2 pages executive summmary

Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary 2. Project Personnel 3. Preliminary Design Analysis 4. Appendices

a. Overall Plans and Exhibits b. Traffic Study c. Geotechnical Evaluation d. Site – Civil & Utilities e. Structural Calculations f. Construction g. Summary of Assumptions

Executive Summary Introduction Donovan & Associates looks forward to providing professional engineering services to the City of Escondido for the design and construction of the new Escondido Pure Water Pipeline. Donovan & Associates prides itself in offering the most cost-effective and sustainable solutions for public infrastructure improvements and land development. The new Escondido Pure Water Pipeline will be located on Washington Avenue and Spruce Street in the City of Escondido. This project will include the evaluation of two alternatives to get the pipe across the channel without interfering with the hydraulic performance of the channel. The Donovan and Associates Team has evaluated both options in the Preliminary Design Analysis and will proceed with the design we determine to be the best option.

Background The Escondido Pure Water Pipeline will provide a high-quality water supply to local agricultural growers and will help promote and support the local economy, as well as the overall improvement to the area of Escondido along Washington Avenue and Spruce Street. Purpose and Objective The new Escondido Pure Water Pipeline Project has been assigned to Donovan & Associates to determine the best possible alternative for getting the pipe across the channel. Donovan & Associates will construct a pedestrian bridge in order to get the pipe across. Donovan & Associates will provide detailed documents, drawings, and a plan set to illustrate the design. Our traffic study will analyze the current traffic conditions and the future projection traffic conditions to determine the project impact on traffic. Based on traffic studies, Donovan & Associates will determine the need for any new signage needed or intersection improvement at the intersection of Washington Avenue and Spruce Street. Our Geotechnical study include an evaluation of the existing soil characteristics and behavior in the region. Donovan & Associates will analyze the data to provide a design for the foundation of the proposed bridge. Our structural study will provide structural recommendations, and it will provide a structural analysis of the proposed bridge. Our Construction analysis will provide construction detailed phasing, site logistics, and Project scheduling. Donovan & Associates will provide project construction detailed cost estimation that includes labor cost and materials cost.

Report

Preliminary Design Report

Escondido Pure Water Pipeline Creek Crossing

Donovan & Associates Engineering

San Diego, CA

Table Of Contents 1. Introduction

a. Vicinity Map b. Design Objectives

2. Alternative Analysis a. Traffic Considerations b. Geotechnical Considerations c. Structural Considerations d. Construction Considerations

3. Recommendations 4. Attachments

Introduction

Donovan & Associates seeks to determine the best alternative for constructing a new 24” diameter ductile iron pipe across the Escondido Creek. The pipe can be constructed using two methods both of which we will analyze in this preliminary design analysis. The construction of the pipe crossing will be located at Washington Avenue and Spruce Street. The project would provide a high-quality water supply to local agricultural growers and will help promote and support the local economy, as well as the overall improvement to the area of Escondido along Washington Avenue and Spruce Street.

Vicinity Map

Design Objectives

The primary objective for the Escondido Pure Water Pipeline Creek Crossing project is

to develop plans and specifications for implementing the best alternative to construct

the agricultural pipe. The project consists of two options on managing a 24” recycled

water main crossing Reidy Creek. Donovan and Associates analyzed two alternatives in order to effectively get the Pure Water Pipeline across the creek without interfering with

the performance of the channel. The first alternative includes constructing a bridge that

serves as a mode of transport for pedestrians while also sharing space for the pipe to

run through. The second alternative includes jack and bore which will allow us to run the

pipe underneath the channel. Our team has carefully considered both options and will

provide our best recommendation based on our engineering judgement.

Alternative Analysis

Traffic Considerations

Jack and Bore Option The Jack and Bore Option consist of two jack and bore pits 120’ North of Washington Avenue located in the existing Right-of-Way of Reidy Creek. The proposed project has an estimated construction duration of 25 days and to ensure inbound and outbound vehicle do not conflict with the normal street peak hours, vehicle operations times will be from 6 AM to 8AM and 4PM to 6 PM. The construction vehicles will an increase of 15 trips per day during the 25-day period, but once construction is complete. The net trip generation will be zero.

Pedestrian Bridge Option The Pedestrian Bridge Option consist of the constructing of a pedestrian bridge directly North of Washington Avenue, running parallel with the existing structures and providing a safe corridor for pedestrians utilizing the North sidewalk of Washington Avenue. The estimated construction duration of 30 days and to ensure inbound and outbound vehicle do not conflict with the normal street peak hours, vehicle operations times will be from 6 AM to 8 AM and 4 PM to 6 PM. The construction vehicles will an increase of 8-10 trips per day during the 30-day period, but once construction is complete. The net trip generation will be zero.

Conclusions As shown above, Pedestrian Bridge Option or Jack and Bore Option will not generate additional trips and thus cannot affect the peak hour traffic conditions. At the long-range forecast, the Pedestrian Bridge Option will provide a protected corridor for pedestrian travelers that meets ADA requirements and provide cyclist a bike line that meets current AASHT standards.

