HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-10-09 - AGENDA REPORTS - CHANGE CDBG EAST NEWHALL (2)PUBLIC BEARING
DATE:
SUBJECT:
DEPARTMENT:
BACKGROUND
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval
Item to be presented
Raquel Garcia
October 9, 1990
PROPOSED CHANGE TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
EAST NEWHALL PUBLInMPROVEMENTS-PROJECT
City
The purpose of this agenda item is to receive public testimony concerning a
proposed revision to Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) East Newhall
public improvements project. According to Los Angeles County, Community
Development Commission (CDC), a significant change to the scope of work and
amount of allocated CDBG funds to any CDC approved project, requires public
notification and participation before proceeding with its implementation. This
project was approved by the CDC on September 13, 1990.
Subsequent to Staff's assessment of East Newhall and needs expressed by
residents at the neighborhood meeting, a program to provide CDBG-funded public
improvements for this area was determined as a high priority, supported by
residents and approved by Council. The intent of the program was to complete
the build -out of partially constructed curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements
in the area. An analysis of drainage considerations associated with these
improvements would also be performed to ascertain that build out of curb, gutter
and -sidewalk would not worsen drainage conditions.
The drainage study performed was recently completed. The results of this report
indicate that the East Newhall area is subject to three drainage conditions:
nuisance water (from sources such as sprinkler activity), low -flow (5 -year or
less frequency) storm runoff, and high-flow (capital) storm flood conditions.
Build -out of curb, gutter, and sidewalk will tend to worsen the first two of
these drainage conditions.
The project's revised scope of work and use of CDBG funds is based- on staff's
recommendation that drainage improvements for nuisance water and low -flow storm
conditions be addressed before curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements are
constructed. This change remains consistent with public input obtained from
residents and staff's assessment for the East Newhall area neighborhood
improvement effort.
CDBG funds available for this project this fiscal year are $321,000. Build -out
of curb, gutter, and sidewalk in the East Newhall area is estimated at
approximately $300,000. Drainage improvements necessary. to fully address
nuisance water and low -flow storm conditions are estimated at approximately
$385,000. Drainage improvements necessary to fully address high-flow conditions
have not been estimated, but would involve major expenditures of funds towards
improvement of the Newhall Creek floodway.
Agendaltem:...5.
0 i
Page 2
The Council to hold public hearing and approve the following recommendations:
1. That Council concur with Staff's recommendation that drainage improvements
designed to address nuisance water and low—flow storm conditions be
constructed before construction of curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements
proceeds.
2. That Council direct Staff to proceed with a phased program for construction
of these drainage improvements using CDBG funds available; that the total
cost for the first phase of these drainage improvements not exceed
$321,000 and that future phase(s) be constructed as additional CDBG funds
become available.
3. That Council direct Staff to request -CDC approval to modify East Newhall
public improvements accordingly.
ATTACHMENT
Drainage Study East Newhall Target Area
/kn
IP Ib
PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE
1.
Mayor.Opens Hearing
a. States Purpose of Hearing
2.
City Clerk Reports on Hearing Notice
3.
Staff Report
(City Manager)
or
(City Attorney)
or
(RP Staff)
4.
Proponent Argument (30 minutes)
5.
Opponent Argument (30 minutes)
6.
Five-minute Rebuttal (Proponent)
a. Proponent
7.
Mayor Closes Public Testimony
B.
Discussion by Council
9.
Council Decision
10. Mayor Announces Decision
6
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TO APPROVE THE USE OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS
FOR THE REVISED SCOPE OF YORK FOR
THE EAST NEWHALL.PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN:
A Public Hearing will be held before the City Council of the City
of Santa Clarita to approve the use of Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) funds for the revised scope of 'work for the East
Newhall Public Improvements Project.
The hearing will be held by the City Council in the City Hall
Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 1st Floor, Santa Clarita,
the ninth day of October, 1990, at or after 6:30 p.m.
Proponents, opponents, and any interested persons may appear.and be '
heard on this _matter at that time. Further information may be
obtained by contacting the City Clerk's Office, Santa Clarita City
Hall, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 3rd Floor, Santa Clarita.
Dated: September 20, 1990
Donna M. Grindey
City Clerk
Publish Date: September 23, 1990
DRAINAGE STUDY
EAST NEWHALL TARGET AREA
CDBG PROJECT D9632
September 19, 1990
Prepared by:
Willdan Associates
858 West Jackman Street, Suite 204
Lancaster, California 93534
(805) 945-8848
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Scope of Work
1
Assumptions
2
Site Evaluation
3
Alternatives
4
Recommendations
5-7
Summary
8
Conclusion
9
Exhibit "A"
Map of Target Area
Exhibit "B"
Critical Curb and Gutter/Sump Areas
Exhibit "C"
Cost Estimate -Curb, Gutter, and Catch Basins Only
Exhibit "D"
Proposed Catch Basin Locations
Exhibit "E"
Transition Structure Detail
Exhibit "F"
Headwall Detail
Exhibit "G"
Drainage Trench Detail
Exhibit "H"
Cost Estimate for Area Drainage Study (Remainder)
Exhibit "I"
Cost Estimate for Repair Work Only
Exhibit '7"
Cost Estimate for Future Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk
Exhibit "K"
Earthen Channel Detail
Exhibit "L"
Flood Zone Map Detail
AREA DRAINAGE STUDY
CDBG PROJECT D9632
The following items were assumed in the intended scope of work for this project, CDBG Project D9632,
Area Drainage Study for the East Newhall Target Area as shown on Exhibit "A".
