"r� `/%l,,�',� ! r � � � mE nN ;4c 4j a MIX OLJ xe � ''Will �� y.:%'_.�(\��\'�\ '�•..,F�. � Y �_ �^�\\`�I 1,1tl�l`�l� ��r(`( i(!(/ II �l / �r/ ` � \r` //�, �1 1• A`��1 \cc.. - - �\ �V`�--= �. �{� }� i'''ce/' 1 ! �j ((y t �� l'� ��;�—•o;--�_�x �,� � `� v ��.,� � A vim\ \ �,�'� v�� i a � ; �� '� ` \ `, � ` fir, � � f \ '�w• \\��v \� x 16 `'\. \\ "`�...� �- \` r \\�\.�"-. � ,_ -•"..,,,•� '� ~�� 4,., JCS � � \\��-„ � o �. 11 r ti � f z �# fjj Env ir ( y.., J/ / j ^•• ��,�je L 'y\\ 1 \if f) /jt i w 1 f r f ji r. ` !� � 4f `� \-\ m /r •` It. 1!r 1/�1 1'l �'f f .� �! �r r�'r��'+ � W i 1r t l; Ei 1 ! o A Tt c� 6.p-aEerya115-ins c-G59 i20\"' n LS ' 2PO d cl spa!Z t I {} E _ i , CL i �0 I i f �` , , I : f f f I i 1 i � I ' ry I i i l PU8 S t , r 1 J ( 3s Id , ctl8t bxP"sptad-IIw+G:up.05912tl\"" aCSY � � a,n'�i° ado 1 1�t1, /, ``✓ / � �/Il/��"�� Jt'�'- ��-�-__.'•S -�� ,�# 4�� w ��=w �o� , ��l� t�� /� --.-\�,\1�Ir�l r!' \��iy I'�•---_.._- �_ .,� �.\ Vii_ � >-O I z Vr-d �\ ldve din --` , nwo _ � t �� //rte •'//�/,i / ' ._ �/! � V y�� 'I iJ Aj i- Jill � - fin0'ada,,osp-;ryud�»p-pf9 � a m z ` a ad w \ yC V _ J CY V \ I 1 N d f y, P5 � O Li Q CJ C�7 g I p LU ti 0 o I x o D tz r is N LLI s � n d laJ I W ` C <. 4j n.. 5 c7 x V w C 47 K MP'a4o1<QPI5^i1�uE�aoO-OE412p\'' \ \ w t Z, 7 yyy $$$$ a U d Wm z ud x Y �_ z Z U� t N yw� Q W W N a< y� O Ww W U Z tew,� V eCQ }a3iN " F a a ¢u J 2 r J• !'j K p �' C7 Mm ui in La g a z t rr VS ZNK dww \ �\ ou i Oxy �+ J oz N \ U \ o W r U F \1 > �w f w F V lul z I) Y O D J / U3.1 z��''�� S W m ¢U¢ 4l Y 3 \f V W V i v 1\ X 61 Z i 1 � O Q W I i O wW g ca LJ 5 'Q W LLJ 71 < W 4!C N w 1 Q W d \ wo g \ za rt y {Xtlri) ,0£ s N 6�0-�1!�HMI'a—irv�6iup—Ofi91t0\-' a NUrW GjdV �� OL At 00 Lp L y�U1 CY✓ +1 � +rL�W O ffi Ott- tt f6 -Z u t� r \ Z o X\ -12 ty1 3 TS dNUy=� t i 7 jJ111.�' N 47 l ItA lr 1 at f �I 1� '� t, a .✓" V JTs -� m I KaW � cpm ,6 v (1.3)Npt1dR�'13 e.n.crts.m ................ .................... La < as MW E W cc< W zz :D 00 ig tL o 19 < L) c c�l Z 7- Oil > SSI C)< cr 15 z f5M o' o o wz I (id)NOUVA313 If 3 t5 L w z &r 7 CLI a 0 w p < Al Z zi VE jr-�mt 5 z Q < g� Na (IJ)NOUVATU .......... .................... �s r� t7 Y C J i fs . .. SIR go aL 1W� Ud tai` a zany` f� z , did o n 16 SA •- �S UL7�J 4 S"'Z 'a,- �y- a d bG+-r Z ,5 W. \\\ oyah'3't3 y.a+.us•"w°'-rv,�,;e+o'aauz°�" m N {l�� ............................................ < 2 d<is9 < �H Z Up z IL 0 z W_j < < 0 O:z LL oc 0 A z a W —xi 61 0 to BE MZ -4 T5 0� a- (1�;)NOUVA313 'm 0 ------ PHI IM I w 'It i � } '� � "\\1�\ 1 ti C2 2i 0 Z7 'z 1' � �'�`� a chi '. w �� -' \ o ug 72 E z z 4o;,VA3-,2 .................................... ............................. N w rr _ w [A ua W + UT z a --....� a ,• tV rSN� �14h 00 } w 592+00 -�pilOtS�NG Sk _ t Egg ;00 4/ Z ';Y N i-,g s Nva w NQS NN �11�yy � V q g z+ ..11 ¢ Q§ wR Ww m �o " NOiivh3'33 T-16 Table 7: Conceptual-Level Construction Cost Estimate Item ` No, Item Unit Est Qty Unit Price Total ' i I Mobilization(assume 5%of total) LS 1 $ 244,500 $ 244,540; 2 Traffic Control LS ! 1 $ 10,000 $ 10,000: 3 Water Pollution Control ; LS 1 $ 20,000 S 20,000 ! 4 TM ora Facilities(s!Mina area, water supply,etc,) LS l l$ 20,000 $ 20,400 5 Remove Ve etation,Misc Areas LS 1�$ 20,000 S 20,00 6 Std Embankment Crest Reconstruction(H=5') LF 19701S 205 $ 403.850 7 Std Concrete Piles for Emb Crest Reconst EA 246 S 1.875 $ 461,250 8 Std Embankment Reconstruction(1I=15') LF 720 $ 769 $ 553,68 9 IStd Concrete Piles for Emb Reconst EA 113 $ 1,875 $ 211,8751; 10 Std Segmental Retaining Wall H=I(Y} LF 0 $ 831 S 1 I Std Concrete Grade Beam with Piles for Segmental RW LF 01 S 430 ' S 12 Std Soldier Pile Retainin Wall H=10' LF 0 $ 2.210 $ 13 Std Soldier Pile Debris Wall LF 335 $ 650 ' $ 217,750 14 R ode Cutsla incl debris removalLF 370 S 50 $ 18.50 15 Cross Drains e Facilities TOTAL - $ 63.500 $ 63,500. 16 Re rade V-ditch[11_ LF 72.40 $ 5 $ 36,20 17 JSta 154 Desj&n Alt 1: Embankment Reconst w/Piles TOTAL - $ 267,385 $ 267.385 18 Sta 161 Design Alt 1: Embankment Reconst w/Piles TOTAL , �.