From the above, it is the professional opinion of Donovan and Associates, that either the Pedestrian Bridge Option or Jack and Bore Option would not have an insignificant traffic impact on both the short term and long-term buildout traffic conditions. However,

the pedestrian bridge provides a safer corridor for at-risk pedestrians utilizing a non- conforming sidewalk for travel. The current sidewalk does not meet current ADA requirement nor City Standards.

It is recommended that, during construction, trips of incoming and outing materials occur during 6 AM to 8 AM and 4:30 PM to 6:30 PM. San Diego Regional Standard Drawings TCP-52 and TCP-55 are recommended to be utilized during construction to mitigate traffic impacts.

As been shown, with the above time limits, the Escondido Creek Crossing Project can be approved with assurance that its traffic will not worsen traffic conditions in the area.

Geotechnical Considerations

Jack and Bore The Jack and bore option provides low probability/risk of earthquake damage or flooding due to the short time span. It is also a suitable method for all soils types. However, the jack and bore option requires lots of dewatering, a high infiltration rate of A class soil means more dewatering. Deep excavation is also required. The excavation would go through hard granite rock. There also may require a deep re-excavating in order to fix any damages that may be done to the pipe. The pipe underneath the water stream would be vulnerable to seepage and pollution if the pipe gets damaged. Ped Bridge The pedestrian bridge option is beneficial because of the soil underlain by granite rock which would be very suitable for a foundation. This option does not require deep excavation or cause disturbance of soils. However, the is more risk for damage due to earthquakes, seismic Design Category D. This area is also within the 100-year flood plain. Corrosion Based on Web Soil Survey maps (See Attachments), the location of the project is vulnerable to moderate sulfate corrosion and severe steel corrosion. The steel soldier beams that would be used for the Jack and Bore option would be vulnerable to corrosion at the site. Additionally, the soldier beams will intersect multiple soil boundaries and increase likelihood for corrosion which could compromise the integrity of the temporary shoring structure. The concrete for the pedestrian bridge abutments would be vulnerable to moderate sulfate exposure, however the foundation would likely be contained to one soil layer and not intrude on any boundaries which increase corrosion.

To combat this issue, galvanized steel or type 2 or 5 concrete cement can be used. Flooding The project location is within a FEMA 100-year floodplain (See attachments). The easterly side of the Escondido Creek is within a zone of 0.2% annual change of flood hazard. The westerly side of the creek is not within a FEMA mapped floodplain. There is

an annual 1% chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mile. For the Jack and Bore option, this means that it is possible for one of the open pits to be flooded easily. For the pedestrian bridge, care must be taken to ensure that the walkways are elevated above the floodplain and drain properly.

Erosion control plans must be set in place for construction for both options. This could include use of sandbags or other means of diverting flow away from construction areas and open pits. Groundwater Geotechnical data from the project site location provided by Ninyo and Moore show that the groundwater level at the time of evaluation was at approximately 17 feet below the surface. Pumping and removal of groundwater will be necessary for a Jack and Bore operation. Preliminary calculations (See Attachments) for the required pump uptake estimate that 2.3 gallons per minute must be pumped out of the bore pit to maintain the groundwater level below the bottom surface of the bore pit. Seismic and Geologic Hazards There are no active faults in Escondido that are reported by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone application. However, faults outside of Escondido still pose a seismological hazard to the site through ground motion. Segments of the San Jacinto, Elsinore, and Rose Canyon fault zones are capable of affecting sites within the county of San Diego, but do not pose a significant risk of ground rupture (See Attachments).

There are no poorly graded loose sands located in the subsurface layers of the site. Thus, liquefaction due to seismic events is not probable, however the Escondido City General Plan (See Attachments) places the project site within an area for liquefaction hazard. It is possible that high saturation due to a high water table may lead to lateral spread and uplift. Special care will be taken care to ensure that any structures or construction are not threatened. Shallow Excavations According to Web Soil Survey maps (See Attachments), shallow excavations at the project site are rated as “somewhat limited”. This means that for excavations up to 6 feet, soil properties and features of the soil are moderately favorable for construction (as opposed to very favorable or unfavorable). Any limitations to digging the soil or use thereof due to soil properties like texture, extensibility, flooding, ponding, or density can be overcome by special planning design or installation. In this case, it is acceptable to create a foundation for bridge abutments in the soils located at the project site. Soil Type The project site is underlain by two different soil classes according to Web Soil Survey (See Attachments). Visalia sandy loam and Placentia sandy loam. These soil types are classified as type A and C respectively. The Visalia sandy loam, soil type A has high infiltration rates and easily conducts the movement of groundwater even when wetted

which poses an issue with dewatering for the jack and bore option. The Placentia sandy clay loam, soil class C, has low infiltration rates and impedes downward movement or transmission of groundwater.