1. Assess Target Area Drainage Improvements Required. Although full curb, gutter, and
sidewalk improvements were assumed to ultimately be installed, only those areas deemed as critical
to the drainage in the target area were included in the estimate of costs for this Drainage Study.
Alternatives, other than the final recommendation of Willdan Associates, are to be considered and
reported on.
2. Assess Condition of Existing Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk Improvements. An
assessment of existing curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements in the Target Area is required to
determine what repair work, if any, is required. A detailed list of repairs required (including
estimated cost), by street address, shall be provided.
3. Determine Costs for Providing Nov Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk Improvements.
The extent of curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements remaining to be constructed in the Target
Area shall be provided. This is to be broken down to show both the total overall cost of
improvements remaining at this time, and a separate breakdown for those areas as deemed critical
to the drainage system as called out in Item 1 above. Costs by street and block shall be provided,
and shall include itemized work in support of this effort, such as grading or utility relocation if
necessary, to adequately complete the task.
1
ASSUMPTIONS
There were some basic assumptions taken in assessing the impacts of the drainage upon the Target Area as
shown on Exhibit "A" -and they are listed as follows. The first was that the entire Target Area is within an
AO flood zone (see Exhibit "L"); or more simply put, that in any Capital Storm the entire area would be
under water. Existing structures within the Target Area during periods of major flooding become
inundated partly due to the lack of regulated and mapped floodways that were in existence during
construction. Since that period, the Federal Government has formed F.E.M.A. (Federal Emergency
Management Agency) to map and regulate these floodways. The second assumption was that the main
priority of the City of Santa Clarita in this project was to relieve the problems of standing water due to
nuisance water and/or low flow (five year or less frequency) storms. It was also assumed that the areas of
critical importance with respect to drainage would receive priority when considering which areas would
receive improvements.. This assumption could lead to some areas receiving curb and gutter improvements
while other areas may be required to wait for improvements until such time as funding were to become
available.
1)
SITE EVALUATION
This Area Drainage Study was based upon several sources of available information. First, we had a
survey of the overall area done to include shots at centerline and edge of pavement, or flowlines on
improved streets (streets with curb and gutter installed). This was to verify the existing drainage patterns
in the Target Area. We also had more detailed area topography shot at the easterly terminus of each of the
east and west running streets as all of these areas were determined by a visual site inspection to be sump
conditions. The surveyors were also instructed to take shots in the existing bottom of Newhall Creek to
1 determine if there is enough fall from the ends of the streets to the Creek bottom to allow for the water to
drain out if a pipe were to be installed. Existing pipes (corrugated metal pipes) were looked at to determine
what, if any, value they would be of in our final recommendations.
A copy of the Street and Drainage Improvements for San Fernando Road (done by the California
Department of Transportation - CalTrans) was obtained and used to verify existing drainage structures,
slopes, and depth in order to investigate any possibilities of diverting any existing flows into or under San
Fernando Road.
Street Improvement plans for all of the Target Area streets were obtained from the County of Los Angeles
in order to verify existing improvements, grades, and drainage patterns versus the information obtained in
our aforementioned survey.
Along with all of the above survey and improvement information obtained, a visual walk through was
done on several occasions in order to get a better idea of existing conditions. On one such inspection, it
was passed on to us by a local resident, that in the recent past the water in one sump area in particular (at
the easterly terminus of 2nd Street) had in fact reached depths of between two (2) and three (3) feet on
more than one occasion.
With all of the beforementioned information at hand, we feel confident that all avenues have been
considered, and a reliable, complete list of recommendations have been accumulated.
3
ALTERNATIVES
Prior to discussing our final recommendations for this report, we feel it is necessary to point out some of
the alternatives that were investigated. First of all, we looked at the sump areas as the most pressing
concern in the entire Target Area we studied. These sumps were located at the easterly terminus of each of
the cast and west running streets within the area. The only possible alternative solution to this problem
was to install an underground piping system throughout the entire development, and it was deemed as
neither economical nor practical.
Another problem we encountered was that of storm water run off from Railroad Creek to the south of San
Fernando Road along the railroad tracks. There is an existing twenty-four inch (24") reinforced concrete
pipe (RCP) that has an inlet on the east side of the railroad tracks and south of San Fernando Road. The
outlet for said pipe is on the north side of San Fernando Road, still on the east side of the tracks. The
drainage from this pipe is currently designed to drain to the north for about one hundred feet (100'), more
or less, and then sheet flow over the curb located on the west side of Pine Street and continue northward
within the street. The drainage is designed to eventually empty into Newhall Creek to the extreme north of
our Target Area, but would instead pond around the intersection of Pine and Market Streets. One
alternative we investigated was to install an underground piping system along San Fernando Road to the
southeast, and empty the drainage adjacent to the railroad tracks into an existing system that eventually
drains into Railroad Canyon south of our Target Area (where it crosses under San Fernando Road). This
idea was rejected because the existing facilities to the southeast were installed too shallow for us to be able
to drain the water in that direction; simply, there was not enough grade for the water to be diverted in that
direction. A second alternative would have been to ruts a pipe under the railroad tracks at the present
location of the aforementioned inlet, and then empty it into an existing pipe that drains to the northwest.