$ 393365 ! S 393,365' 19 Sty 172 Desi n Alt 1: Se ental RW with Piles TOTAL -`$ 158.215 $ 158,215 20 Sta 176 Design Alt 1: Segmental RW w/Piles&Debris Wall TOTAL - $ 570,850 S 570,85 21 Sta 191 Design Alt 1: Embankment Reconst w/Piles TOTAL - $ 115.690 $ 115.69 22 AC Pavement Overly 14'wide LF 3917;$ 65 $ 254,213; 23 New AC Pavement Section Ll4'wide LF ` 50581$ 211 I S 1,069,5141 24 A re ate Base,Misc Areas ullouts/turnarounds)[21 LS If$ 4,000--i $ 4,006 25 Gates/Bollards LS j I!$ 10,000 S 10,0001 26 Signing and Striping LS 1 $ 10,0(10 j S 10,000 TOTAL PROJECT $ 5,134 37 Variation for Conceptual-Level Estimate: TOTAL - 5%: $ 4,877,620 TOTAL+ 25%. $ 6,417,921 S.F.Bay Trail-Carquinez Strait Segment Cal Engineering 8 Geology, Inc. Development Plan Report Alta Planning+Design T-17 Table 8: Sample Phasing Plan PHASE I -LEVEL"A" EMBANKMENT STABILIZATION AND TEMPORARY SAFETY MEASURES Year I Item No. Item Unit Est'd Qty Unit Price Total I Sta 191 Desi n Alt 1: Embankment Reconst w/Piles TOTAL - $ 115,690 $ 115,690 2 Sta 176 Design Alt 1: Segmental RW w/Piles&Debris Wall TOTAL - $570,850 $ 570,850 3 Sta 172 Desi Alt 1: Segmental RW with.Piles TOTAL - $ 158,215 $ 158,215 4 Mobilization,Traffic Control,Temporary Facilities,etc. LS I IS 145,8131 $ 145,813 $ 990,568 PHASE 2-LEVEL"B"EMBANKMENT STABILIZATION(Years 2-3) Item No, Iltern Unit Est'd Q Unit Price Total I ISta 154 Design AIt 1: Embankment Reconst w/Piles TOTAL - $267,385 $ 267,385 2 Sta 161 DesiE Alt 1: Embankment Reconst w/Piles TOTAL - $393,365 $ 393.365 3 Gates/Bollards,Signs LS 1-$ 10,0 $ 10,000 4 Temporag Safety Measures/Fencing LS 1 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 5 Mobilization,Traffic Control,Temporary Facilities.etc. LS i $276,300 $ 276,300 $ 967,050 PHASE 3-LEVEL"C"EMBANKMENT STABILIZATION(Year 3) Item No. Iltern Unit Est'd Oty Unit Price Total I Std Embankment Reconstruction H=15' IF 720 $ 769 $ 553.680 2 1Std Concrete Piles for Emb Reconst EA 113 $ 1,875 $ 211,875 3 Mobilization,Traffic Control.Tempoma Facilities,etc. LS 1 $153,111 $ 153,111 $ 918,666 PHASE 4-LEVEL"D"EMBANKMENT STABILIZATION Years 4-5 Item No. Item Unit jEsfd Qty Unit Price Total I Std Embankment Crest Reconstruction H45' LF 1970 $ 205 $ 403,850 2 Std Concrete Piles for Emb Crest Reconst EA 246 $ 1,875 $ 461,250 3 Mobilization,Traffic Control,Tem ora Facilities.etc. LS li $ 173,020 $ 173,020 $ 1,038,120 PHASE 5-CUTSLOPE STABILIZATION AND DRAINAGE REPAIRS Years 4-5 Item No. Item Unit Est'd Qtv Unit Price Total 1 Std Soldier Pile Debris Wall LF335 $ 6501 $ 217,750 2 lRegrade Cutslo incl debris removal LF 370 $ 50 $ 18,500 3 Cross Drainage Facilities TOTAL - $ 63,500 $ 63,500 I 4 Re rade V-ditch I 1 I LF 7240 $ 5 $ 36,200 f 5 Mobilization,Traffic Control,Tempormy Facilities,etc. LS - $ 671190 $ 67,190 $ 403,140 S.F. Bay Trait-Carquinez Strait Segment Cal Engineering&Geology, Inc. Development Plan Report Alta Planning+Design T-18 Table 8: Sample Phasing Plan PHASE 6-PAVING Year 6 I --- Item No. Item Unit Esta Qty Unit Price Total 1 JAC Pavement Overly l4'wide. LF 3417 $ 65 $ 254,605 2 ew AC Pavement Section 14'wide LF ' 5058 $ 211 $ 1,067,238 3 Aga re ate Base,Misc Areas ulloutslturnarounds [21 LS ' 1 S 4,000, $ 4,00 4 5igning Signingand Stri in LS ! 1 S 10,0(}0 $ 10,00 5 Mobilization,Traffic Control.TemporM Facilities,etc. LS 3 11 $214.248 $ 214,248 $ 1,550,091 PROJECT TOTAL $5,867,635 S.F.Bay Trait-Carquinez Strait Segment Cal Engineering Et Geology, Inc. Development Plan Report Alta Planning+resign ate ^ Ir zjop rq � � iOn a an 27, s '•3 C C�i ? O C i c 34 $�, 04 I In 64 U!i w Z1 � CS 3 v u o 1 Ey i CP tA 'ME on E AA > x :.max � x 'j> Ln Er INC 71-5 LA ............ ...................................... 