Structural Considerations

Foundations for the pedestrian bridge After closely examining the soil report from our geotechnical team, Donovan and Associates concluded that there are three types of foundations that are suitable for our bridges. The type of soil on site is “Class D” type stiff soil and lying on a granite rock at 32 feet deep. The first option, our team can go with is a spread footing for the bridge. With this type of footing option, the benefit will be that it is cost effective and it doesn’t require deep excavation. The second option, driven pile footing can also be used. For the driven pile footing, our team will calculate the skin friction acting on the H-section of the pile and tip capacity when the pile hits the bedrock at 32 feet deep into the ground. The constraints of this second option will be that if the skin friction is not enough on the H-section, the tip of the pile cap has to be hitting the bedrock at 32 feet deep, which is typical for this type of foundation. The third option, Cast-In-Drilled-Hole (CIDH) will be constructed for the bridge. Because this is a pedestrian bridge and there’s not much of significant load will be applied to the foundation, the CIDH foundation will not be necessary and cost effective for this type of bridge. Our final conclusion for which suitable type of foundation to be used for the pedestrian bridge will be provided upon our final submittal. Donovan and Associates will provide detailed calculations for the suitable foundation that is best to support the loads from the bridge and the most cost effective. Structural Constraints Jack and Bore If our team moves forward with the jack and bore option, the 15’ x 20’ bore pit has to be constructed to meet the requirement for construction, and there were some constraints that our team considered this will not be the best option. With the size of this bore pit, our project will disturb the neighboring structures since the site is very close to the commercial building. Also, this size of the bore pit will leave construction workers little to no space to construct the structure. For the constructions of the bore pit, the team will have to excavate for at least 30 feet deep into the ground, referring to our geotechnical report, the construction team will then have to go through granite rock, which will not be cost effective and its required a specialist in this type of operations to be sub-out. With our excavation being so deep into the ground, the soil pressure increased, the material being used for the support system will be at high cost.

In conclusion, Donovan and Associates has closely analyzed this alternate and we choose not to proceed with this option. This option is not cost effective, requires more laboring, and disturbs the neighboring structure due to a minimal work site.

Construction

Donovan and Associates has narrowed down to two potential methods of the jack and bore method and pedestrian bridge to fulfill the 24-inch pipe crossing the creek. Both options have a projected final cost based on information gathered and calculated. The projected cost for the jack and bored option is significantly higher than the pedestrian bridge option with little to no benefits than the latter. The best benefit each option share is the crossing of the pipe and disadvantages of the jack and bore option is greater than the pedestrian bridge. Main disadvantages of the jack and bore option are the cost and right of ways. The right of ways given for this project site does not provide an adequate amount of room for equipment and personnel to utilize without crossing private property lines. It is not feasible to allow large equipment or personnel and an area of 15x20 square feet pit with the right of ways established for the site. Though there are more benefits with the pedestrian bridge, there several considerations to deliberate before finalizing this as an option. Site conditions, safety for all users, ADA compliance, durability, abutment plan are some of considerations to think about. With a pedestrian bridge, the safety and ease of access for pedestrians in this area will be improved. Final decision of which option Donovan and Associates will elect will be indicated in the final submittal.

Cost Estimates

Recommendations

After careful consideration, Donovan and Associates has determine the pedestrian

bridge to be the best option both in terms of cost and constructability.

References

https://engineering.purdue.edu/mapserve/LTHIA7/documentation/hsg.html

Attachments

Corrosion of Concrete—San Diego County Area, California (Esco. Pipe Crossing Project)

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey

3/12/2020 Page 1 of 4

36 63

70 0

36 64

10 0

36 64

50 0

36 64

90 0

36 65

30 0

36 65

70 0

36 66

10 0

36 63

70 0

36 64

10 0

36 64

50 0

36 64

90 0

36 65

30 0

36 65

70 0

36 66

10 0

488800 489200 489600 490000 490400 490800 491200 491600 492000 492400 492800 493200 493600

488800 489200 489600 490000 490400 490800 491200 491600 492000 492400 492800 493200 493600

33° 8' 4'' N 11

7° 7

' 1 3'

' W 33° 8' 4'' N

11 7°

4 ' 2

'' W

33° 6' 35'' N

11 7°

7 ' 1

3' ' W

33° 6' 35'' N

11 7°

4 ' 2

'' W

N

Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84 0 500 1000 2000 3000

Feet 0 150 300 600 900

Meters Map Scale: 1:13,400 if printed on B landscape (17" x 11") sheet.

Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION

Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI)

Soils Soil Rating Polygons

High

Moderate

Low

Not rated or not available

Soil Rating Lines High

Moderate

Low

Not rated or not available

Soil Rating Points High

Moderate

Low

Not rated or not available

Water Features Streams and Canals

Transportation Rails

Interstate Highways

US Routes

Major Roads

Local Roads

Background Aerial Photography

The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000.

Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.

Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements.

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)

Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.

This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.

Soil Survey Area: San Diego County Area, California Survey Area Data: Version 14, Sep 16, 2019

Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Nov 3, 2014—Nov 22, 2014

The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.