This idea was rejected due to the problems foreseen with obtaining permits from the railroad in order to
jack a pipe under their tracks. The line would need to be shut down, at least temporarily, and the
prospects of the railroad agreeing to this were not in the City's favor.
We also investigated several alternatives to remove the nuisance water problem that we know to exist in the
PineRvIarket Street area. One alternative, quickly abandoned, was to totally reconstruct the street in order
to have it drain towards the east, instead of having a high point near the intersection with Arch Street. This
idea proved to be both very costly, and extremely difficult engineering wise, to design. Another
' alternative would have been to install an underground piping system along the north side of Market Street,
draining to the east, and have it empty into an existing ditch that drains north into Newhall Creek. This
idea was also rejected due to the enormous costs involved and the lack of sufficient grade required to
properly install such a system.
I1 4
RECOMMENDATIONS
While.we feel that in order to totally eliminate the "ponding" and overall drainage problems encountered in
the Target Area it is necessary to install curb and gutter improvements throughout the project, our final
recommendations, as follows, reflect the fact that there is a limited amount of. funds available for such
improvements at this time. Therefore, we have recommended curb and gutter installations only in areas
where we deemed such improvements as critical and necessary to achieve the overall goal of this study.
CURB AND GUTTER INSTALLATIONS.
As mentioned previously, there are certain areas within the overall Target Area that will be more critical
than others with respect to drainage of the Target Area. These areas are shown on enclosed Exhibit "B"
and are hereby incorporated as necessary elements of the overall drainage design. These improvements are
necessary in order to direct the drainage towards other drainage improvements to be discussed later on in
the study. In conjunction with these curb and gutter installations, minor pavement installation and overlay
will be required. Additional dedication will need to be acquired at the intersection of Market Street and
Race Street since existing records indicate that none currently exists even though improvements do exist
within that area. This additional right-of-way is necessary for installation of critical curb and gutter and
additional pavement to properly direct drainage toward the drainage inlet structures as shown on Exhibit
' "D". Costs for these improvements are shown on the enclosed Exhibit "C.
CATCH BASINS AND APPURTENANT STRUCTURES.
As previously mentioned, there are sump conditions at the terminus of each of the east and west running
streets. These areas, as shown on Exhibit "B", are recommended to receive curb and gutter installation.
The curb and gutter will only contain and direct the flows toward the existing sump areas in a more defined
manner, but in order to actually get the water out of the area a drainage outlet will be required. Therefore,
at the end of each street we recommend that a catch basin be installed with an outlet emptying into an RCP
that in turn drains easterly into Newhall Creek. The locations of these catch basins, as well as ones
required on Market Street, are shown on the enclosed Exhibit 'D" and associated costs are reflected on the
aforementioned Exhibit "C. Acquisition of Storm Drain Easements will be necessary to construct these
drainage systems connecting to Newhall Creek.
There will also be catch basins required along Market Street, as previously mentioned. There are a pair of
eight inch (8") corrugated metal pipes (Culp) presently located under Market Street, draining from south to
north, just to the east of Arch Street. These pipes will need to be removed, and when the curb and gutter
improvements along Market Street are installed, a catch basin should be installed on both the north and
south sides of the street in approximately the same location. These are necessary due to the fact that
another sump condition exists in this area and significant drainage will be directed towards said sump.
The catch basins will be connected by a RCP draining from south to north, and then emptying into an
existing earthen ditch/swale that will, when cleaned out and redefined, drain northerly into Newhall Creek.
This will require obtaining permission from the property owner to do such grading.
A final catch basin will be required on the north side of Market Street, directly across from the easterly
curb return of the southeast corner of Pine and Market Streets. This inlet will accept the existing nuisance
water from said intersection, and in turn drain into a transition structure to be discussed later on in this
study. Locations of all previously mentioned catch basins will be shown on Exhibit "D", and their costs
are reflected in the estimate on Exhibit "C.
TRANSITION STRUCTURE AND PIPING SYSTEM
A transition structure will need to be installed either in or adjacent to the existing driveway for Anawalt
Lumber Company in order to direct the drainage from the more westerly catch basin on the northerly side
of Market Street, and the yet to be mentioned graded drainage ditch along the west side of Pine Street.
This structure, a typical detail is shown on enclosed exhibit "E", will serve to direct the before mentioned
flows into a single pipe that would in turn, drain to the north into an existing earthen ditch that is located
totally within Southern Pacific Transportation Company right-of-way. This ditch would have to be
cleaned out and slightly graded in order to guarantee adequate drainage northward towards Newhall Creek.