90 15 t t 8 di roc cn t5 a 8 9 b 15 L;0, 'n uj r 0 -zj s 59 ° b. Il .3 �C 3CIX it re Ile ....................................................... P. u�. u ^•. G W Oil „ is t w � � x x x x x �s x x x x x aaa777 V � W Ls, sY•," C L^ 6 0 0 � � o Yi 6 L � r � y h C a w ^ u op g' u r. CL ON N A - 1 APPENDIX A OPERATIONS ANIS MAINTENANCE PLAN A.1 Introduction Trail operations and maintenance are important factors in trail success. A well-maintained trail provides a safe and comfortable environment for all users. The psychological effects of good maintenance can be a highly effective deterrent to vandalism and littering. In addition,good trail maintenance is vital for trail safety. Though statistics show that traits are generally safe places for people,the managing agency of any trail cannot afford to be complacent about maintenance. Trails must be proactively managed and maintained. The following sections outline the necessary maintenance and management tasks and the recommended frequency of completion of these tasks. The East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) has ample institutional experience in multi-use trail management and has contributed to developing the following recommendations and estimated costs of implementation. The trail manager of the EBRPD should supervise the implementation of the trail operations and maintenance plan,in coordination with the agency's maintenance crews. A.2 Management Responsibilities Key management and maintenance responsibilities include: law enforcement, signage maintenance,trail surface maintenance,site amenities installation and maintenance. It should be noted that each responsibility will be addressed with varying degrees of emphasis,depending on site-specific concerns. The following list represents the major tasks of the designated trail management staff: IMPLEMENTATION MANAGEMENT • Coordinate development of implementation design (Design and Operations). • Coordinate future development of trail (Design and Operations). * Pursue competitive grant funding for trail implementation (Design and Operations). + Identify and coordinate existing and potential local funding(Design and Operations). ONGOING TRAIL MANAGEMENT Develop and manage an emergency response system in coordination with the Public Safety department. * Develop and implement maintenance plan and ensure adequate funding. * Organize,coordinate and implement trail operations plan. * Obtain bids and manage contracts for maintenance and.improvements. + Monitor security/safety of the trail through routine inspections. + Oversee maintenance and rehabilitation efforts, S.F. Bay Trait-Carquinez Strait Segment Cat Engineering Et Geology, Inc. Development Plan Report Alta Planning+ Design A - 2 • Manage and respond to issues and incidents along the trail. • Coordinate routine lain enforcement needs. • Act as the local trail spokesperson with the public and elected officials, and address the issues and concerns raised by trail users and direct them to the appropriate department. • Act as liaison to the Association of Bay Area Governments Bay Trail Program in order to assure ongoing consistency with the goals and standards for the Bay Trail. A.3 Operations Responsibilities SECURITY On other existing trails, the experience of the EBPRD has been that a combination of maintenance patrols, volunteer trail safety patrols, and occasional Public Safety (police) patrols have provided for adequate trail management. Patrol needs should be determined by the managing agency to be consistent with current standards and adjusted as needed. A summary of key security recommendations is presented below. + Provide for regular law enforcement presence along the trail segment, consisting of volunteer patrols and public safety officers. • Make all sections of the trail accessible to emergency vehicles. • Install a gate on the existing road east of the trail entrance that would be open during daylight hours and closed at dusk in order to reduce the potential for vandalism, dumping, and other illicit activities. • . Construct all site fixtures from vandal resistant, culturally appropriate materials, including way-finding signage,warning signage,bridges and ether site amenities. • Trim all vegetation at least S feet from the trail where possible to maximize visibility and provide for convenient passage. • Provide fire and police departments with map of system, along with access points and entries. • Enforce speed limits and other rales of the road. • Enforce all trespassing laws for people attempting to enter adjacent private properties. MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES Maintenance activities for the Carquinez Strait Bay Trail Segment are listed below. After consulting with EBRPD staff,it was decided that the frequencies of the listed tasks should be "as needed." • Sign replacement/repair • Trail pavement marking replacement • On-Street pavement marking replacement • Planted tree,shrub,&grass trimming • Pavement sweeping • Shoulder mowing and weed removal S.F. Say Trail-Carquinez Strait Segment Cat Engineering rY Geology, Inc. Development Plan Report Alta Planning+Design A- 3 + Staging area trash disposal + Maintain furniture * Pruning to maintain vertical clearance « Remove fallen trees + Weed control + Fencing * Graffiti removal * Removal of illegal dumping; The following maintenance tasks relate to structures and embankment and cut slopes. These facilities require more diligent inspection, and should be addressed as needed. For example, because the trail segment would be especially sensitive to seepage into surface cracks, more regular sealing and pothole maintenance would be necessary. In addition, major repairs for asphalt normally occur every 5-15 years,and 30-40 years for concrete. + Pavement sealing/potholes « Clean culverts and ditches (before winter,at a minimum) Typical maintenance vehicles for the trail will be light trucks and occasionally heavy dump trucks and tractors. Care should be taken when operating heavier equipment on the trail to warn trail users and to avoid breaking the edge of the pavement surface. PROJECTED MAINTENANCE COSTS East Bay Regional Parrs estimates annual multi-use trail maintenance costs range from $18,000— $22,000 per mile,depending on the unique site-specific considerations for each individual trail. For example, the Carquinez Strait Segment willlikely require much less landscaping but potentially more debris removal. SUB-SURFACE UTILITIES All existing utility easements on the Carquinez Strait Segment alignment that will be impacted by the trail will need to be addressed in the management agreement between the EBRPD and Contra Costa County. These easement should be identified and clearly delineated on all maintenance and construction documents and agreements should be developed which include: • Advance notice and trail closure procedures for routine maintenance « Procedures and responsibilities for unscheduled maintenance Minimum trail covering • Required warning signs Responsibilities for trail re-construction and construction standards TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN S.F. Bay Trait-Carquinez Strait Segment Cal Engineering ft Geology,Inc. Development Plan Report Atta Planning+Design A - 4 Trail users will need to be managed during construction and periodic maintenance of the trail, when sections of the trail will be closed or unavailable to trail users. Trail users must be warned of impending trail closures, and given adequate information of any available bypasses around closed or unfinished section of trail. Trail users must be warned through the use of standard signing at the entrance to each affected section of trail ("Trail Closed"), including (but not limited to) information on alternate routes and dates of closure. The responsibility for management during construction is usually that of the construction contractor. LIABILITY In general, liability risks for neighbors of multi-use trails are well protected and are effectively reduced by the recreational use statute and other statutes. Assuming the trail is designed, built, and operated to established standards, there is no additional liability for the managing agencies. Some of the unusual liability aspects include identifying increases in liability and legal costs directly attributable to the trail, and identifying whether trespassers are trail users. S.F. Bay Trait-Carquinez Strait Segment Cal Engineering&Geology, Inc. Development Plan Report Alta Planning+Design ............ B - I APPENDIX B PUBLIC WORKSHOP SUMMARY Meeting Date: February 26,2004 Location: County Public Works Conference Room Prepared by: Bill Harris Al Schaal introduced the project team,and provided background information on the Carquinez Scenic Drive and the current planning project. Bill Harris—provided a PowerPoint presentation summarizing the findings of the project report. Upon completion of the presentation,public comments were solicited and recorded as follows: • Station 176 is location of most active earth movement. • Could the portion of Carquinez Scenic Drive located to the east of the closed portion also be included as a trail only (no vehicles allowed)? • Place gate further east,at park district boundary, • Illegal dumping occurs at east and west end of closed road. • EBRPD is working with the County to address management of staging areas. • Port Costa to Martinez should be addressed. • This study should consult with people of Port Costa, • West end gate should be added too, • Emergency access needed. • Add p.rn,gate closure at west end. • County vegetation maintenance should take rural character into account. • Where traffic is allowed, provide an adequate shoulder for pedestrians. • Automobiles should be allowed on this portion of the road. • Existing condition of pavement limits users,however the use level is still high. • 14-foot standard width is increasing the construction cost,should use a 12-foot width standard instead. • This path is an important link to the new Zampora Bridge which has bike lanes. • Equestrian use should be provided for in the new design. • Carquinez Scenic Drive is part of the historic De Anza trail. • EBRPD units at Carquinez Strait do provide for equestrian use. • Mokulumne Coast to Crest Trail goes from Negedly to Contra Loma; this project could be an extension. • The De Anza Trail is included in the County General Plan. • This trail should be open to equestrians because early expeditions to the Bay from the Central Valley along the Strait were on horseback. • The De anza Trail is a millennium trail. • Recreational automobile use should be allowed to provide access for disabled. • Design should include a 4-foot wide shoulder for equestrian use. • Design should not preclude other, future uses. • Objection to further restrictions on car access. • Martinez passed a resolution supporting bike/ped/equestrian use and asked that costs for future auto use be studied, S.F. Bay Trail-Carquinez Strait Segment Cal Engineering Fk Geology, Inc. Development Plan Report Alta Planning+Design ....................... B - 2 • Auto use of Carquinez Scenic Drive would make Martinez more of a "through" destination, rather than a dead-end. • Martinez has only 3 ingress/egress roads,and two of these pass by the refinery. Carquinez Scenic Drive could provide an additional emergency route. This should be addressed in the CEQA document. • Wheel chair access is possible on proposed design standard. • Few areas exist that prohibit cars,it would be desirable to have a non-motorized trail. • Allow bike access on Ozol Road segment (up and over),with main trail on Carquinez Drive. • Add EBRPD standard gates as part of first phase (existing gates are difficult to get around). • Vegetation clearing needs to be done more sensitively. Protect existing oak trees. • If road is too wide,wildlife habitat would be impacted—width should not be increased. • Station 176 should be repaired as first phase. • Existing condition is good,including wheelchair access,not a lot of improvement is needed now. • Less is more, preserve existing character as much as possible. • During environmental review,what will be baseline condition? (current condition). • Need to document current species. • Trail is located outside of Martinez sphere of influence. • Will the Pt. Ozol road be open to vehicles? Future use will be determined by EBRPD. • Horse trail could be created on firebreak located upslope. • Vehicle use should be restricted. Equestrian use should be provided. • Construction phase---preserve access and protect wildlife. • The trail will draw people to Martinez and Port Costa. • EBRPD hours of operation would be 5 a.m. to 10 p.m. • Allow for one-way vehicle use on set days of the calendar. 5.f. Bay'Grail-Carquinez Strait Segment Cat Engineering Et Geology, Inc. Development Plan Report Alta Planning+Design