Corrosion of Concrete—San Diego County Area, California (Esco. Pipe Crossing Project)

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey

3/12/2020 Page 2 of 4

Corrosion of Concrete

Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI

BlC Bonsall sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes

Moderate 39.0 1.7%

ClD2 Cieneba coarse sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes, eroded

Moderate 5.8 0.3%

EsE2 Escondido very fine sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes , eroded

Low 6.2 0.3%

FaB Fallbrook sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes

Low 6.2 0.3%

FaC Fallbrook sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes

Low 17.6 0.8%

FaC2 Fallbrook sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes, eroded

Low 0.4 0.0%

FaD2 Fallbrook sandy loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes, eroded

Low 179.9 7.9%

GoA Grangeville fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes

Low 132.2 5.8%

PeC Placentia sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes, warm MAAT, MLRA 19

Moderate 592.0 25.8%

PfC Placentia sandy loam, thick surface, 2 to 9 percent slo pes

Moderate 157.6 6.9%

RaA Ramona sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, MLRA 19

Low 12.8 0.6%

RaB Ramona sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes

Low 265.2 11.6%

RaC Ramona sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes

Low 18.6 0.8%

RkA Reiff fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes

Low 11.9 0.5%

VaB Visalia sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes

Moderate 446.4 19.5%

VsC Vista coarse sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes

Low 165.3 7.2%

VsD Vista coarse sandy loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes, MLRA 20

Low 126.9 5.5%

Corrosion of Concrete—San Diego County Area, California Esco. Pipe Crossing Project

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey

3/12/2020 Page 3 of 4

Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI

VsD2 Vista coarse sandy loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes, eroded

Low 23.8 1.0%

VsE Vista coarse sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes, MLRA 20

Low 82.7 3.6%

VsE2 Vista coarse sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes, eroded

Low 1.1 0.0%

Totals for Area of Interest 2,291.4 100.0%

Description

"Risk of corrosion" pertains to potential soil-induced electrochemical or chemical action that corrodes or weakens concrete. The rate of corrosion of concrete is based mainly on the sulfate and sodium content, texture, moisture content, and acidity of the soil. Special site examination and design may be needed if the combination of factors results in a severe hazard of corrosion. The concrete in installations that intersect soil boundaries or soil layers is more susceptible to corrosion than the concrete in installations that are entirely within one kind of soil or within one soil layer.

The risk of corrosion is expressed as "low," "moderate," or "high."

Rating Options

Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition

Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified

Tie-break Rule: Higher

Corrosion of Concrete—San Diego County Area, California Esco. Pipe Crossing Project

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey

3/12/2020 Page 4 of 4

Corrosion of Steel—San Diego County Area, California (Esco. Pipe Crossing Project)

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey

3/12/2020 Page 1 of 4

36 63

70 0

36 64

10 0

36 64

50 0

36 64

90 0

36 65

30 0

36 65

70 0

36 66

10 0

36 63

70 0

36 64

10 0

36 64

50 0

36 64

90 0

36 65

30 0

36 65

70 0

36 66

10 0

488800 489200 489600 490000 490400 490800 491200 491600 492000 492400 492800 493200 493600

488800 489200 489600 490000 490400 490800 491200 491600 492000 492400 492800 493200 493600

33° 8' 4'' N 11

7° 7

' 1 3'

' W 33° 8' 4'' N

11 7°

4 ' 2

'' W

33° 6' 35'' N

11 7°

7 ' 1

3' ' W

33° 6' 35'' N

11 7°

4 ' 2

'' W

N

Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84 0 500 1000 2000 3000

Feet 0 150 300 600 900

Meters Map Scale: 1:13,400 if printed on B landscape (17" x 11") sheet.

Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION

Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI)

Soils Soil Rating Polygons

High

Moderate

Low

Not rated or not available

Soil Rating Lines High

Moderate

Low

Not rated or not available

Soil Rating Points High

Moderate

Low

Not rated or not available

Water Features Streams and Canals

Transportation Rails

Interstate Highways

US Routes

Major Roads

Local Roads

Background Aerial Photography

The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000.

Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.

Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements.

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)

Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.

This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.

Soil Survey Area: San Diego County Area, California Survey Area Data: Version 14, Sep 16, 2019

Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Nov 3, 2014—Nov 22, 2014

The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.

Corrosion of Steel—San Diego County Area, California (Esco. Pipe Crossing Project)

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey

3/12/2020 Page 2 of 4

Corrosion of Steel

Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI

BlC Bonsall sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes

High 39.0 1.7%

ClD2 Cieneba coarse sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes, eroded

Low 5.8 0.3%

EsE2 Escondido very fine sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes , eroded

Low 6.2 0.3%

FaB Fallbrook sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes

Low 6.2 0.3%

FaC Fallbrook sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes

Low 17.6 0.8%

FaC2 Fallbrook sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes, eroded

Low 0.4 0.0%

FaD2 Fallbrook sandy loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes, eroded

Low 179.9 7.9%

GoA Grangeville fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes

Moderate 132.2 5.8%

PeC Placentia sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes, warm MAAT, MLRA 19

High 592.0 25.8%

PfC Placentia sandy loam, thick surface, 2 to 9 percent slo pes

High 157.6 6.9%

RaA Ramona sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, MLRA 19

Low 12.8 0.6%

RaB Ramona sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes

Moderate 265.2 11.6%

RaC Ramona sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes

Moderate 18.6 0.8%

RkA Reiff fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes

High 11.9 0.5%

VaB Visalia sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes

Low 446.4 19.5%

VsC Vista coarse sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes

Low 165.3 7.2%

VsD Vista coarse sandy loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes, MLRA 20