We have contacted the railroad on this matter, and were informed by their Regional Engineer's Office that
the appropriate permit, a right of entry permit, would be easily attainable. The selected contractor would
be required to submit a set of plans outlining the proposed improvements within railroad right-of-way,
along with proof of liability insurance in a minimum amount of two million dollars ($2,000,000). This
requirement should be called for in the construction specifications, therefore assuring that the required
improvements would be completed.
N
I�1
q�
GRADED EARTHEN DRAINAGE DITCH
' There will be a graded, earthen drainage ditch required to complete our recommended drainage
' improvements in the Target Area. Since the size of outlet pipe under San Fernando Road is known (24"),
the maximum capacity of said pipe was calculated and a minimum cross sectional area for the proposed
earthen ditch was calculated (see Exhibit "K"). Allowing for a six inch (6") freeboard (6" minimum height
from the maximum top of water during flow and the top of the graded ditch), it was determined that there
is sufficient room (there is IU of existing right-of-way between the westerly curb of Pine Street and the
' railroad right-of-way to the west) for the graded ditch to be installed without acquisition of additional right-
of-way or easements. It was also determined that, due to the existing grades of Pine Street averaging
' nearly 2%, the maximum velocity in the ditch would be low enough as to not require concrete lining.
Also, since the railroad right-of-way is adjacent to the west, no further improvements would be required,
i.e., sidewalk, and therefore the ditch would not interfere with any other future improvements in the area.
IIEADWALL AND CONCRETE DRAINAGE TRENCHES
At the end of the previously mentioned graded drainage ditch, a headwall will be required. There will be a
24" RCP installed from the headwall to the transition structure located on the property of Anawalt Lumber
Company. The headwall will serve to diffuse the flow and allow it to be channeled into the smaller pipe
' without damaging the pipe itself. Please see the enclosed Exhibit "F" for a typical detail of said headwall.
' The final drainage improvements required by this study will be a pair of concrete drainage trenches with
steel, traffic approved grates. Exhibit "G" shows typical details of this type of trench. The trenches will
1 both drain away from the southeast comer of the intersection of Pine and Market Streets. One will drain
from east to west across Pine Street and will drain into the previously mentioned piping system. The other
trench would drain from south to north across Market Street and empty into the most westerly catch basin
on said northerly side of Market Street and then into the underground piping system.
7
SUMMARY
The following is a summary of the recommended improvements which are required to be installed in the
critical drainage areas.
1. Curb and Gutter Installation (See Exhibit 'B")
2. Catch Basins and Appurtenant Structures
Installation is required at the eastern terminus of the following streets:
1. Park Street
2. 2nd Street
3. 3rd Street
4. 4th Street
5. 5th Street
6. 6th Street
Catch basins located on Market Street will also need to be installed.
3. Transition Structure and Piping System.
This system which connects the basins, earthen drainage ditch, and grated drainage trenches will
be located within the intersection of Pine Street and Market Street, and also within an easement
parallel and adjacent to the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way within the Anawalt Lumber
property.
4. Graded Earthen Drainage Ditch.
Located westerly and adjacent to the westerly curb of Pine Street between Park Street and Market
S trees.
' 5. Concrete Drainage Trenches.
These grated drainage trenches are located within and adjacent to the intersection of Market and
Pine Streets. They collect low flow and nuisance water, thus removing it from the street surface
and directing it toward their designed outlets.
F?
CONCLUSION
It is the conclusion of Willdan Associates that upon completion of all the above mentioned improvements,
there would be a significant improvement in the drainage situation in the Target Area. While the area will
still be located within an AO flood zone, the probability of standing water from minor flow storms will
have been greatly reduced, if not eliminated altogether. ;Major or Capital Storms will still impact this area
as it has in recent years by inundating it with several feet of water. The improvements proposed in this
study would not hinder the drainage during these types of storms, but would only help to quickly drain
ithis area and reduce the previously experienced ponding that has occured. The only solution to the
problem of being located within a flood zone would be to fully improve the channel for Newhall Creek.
While an accurate cost estimate has not been calculated due to the complexity of the solution, it is estimated
that the costs could easily reach several million dollars. Therefore, it should be realized that the
recommended improvements do not totally eliminate all drainage problems, but serve as a means to handle
the low flow and nuisance water problems observed within the Target Area.
SAN
'� �■ GTIti Com:-�__= ilii iii ow Mai
1-
�� U) U) U) Sl.
t.-- RACE
FCI-
ST0
(INE cc)IJ-
- ---
S. 1? R. R. _ c�
FERNANDO
MAST NL=WHALL
TARGET AREA
N.T. S.
--- 11,1DICATES BOUNDARY OF TARGET AREA
NOTE: CURI3,GUTTER R SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION
WILL LL DETERi4INED 13Y f=11;L1) SURVEY.
I A u
smi
zAREAS WHERE CURB AND GUTTER INSTAL-
LATION IS CONSIDERED CRITICAL TO,//'J
THE OVERALL DRAINAGE STUDY SUMP AREAS
RECOMMENDATIONS.
SAN
SUMP Af2EA
i
ARCH
f
PINE
S. f?
FERNANDO
�E
N
ST
ST.
EAST NEWHALL
TARGET AREA
----- INDICATES BOUNDARY OF TARGET AREA
MOTE: CURD,GUTTER R SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION
WILL LE DETERMINED DY FIELA) SURVEY
n /1
i
tEXHIBIT "C
y
'
EIGHT INCH CURB AND TWO FOOT
GUTTER
iPark
Street of Race Street
east
650 L.F. at 512/L.F.
$ 7,500
2nd Street east of Race Street
400 L.F. at $12/L.F.
4,$00
3rd Street east of Race Street
600 L. F. at 12/L.F.
7,200
4th Street east of Race Street
700 L.F. at S12/L.F.
8,400
'
5th Street east of Race Street
600 L.F. at 512/L.F.
7,200
6th Street east of Race Street
450 L.F. at 512/L.F.
5,400
Race Street from 6th to Market
15,600
1300 L.F. at 512/L.F.
Market Street
650 L.F. at $12/L.F.
7.800
'
Subtotal
S64,200
CATCH BASINS
Nine at $2,300 each
$20.700
Subtotal
$84,900
10% Contingency
� L4r 0
'
Total
$93,390
1
1
1
i/i
MPROPOSED CATCH BASINS
W
c/)
P7
RACE
OAR CH Si.
C)
PINE co
S. P R. RO%
SAN -FERNANDO
C- A f') I UJ I
Q
S.
EAST NEWHALL
TARGET AREA '
11,101CATES 130UNDA13Y OF 1-MGET AREA
Nal -E-. CURD,GUT-rER 3 SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION
WILL LIE DE'rEW.MNED DY FIELI) SURVEY.
Ifl
z
b„a : O su: ,
I 'ter
1
1 I
1 I
I
1
l
I I 1
1
I
I
I
1 I
r 1
�.<-pr-:r O, a,a:•,•J/ r.:rra !'+J:
,f\,• 3
Z /C •- —'r
I'J i'ea �.n J �•[ i.O. J..d ^I a.e a+Jon
_
"A .•> .`
a_ .nr :r:f d-u...,9a £ no•..`n 4on✓
�•<.J• Y.r a^Con , •r�r:"'f✓d,
LONGITUDINAL
SECTI011
M mm MIN M mm
EXHIBIT LIE°
1U_[u[r,CEs _nEvlsl__>N S___ LOS ANGELES COUNTY
:_ Loon COMFIOL DISTRW
O /r/
° '1 '' """'' TRANSIT1011 STRUCTURE
,+ra 1�D1r
110. 3
(1• 96D 2c�nniL Z, E -,LV S- I.1_N4_ L Sf CTIONS
—I?/_ D 186
a
NOTE
I
e ,. .. -•„ d •J'r J/ iJ'rrrrJrn!< Jn
06.-. -.a a„-,
�.<-pr-:r O, a,a:•,•J/ r.:rra !'+J:
,f\,• 3
Z /C •- —'r
I'J i'ea �.n J �•[ i.O. J..d ^I a.e a+Jon
_
"A .•> .`
a_ .nr :r:f d-u...,9a £ no•..`n 4on✓
�•<.J• Y.r a^Con , •r�r:"'f✓d,
Jr •'J ✓•w.r
m .+
r[aoa ar an vcn.rr
F'
-v il0[-%,'d
+J /Ja, Qr/n ,., s, mN'
[aryllw✓..u/ AJ,a •nou e+ rr
-
Y.rJ onto /i ., b0•.+'r rr
I/j',y- /rsr Jn .r..br.
SECTIOIJ N' -IJ' -IJ"' 1:t
C: £laruv ! J,ry/., If i„idr ,.,1/a/
PROJECTED ON 1.1-M-11'
[j NOTES (CO/1l-) r
re.,,j:naN Jlcu['wee .,Y,/ b.• P.—,j
TA ESLE
IY.,e., E'c. ✓I•✓, 4o,d £: .a••r+ i
.n unr .vr/,n, Y.:, gnr.-Y/.wr f.:.y✓ //...r
4v'.lmn.laU o.nl .f ne/a/ran, a+oro-rf1 d•o.. nJf,
'
/ne G+,•rw /e'•,ha✓ A•.e ,nr .y./..••a e!
a, /.,r ,.,y„/.ny l,ne a nna/rN e..•
dur ,r+<s
r,•:r, p•'p< ,no!/ colt' mn•n .'rnr
�/u:.nsr
n,
F
e: •nd:nq, Irn<n ;nrr, o.nr r.•r•, r••,,,
BC
l /.nC a/hrr /n J.l ./.J'/r .. erY /•Jn ( J
,,,
Inc lr.y/n ri /lrr ..:
Or
O<•
"'\
h
a., ,I a,r r.,/.wn uI' r/v 6r. /:.rrm•
at,
J
T
r
JSJ// Oe a,Y.., r+ f.. ✓.u..,ny,
,+./ s•,+ <../. ..hy D +w•, .