Low 126.9 5.5%

Corrosion of Steel—San Diego County Area, California Esco. Pipe Crossing Project

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey

3/12/2020 Page 3 of 4

Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI

VsD2 Vista coarse sandy loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes, eroded

Low 23.8 1.0%

VsE Vista coarse sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes, MLRA 20

Low 82.7 3.6%

VsE2 Vista coarse sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes, eroded

Low 1.1 0.0%

Totals for Area of Interest 2,291.4 100.0%

Description

"Risk of corrosion" pertains to potential soil-induced electrochemical or chemical action that corrodes or weakens uncoated steel. The rate of corrosion of uncoated steel is related to such factors as soil moisture, particle-size distribution, acidity, and electrical conductivity of the soil. Special site examination and design may be needed if the combination of factors results in a severe hazard of corrosion. The steel in installations that intersect soil boundaries or soil layers is more susceptible to corrosion than the steel in installations that are entirely within one kind of soil or within one soil layer.

The risk of corrosion is expressed as "low," "moderate," or "high."

Rating Options

Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition

Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified

Tie-break Rule: Higher

Corrosion of Steel—San Diego County Area, California Esco. Pipe Crossing Project

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey

3/12/2020 Page 4 of 4

Fi gu

re 1

– M

ap pe

d Fa

ul ts

in S

an D

ie go

C ou

nt y

G ui

de lin

es fo

r D

et er

m in

in g

S ig

ni fic

an ce

2 3

G eo

lo gi

c H

az ar

ds

F

ig ur

e 2

– A

lq ui

st -P

ri ol

o an

d C

ou nt

y S

pe ci

al S

tu dy

F au

lt Zo

ne s

G ui

de lin

es fo

r D

et er

m in

in g

S ig

ni fic

an ce

2 4

G eo

lo gi

c H

az ar

ds

Fi gu

re 3

– N

ea r-

S ou

rc e

S ha

ki ng

Z on

es

G ui

de lin

es fo

r D

et er

m in

in g

S ig

ni fic

an ce

2 5

G eo

lo gi

c H

az ar

ds

Fi gu

re 4

– P

ot en

tia l L

iq ue

fa ct

io n

A re

as

G ui

de lin

es fo

r D

et er

m in

in g

S ig

ni fic

an ce

2

6 G

eo lo

gi c

H az

ar ds

Fi gu

re 5

– C

ou nt

y La

nd sl

id e

S us

ce pt

ib ili

ty A

re as

G ui

de lin

es fo

r D

et er

m in

in g

S ig

ni fic

an ce

2 7

G eo

lo gi

c H

az ar

ds

G ui

de lin

es fo

r D

et er

m in

in g

S ig

ni fic

an ce

28

G

eo lo

gi c

H az

ar ds

Fi gu

re 6

– P

ot en

tia l E

xp an

si ve

S oi

l A re

as

USGS The National Map: Orthoimagery. Data refreshed April, 2019.

National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250 Feet

Ü

11 7°

5'5 8.7

4" W

33°7'40.79"N

117°5'21.29"W

33°7'10.66"N

SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT

SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS

Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Zone A, V, A99

With BFE or Depth Zone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR Regulatory Floodway

0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mile Zone X Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Zone X Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee. See Notes. Zone X Area with Flood Risk due to Levee Zone D

NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X

Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard Zone D

Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer Levee, Dike, or Floodwall

Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance 17.5 Water Surface Elevation

Coastal Transect

Coastal Transect Baseline Profile Baseline Hydrographic Feature

Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE)

Effective LOMRs

Limit of Study Jurisdiction Boundary

Digital Data Available No Digital Data Available Unmapped

This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of digital flood maps if it is not void as described below. The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap accuracy standards The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 3/12/2020 at 9:42:33 PM and does not reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or become superseded by new data over time. This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for regulatory purposes.

Legend

OTHER AREAS OF FLOOD HAZARD

OTHER AREAS

GENERAL STRUCTURES

OTHER FEATURES

MAP PANELS

8

1:6,000

B 20.2

The pin displayed on the map is an approximate point selected by the user and does not represent an authoritative property location.

Page VI-18 Escondido General Plan Community Protection

Figure VI-9

Shallow Excavations—San Diego County Area, California (Esco. Pipe Crossing Project)

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey

3/12/2020 Page 1 of 7

36 63

70 0

36 64

10 0

36 64

50 0

36 64

90 0

36 65

30 0

36 65

70 0

36 66

10 0

36 63

70 0

36 64

10 0

36 64

50 0

36 64

90 0

36 65

30 0

36 65

70 0

36 66

10 0

488800 489200 489600 490000 490400 490800 491200 491600 492000 492400 492800 493200 493600

488800 489200 489600 490000 490400 490800 491200 491600 492000 492400 492800 493200 493600

33° 8' 4'' N 11

7° 7

' 1 3'

' W 33° 8' 4'' N

11 7°

4 ' 2

'' W

33° 6' 35'' N

11 7°

7 ' 1

3' ' W

33° 6' 35'' N

11 7°

4 ' 2

'' W

N

Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84 0 500 1000 2000 3000

Feet 0 150 300 600 900

Meters Map Scale: 1:13,400 if printed on B landscape (17" x 11") sheet.

Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION

Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI)

Soils Soil Rating Polygons

Very limited

Somewhat limited

Not limited

Not rated or not available

Soil Rating Lines Very limited

Somewhat limited

Not limited

Not rated or not available

Soil Rating Points Very limited

Somewhat limited

Not limited

Not rated or not available

Water Features Streams and Canals

Transportation Rails

Interstate Highways

US Routes

Major Roads

Local Roads

Background Aerial Photography

The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000.

Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.

Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements.

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)

Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.

This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.

Soil Survey Area: San Diego County Area, California Survey Area Data: Version 14, Sep 16, 2019

Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Nov 3, 2014—Nov 22, 2014

The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.

Shallow Excavations—San Diego County Area, California (Esco. Pipe Crossing Project)

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey

3/12/2020 Page 2 of 7

Shallow Excavations

Map unit symbol

Map unit name Rating Component name (percent)

Rating reasons (numeric values)

Acres in AOI Percent of AOI

BlC Bonsall sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes

Somewhat limited

Bonsall (85%) Dusty (0.23) 39.0 1.7%

Too clayey (0.03)

Unstable excavation walls (0.01)

ClD2 Cieneba coarse sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes, eroded

Very limited Cieneba (85%) Depth to soft bedrock (1.00)

5.8 0.3%

Slope (0.63)

Dusty (0.02)

Unstable excavation walls (0.01)

EsE2 Escondido very fine sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes , eroded

Very limited Escondido (85%) Depth to hard bedrock (1.00)

6.2 0.3%

Slope (1.00)

Dusty (0.30)

Unstable excavation walls (0.01)

FaB Fallbrook sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes

Somewhat limited

Fallbrook (85%) Dusty (0.14) 6.2 0.3%

Unstable excavation walls (0.01)

FaC Fallbrook sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes

Somewhat limited

Fallbrook (85%) Dusty (0.14) 17.6 0.8%

Unstable excavation walls (0.01)

FaC2 Fallbrook sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes, eroded

Somewhat limited

Fallbrook (85%) Dusty (0.14) 0.4 0.0%

Unstable excavation walls (0.01)

FaD2 Fallbrook sandy loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes, eroded

Somewhat limited

Fallbrook (85%) Slope (0.63) 179.9 7.9%

Dusty (0.14)

Unstable excavation walls (0.01)

GoA Grangeville fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes

Somewhat limited

Grangeville (85%)

Depth to saturated zone (0.95)

132.2 5.8%

Dusty (0.03)

Shallow Excavations—San Diego County Area, California Esco. Pipe Crossing Project

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey

3/12/2020 Page 3 of 7

Map unit symbol

Map unit name Rating Component name (percent)

Rating reasons (numeric values)

Acres in AOI Percent of AOI

Unstable excavation walls (0.01)

PeC Placentia sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes, warm MAAT, MLRA 19

Somewhat limited

Placentia (85%) Dusty (0.10) 592.0 25.8%

Too clayey (0.05)

Unstable excavation walls (0.01)

PfC Placentia sandy loam, thick surface, 2 to 9 percent slo pes

Somewhat limited

Placentia (85%) Unstable excavation walls (0.32)

157.6 6.9%

Dusty (0.18)

Too clayey (0.03)

RaA Ramona sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, MLRA 19

Somewhat limited

Ramona (85%) Dusty (0.02) 12.8 0.6%

Unstable excavation walls (0.01)

RaB Ramona sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes

Somewhat limited

Ramona (85%) Dusty (0.03) 265.2 11.6%

Unstable excavation walls (0.01)

RaC Ramona sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes

Somewhat limited

Ramona (85%) Dusty (0.03) 18.6 0.8%

Unstable excavation walls (0.01)

RkA Reiff fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes

Somewhat limited

Reiff (85%) Dusty (0.09) 11.9 0.5%

Unstable excavation walls (0.01)

VaB Visalia sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes

Somewhat limited

Visalia (85%) Dusty (0.03) 446.4 19.5%

Unstable excavation walls (0.01)

VsC Vista coarse sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes

Somewhat limited

Vista (85%) Depth to soft bedrock (0.10)

165.3 7.2%

Dusty (0.05)

Unstable excavation walls (0.01)

VsD Vista coarse sandy loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes, MLRA 20

Somewhat limited

Vista (85%) Slope (0.63) 126.9 5.5%

Depth to soft bedrock (0.10)

Unstable excavation walls (0.01)

Shallow Excavations—San Diego County Area, California Esco. Pipe Crossing Project

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey

3/12/2020 Page 4 of 7

Map unit symbol

Map unit name Rating Component name (percent)

Rating reasons (numeric values)

Acres in AOI Percent of AOI

VsD2 Vista coarse sandy loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes, eroded

Somewhat limited

Vista (85%) Slope (0.63) 23.8 1.0%

Depth to soft bedrock (0.46)

Dusty (0.05)

Unstable excavation walls (0.01)

VsE Vista coarse sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes, MLRA 20

Very limited Vista (85%) Slope (1.00) 82.7 3.6%

Depth to soft bedrock (0.46)