a O
n on •n/e / p•)ar a U•� d<L /u.J Jn J
.. ,y, „r. /...• ✓ ,. .t,..fbr +.•/
i!_
�J
a/ra:y'.y arJ.ae L,+. � c.J/•a••S
sr,rwy .0 uprb Ge✓ m RSr•I:I�, bW
' Ir
S
/n culU tJa.+ pn ��,d+0 `rak .-• -. c/
a -y. .n.w.yr m Hf l:.r/.+, a! .i/'VF'
-[1'--7-
y o
n.Y,/ b, ...✓ n /nr Cnynr+l--
[J_
4
n
?J
�_
prnJ?c/ d'o.,.f•y' e9'r ^+or a/.! l_
£,rUCJr [/f,/I P „+/, Dr n ,r'+J J
�i7
is roc. prn•roeJ :n -nd.n r,n< %..-
.r Mr %oaf• Vn en J/,r.+•a.• an+.n
:
Wet >r
�. h:- tuna!^oi I•dn u'",.
r
... o✓v...r.
..li/n/ Y'
__Yt•
T,•
U_
'i
_-i1
A ..�
.,ne.• J,n•<na•o-1 C ., nos fvaAnJ nu SI.Y
---_..E-
1
.b.11l m.l Y[ [OaW or l•J m.0 A R 11 bass
Si
y
O O
♦1.011 O[ <uvl lsJ
EXHIBIT LIE°
1U_[u[r,CEs _nEvlsl__>N S___ LOS ANGELES COUNTY
:_ Loon COMFIOL DISTRW
O /r/
° '1 '' """'' TRANSIT1011 STRUCTURE
,+ra 1�D1r
110. 3
(1• 96D 2c�nniL Z, E -,LV S- I.1_N4_ L Sf CTIONS
—I?/_ D 186
a
r r r r � ■� �■ r� r r r� r� r r r r �r
(°
III �1r•_=1I1�-" -1I1 '!; `f tII _-_!II --� .*.o ..rlI +e tII —I•�1_ _I ��• 1I - 1I - 1I I �IfII r=hI !1t t -4I -77—F 5 1•- ti- 7
'
—}v
�
, I I-1 t I I��%I" I'I f_!.7 III'! =r t' I �r=1=1• I I-llllI r r t--1 f [r r.. 1-r I -I f ii'.1
_'M t 1•4tt n _g•_pSYSYaL11�t1 • I______. _____.__.
!!P'L LLIY.PPv41 [.f1 •n..y rwl•e • •I •{t!Sy. x44LC �.
L•Llili .ii•.Sf[ �•l •Peylli
_.__._._...... __._. linl[n SE M,
gy[Ila gprif
I Ibhn•.N.. w.l. n. -••.Nn. rs. Il.vh.\ .1 III...Ib
I .'I .. nl. s;...l v\ \•.. .II .. N..1 ...I ew•1.•1.1 N. M
Ib n...n n Int.
n. 11al, e•e .raa run. ,�... Lib ...r \. r'.I y{.Ilvl...
I o..�la... .. Ir e....,. wrv�.•. w.y
SIRU/ 0[IAISS
a. � / .� ::..��-.`...L:-... ^_.::'...� ... v . - ' ter`. i?�•..o.
? zz
e .I
..Orl ntv_•n .P _..y l5
s 1.Or V
Hort I1 t •i rt In -.0 stILO'. "i '•nu.aa
lTM.Iz
�—
Tut
\O
Y—.--
(�
L1:
le
lol
I�r
t
1..
!L•R�
1' 1:
!:!.
iy
![]
..I➢
PI
_tt
!!1
!ve
14
VI
X11
!'c!i
�'.!•
gee
rs
1_e
1_
Na
if
i\"•e"e
Is:
Ila-
III
_L•...
=__
->'
LI
!!!
ne
iir
_iii
of
iii
t:p
{:S
..\.r•
i .•
B t!
"'i
d'd
ii
•i{
i
i{i
in
.I!
i!•
!2ih4,
--
r.!;
f:i
_.
is
.i6
..
iii
ii.
.
rvi
_-
-
i-�
i
inid
ai
nI
1 A
"dd
i'a
l/{
111
lid
IA
IIL
il.
ao
]il
ji1
11,
IN
111
—
-
:i Si
h{
-
-'
'-i
7❑
iii
r!.
!.I
!!I
❑3
it!
III
t;i
I LIU
i i
—
Hort I1 t •i rt In -.0 stILO'. "i '•nu.aa
EXHIBIT 11F If
:{Lffn:•Sff.
.., u. ;........
ll...l•..n Or w.. ..ICM
PIPE IIEADNYALLS
AND STRUT DETAILS
lTM.Iz
�—
Tut
\O
Y—.--
(�
L1:
le
lol
I�r
t
1..
!L•R�
1' 1:
!:!.
iy
![]
..I➢
PI
_tt
!!1
!ve
14
VI
X11
!'c!i
�'.!•
gee
rs
1_e
1_
Na
_L•...
=__
->'
LI
!!!
ne
iir
_iii
of
iii
t:p
{:S
..\.r•
i .•
1A
!r{
1.!
I11
12
r.0
U.
ne
!.f
!2ih4,
r.!;
!9
111
N4
(.!
11j
i
ro
In
re!
!V
fi_"I.
i-�
i
1i!
i,
m
!n
EXHIBIT 11F If
:{Lffn:•Sff.
.., u. ;........
ll...l•..n Or w.. ..ICM
PIPE IIEADNYALLS
AND STRUT DETAILS
R-4999 Series Bolted -..
Transverse Drainage Structures
Heavy Duty
'Illustrating flat type surface showing
Type X Irome and Type C grae.
Siondord frame and cover sessions of
Ns type are ooitea and monuiaaured
' in 24" standard lengths.
Read Carefully Before Ordering
Specify:
1. Complete catalog number.
2. Length of structure,
3. Type of covet
4, Perma-Grip surface if required.
(See page 261.)
5. End frame sections and num-
ber required per unit.
6. Ductile Iron frames and/or
Ductile Iron covers.
7, !f trench drain grates are to be
installed;n bicycle traffic areas,
please odvise so that safety
standards described on catalog
page 95 con be applied.
FRAME TYPE
Mr•---------------nJ
TYPE X
Illustrating
R-4999 bolted
trench series
with Type L grote.
i
Catalog
Dimensions in inches
I Weight per lineal'oot -
Catalog I
A i Tvoe C i Tvoe 0 1 Twoe E
Iyat
No. I
No.Tvoe
R -4999 -AX
B
I 111
6
j 19
( 24
( 21
^-I
19
i 12
R -4999 -BX
10
14i8
I 24
( 00
I 29
27
I 22
i 12
R -4999 -CX
12
14y
10
2S
` 35
40
38
26
12
R -4999 -DX
I 14
1'h.
12
I 25
( 45
I 50
' 48
0112
R -4999 -EX
I .7
lyi
15
41
59
I 55
50
—
I 12
R -4999 -FX
20
I!A
18
I 57
' 67
72
65
12
R-4999-GX
--3
I 1 h
21
6C
78
90
i —
—
12
R -4999 -HX
I 26
1V2
24
68
1
110
90
94
—
12
R -4999 -JX
30
2
27
100
130
BS
—
—
17
R-4999-Y,X
33
2
30
120
150
150
—
—
17
R -4999 -LX
36
I
2
33
1
115
140
I
175
I
R -4999 -MX
39
^-
36
130
210
175
( —
—
R -4999 -NX
452
42
150
260
I
180
—
—
17
R -4999 -OX
I 51 12
I
48 I
175
—
320
275
17
—Weight per ioot—includes both sides.
COVER, TYPES
r `��^ I I II I c w c•Y� ,: `... js ti'`,-.'.C^'.f ^t=;..;item;
p p , ,.;•;.:,.; .: ;: :.,. rq::<,':��::
OClC�17n , ��uG�u � �����4�U��0�� i:;•,•.:>s;<:z?:�<::a •'��;;ra�_�:�,
�luL I uOJC HUM, H I
Grote Type A Grate Type C Grate Type P Solid Checkered Solid Perforated
Type0 Type's
Type P grates have y." slot widths and are especially oppfi-
cobie for areas of heavy pedestrian traffic
This series furnisoFd standard with Type L orae snown
at right. -
•Fwnished in 2 iaot incremenn only.
—fum,sned in ly: or 3 foot increments only.
L, n l 1-� v\ M�,cI,
Grate Type L
NEENAH %
=Qs
FCUNy camNY
`4
Grote
Catalog I
Dimensions in inches
Wt. per
No. I
A I B C
lineal ft.
R -4999-L3 114
1 jr 12
45-
R•4999 -L6
I
4 2 22
I I
88-
I
R -4999•L9
2014 2 26 V.
115 --
This series furnisoFd standard with Type L orae snown
at right. -
•Fwnished in 2 iaot incremenn only.
—fum,sned in ly: or 3 foot increments only.
L, n l 1-� v\ M�,cI,
Grate Type L
NEENAH %
=Qs
FCUNy camNY
`4
[1
D
' EXHIBIT "H"
' AREA DRAINAGE STUDY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
�ipe/Pavement Removal Lump Sum $ 700
awcutting 5,350 L.F. at $1.00/L.F. 5,350
' **TOTAL $ 293,235
Since project is to begin immediately, 12% inflationary factor may or may not be needed
(12% - $31,200)
* This total does not include figures from Exhibit "C" nor additional right-of-way (18,000 square feet -
'' 28,000 square feet) or easement (12,000 square feet) acquisition.
�avement
2" A.C.
30,000 sq. ft. at $.65/sq. ft.
19,500
Base
30,000 sq. ft. at $.44/sq. ft.
13,200
'4"
2" Overlay
20,000 sq. ft. at 5.65/sq. ft.
13,000
Grade Ditches
Lump Sum
3,500
,ieadwall
Lump Sum
1,700
Junction Structure
Lump Sum
1,200
RCP
1,200 L.F. at $64/L.F.