Dusty (0.05)

Unstable excavation walls (0.01)

VsE2 Vista coarse sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes, eroded

Very limited Vista (85%) Slope (1.00) 1.1 0.0%

Depth to soft bedrock (0.46)

Dusty (0.05)

Unstable excavation walls (0.01)

Totals for Area of Interest 2,291.4 100.0%

Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI

Somewhat limited 2,195.8 95.8%

Very limited 95.7 4.2%

Totals for Area of Interest 2,291.4 100.0%

Shallow Excavations—San Diego County Area, California Esco. Pipe Crossing Project

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey

3/12/2020 Page 5 of 7

Description

Shallow excavations are trenches or holes dug to a maximum depth of 5 or 6 feet for graves, utility lines, open ditches, or other purposes. The ratings are based on the soil properties that influence the ease of digging and the resistance to sloughing. Depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, the amount of large stones, and dense layers influence the ease of digging, filling, and compacting. Depth to the seasonal high water table, flooding, and ponding may restrict the period when excavations can be made. Slope influences the ease of using machinery. Soil texture, depth to the water table, and linear extensibility (shrink-swell potential) influence the resistance to sloughing.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the specified use. "Not limited" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. "Somewhat limited" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. "Very limited" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen. An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit. The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit. The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site.

Rating Options

Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition

Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified

Shallow Excavations—San Diego County Area, California Esco. Pipe Crossing Project

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey

3/12/2020 Page 6 of 7

Tie-break Rule: Higher

Shallow Excavations—San Diego County Area, California Esco. Pipe Crossing Project

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey

3/12/2020 Page 7 of 7

Soil Map—San Diego County Area, California (Esco. Pipeline Crossing Project)

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey

3/12/2020 Page 1 of 3

36 64

50 0

36 64

60 0

36 64

70 0

36 64

80 0

36 64

90 0

36 65

00 0

36 65

10 0

36 65

20 0

36 65

30 0

36 65

40 0

36 64

50 0

36 64

60 0

36 64

70 0

36 64

80 0

36 64

90 0

36 65

00 0

36 65

10 0

36 65

20 0

36 65

30 0

36 65

40 0

490300 490400 490500 490600 490700 490800 490900 491000 491100 491200 491300 491400 491500 491600 491700 491800 491900 492000 492100

490300 490400 490500 490600 490700 490800 490900 491000 491100 491200 491300 491400 491500 491600 491700 491800 491900 492000 492100

33° 7' 40'' N 11

7° 6

' 1 4'

' W 33° 7' 40'' N

11 7°

5 ' 2

'' W

33° 7' 7'' N

11 7°

6 ' 1

4' ' W

33° 7' 7'' N

11 7°

5 ' 2

'' W

N

Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84 0 200 400 800 1200

Feet 0 50 100 200 300

Meters Map Scale: 1:5,020 if printed on B landscape (17" x 11") sheet.

Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION

Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI)

Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons

Soil Map Unit Lines

Soil Map Unit Points

Special Point Features Blowout

Borrow Pit

Clay Spot

Closed Depression

Gravel Pit

Gravelly Spot

Landfill

Lava Flow

Marsh or swamp

Mine or Quarry

Miscellaneous Water

Perennial Water

Rock Outcrop

Saline Spot

Sandy Spot

Severely Eroded Spot

Sinkhole

Slide or Slip

Sodic Spot

Spoil Area

Stony Spot

Very Stony Spot

Wet Spot

Other

Special Line Features

Water Features Streams and Canals

Transportation Rails

Interstate Highways

US Routes

Major Roads

Local Roads

Background Aerial Photography

The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000.

Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.

Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements.

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)

Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.

This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.

Soil Survey Area: San Diego County Area, California Survey Area Data: Version 14, Sep 16, 2019

Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Nov 3, 2014—Nov 22, 2014

The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.

Soil Map—San Diego County Area, California (Esco. Pipeline Crossing Project)

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey

3/12/2020 Page 2 of 3

Map Unit Legend

Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI

PeC Placentia sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes, warm MAAT, MLRA 19

104.1 35.0%

RaB Ramona sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes

84.1 28.3%

VaB Visalia sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes

108.5 36.5%

VsC Vista coarse sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes

0.4 0.1%

Totals for Area of Interest 297.1 100.0%

Soil Map—San Diego County Area, California Esco. Pipeline Crossing Project

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey

3/12/2020 Page 3 of 3

3/12/2020 U.S. Seismic Design Maps

https://seismicmaps.org 1/2

Esco Creek Crossing Latitude, Longitude: 33.12383055, -117.09434532

Date 3/12/2020, 8:26:41 PM

Design Code Reference Document ASCE7-16

Risk Category II

Site Class C - Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock

Type Value Description SS 0.897 MCER ground motion. (for 0.2 second period)

S1 0.328 MCER ground motion. (for 1.0s period)

SMS 1.076 Site-modified spectral acceleration value

SM1 0.492 Site-modified spectral acceleration value

SDS 0.717 Numeric seismic design value at 0.2 second SA

SD1 0.328 Numeric seismic design value at 1.0 second SA

Type Value Description SDC D Seismic design category

Fa 1.2 Site amplification factor at 0.2 second

Fv 1.5 Site amplification factor at 1.0 second

PGA 0.387 MCEG peak ground acceleration

FPGA 1.2 Site amplification factor at PGA

PGAM 0.465 Site modified peak ground acceleration

TL 8 Long-period transition period in seconds

SsRT 0.897 Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion. (0.2 second)

SsUH 0.971 Factored uniform-hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) spectral acceleration

SsD 1.5 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (0.2 second)

S1RT 0.328 Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion. (1.0 second)

S1UH 0.355 Factored uniform-hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) spectral acceleration.