76,800
�8"
4" RCP
700 L.F. at $69/L.F.
48,300
rated trenches
100 L.F. at $40/L.F.
4.000
'
Subtotal
$ 187,250
10% Contingency
$ 18.725
'
*Subtotal
$ 205,975
'
Engineering Fees
S 43,630
Construction Management
8,725
Inspection Fees
14,905
' **TOTAL $ 293,235
Since project is to begin immediately, 12% inflationary factor may or may not be needed
(12% - $31,200)
* This total does not include figures from Exhibit "C" nor additional right-of-way (18,000 square feet -
'' 28,000 square feet) or easement (12,000 square feet) acquisition.
EXHIBIT "I"
EAST NEWHALL AREA REPAIR ESTIMATES
lidewalk Removal
Lump Sum
$ 100
Stump (root) Removal
100 sq. ft.
130
tidewalk replacement
100 sq. ft. ar$2.70/sq. ft.
270
Fill In
Lump Sum
100
(idewalk-
ree Removal
Lump Sum
900
two inch A.C. Pavement
300 sq. ft. at $ .65/sq. ft.
195
4" Base
300 sq. ft. at $1.20/sq. ft.
360
tawcutting
45 sq. ft. at $1.00/sq. ft.
45
Sub Total
$ 2,100
'
15% Contingency
315
12% Inflation
290
i
TOTAL
$ 2,705
I
EXHIBIT "J"
Five foot sidewalk
Park Street, east of Race Street - 3,250 sq. ft. at $2.70/sq. ft
2nd Street, east of Race Street - 2,000 sq. ft. at 52.70/sq. ft
3rd Street, east of Race Street - 3,000 sq. ft. at 52.70/sq. ft
4th Street, east of Race Street - 3,500 sq. ft. at $2.70/sq. ft
5th Street, east of Race Street - 3,000 sq. ft. at 52.70/sq. ft
I' 6th Street, east of Race Street - 2,250 sq. ft. at $2.70/sq. ft
' Race Street between 6th Street and Market - 6,500 sq. ft. at $2.70/sq. ft.
Market Street- 3,250 sq, ft. at $2.70/sq. ft.
' 2nd Street between Pine Street and Arch Street.- 2,250 sq. ft. at 52.70/sq. ft.
3rd Street between Pine Street and Arch Street - 2,600 sq. ft. at $2.70/sq. ft.
4th Street between Pine Street and Arch Street - 2,600 sq, ft. at 52.70/sq. ft.
5th Street between Pine Street and Arch Street - 1,150 sq. ft. at $2.70/sq. ft.
6th Street between Pine Street and Arch Street - 1,150 sq. ft. at $2.70/sq. ft.
Subtotal
15% Contingency
12% Inflation
TOTAL
2
S 8,775
5,400
8,100
9,450
8,100
6,075
17,550
8,775
6,075
7,020
7,020
3,105
3.105
$ 232,050
S 34,810
S 32,020
S 298,880
EXHIBIT "J"
Five foot sidewalk
Park Street, cast of Race. Street - 3,250 sq. ft. at 52.70/sq. ft 5 5,775
2nd Street, east of Race Street - 2,000 sq. ft. at 52.70/sq. ft 5.400
3rd Street, east of Race Street - 3,000 sq, ft. at 52.70/sq. ft 8,100
4th Street, east of Race Street - 3.500 sq. ft. at $170Aq. ft 9,450
5th Street, east of Race Street - 3,000 sq. ft. at 52.70/sq. ft 8,100
' 6th Street, east of Race Street - 2,250 sq. ft. at 52.70/sq. ft 6,075
Race Strcet between 6th Street and Market - 6,500 sq. ft. at $2.70/sq. ft. 17,550
Market Street - 3,250 sq. ft. at 52:70/sq. ft. 9.775
1 2nd Street between Pine Street and Arch Street - 2,250 sq. ft. at 52.70/sq. ft. 6,075
3rd Street between Pine Street and Arch Street - 2,600 sq. ft. at 52.70/sq. ft. 7,020
4th Street between Pine Street and Arch Street - 2,600 sq. ft. atS2.70/sq. ft. 7,020
5th Street between Pine Street and Arch Street - 1,150 sq. ft. at 52.70/sq. ft. 3,105
6th Street between. Pine Street and Arch Street - 1,150 sq. ft_ at 52.70/sq. ft. 3.1 Or,
Subtotal $ 232,050
15% Contingency $ 34,810
12% Inflation 5 32.020
TOTAL $ 298,580
2
S.P R.R.
RIW
TOP
m
DRAINAGE CHANNEL
CROSS SECTION
DETAIL
LEVEL
z., t
10'
EARTHEN
CHANNEL
EXHIBIT "K"
PINE
STREET
_ DIE
=III =11 �Jjj
i
�:
N.T.S.
-, .. �. y^ -t- Cry.-...-± •e^i�. � x'�"r�:
rt zrR4+. ,,w
T
1 �O
1.. 0 < 0
3 O .
�� O � .max sx
to <
T �
i O Off'
t
.T
it
ZONE A(
(DEPTH 2)
�re?k
ZONE B
CITY— OF
� SANTA CLARITA
ONE B
c
TARGET
- AREA
ZONE I J
AO 1
(DEPTH 1)
Railroad II
Carryon
Z(
ZONE A
Lic
X
Lu