S1D 0.6 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (1.0 second)

PGAd 0.5 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (Peak Ground Acceleration)

CRS 0.923 Mapped value of the risk coefficient at short periods

CR1 0.924 Mapped value of the risk coefficient at a period of 1 s

3/12/2020 U.S. Seismic Design Maps

https://seismicmaps.org 2/2

DISCLAIMER

While the information presented on this website is believed to be correct, SEAOC /OSHPD and its sponsors and contributors assume no responsibility or liability for its accuracy. The material presented in this web application should not be used or relied upon for any specific application without competent examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability and applicability by engineers or other licensed professionals. SEAOC / OSHPD do not intend that the use of this information replace the sound judgment of such competent professionals, having experience and knowledge in the field of practice, nor to substitute for the standard of care required of such professionals in interpreting and applying the results of the seismic data provided by this website. Users of the information from this website assume all liability arising from such use. Use of the output of this website does not imply approval by the governing building code bodies responsible for building code approval and interpretation for the building site described by latitude/longitude location in the search results of this website.

APPENDIX A Overall Plans and Exhibits

ESCONDIDO PURE WATER PIPELINE CREEK CROSSING

MARCH 20, 2019

Prepared for:

The City of Escondido

Prepared By:

Donovan & Associates

5500 Campanile Drive

San Diego, CA 92182

PROFILE VIEW NOT TO SCALE

57'15' 15'

4'

14'-6"

3' 3'

21'-6"

3'

21'-6"57'

24"42"1.5%

100'

3'-6"

9"

8"

6"

ELEVATION 639'

ELEVATION 615'-6"

ELEVATION 616'-6"

64'

6" 6"

JACK AND BORE PROFILE

2 SHEET 2 OF 3

24" 42"

6" ROLLERS

PIPE DETAIL NOT TO SCALE

BORE PIT DETAIL NOT TO SCALE

3'

3' 15' 3'

3'

3'-6"

10'

3' 15' 3'

20'

21'-6"57'21'-6"

100'

2" 2"

SHEET 3 OF 3

3JACK AND BORE DETAILS

6" 6"

3'-6"

SHEET 1 OF 5

2 SHEET 2 OF 5

BRIDGE DETAILS DETAILS

BRIDGE DETAILS DETAILS

3 SHEET 3 OF 5

4 SHEET 4 OF 5

BRIDGE DETAILS DETAILS

BRIDGE DETAILS DETAILS

5 SHEET 5 OF 5

APPENDIX B TRAFFIC STUDY

ESCONDIDO PURE WATER PIPELINE CREEK CROSSING

MARCH 20, 2019

Prepared for:

The City of Escondido

Prepared By:

Donovan & Associates

5500 Campanile Drive

San Diego, CA 92182

Table of Contents

2.1 Introduction

Figure 1-1: Project Vicinity Map

Figure 1-2: Project Site

2.2 Project Description

Figure 2-1: Site Plan for Jack and Bore Option

Figure 2-2: Site Plan for Pedestrian Bridge Option

2.3 Existing Conditions

Figure 3-1: Existing Striping and R/W for Washington Ave. and N. Spruce St.

Figures 3-2 to 3-4: Existing Signage Washington Avenue

Figure 3-5 & 3-6: Existing Bike Lane and Sidewalk - East Bound Washington Ave.

Figure 3-7 & 3-8: Existing Bike Lane and Sidewalk - Washington Ave Bridge

Figure 3-9 & 3-10: Existing Bike Lane and Sidewalk – West-Bound Washington Ave.

2.4 Project Analysis

Table 4-1: Vehicle Counts- Intersection of Washington Ave/N. Spruce St.

Table 4-2: Pedestrian/Bike Counts- Intersection of Washington Ave./ N. Spruce St.

2.5 Conclusions and Mitigation Measures

2.6 References

Introduction Donovan and Associates will assess the traffic impacts on the street system due to the construction and installation of the 24” Escondido Pure Water Pipeline.

The site is located in the City of Escondido at the intersection of Washington Avenue and North Spruce Street. Figure 1-1 shows the project vicinity. Figure 1-2 shows a more detailed project area map.

Included in this analysis are the following: • Project Description

• Jack and Bore Option • Pedestrian Bridge Option

• Existing Conditions • Washington Avenue • North Spruce Street

• Recent Traffic Counts and Project Analysis • Intersection of Washington Avenue and North Spruce Street

• Conclusions and Recommendations

Figure 1-1: Project Vicinity Map

Figure 1-2: Project Site

Project Description The project consists of two options on managing a 24” recycled water main crossing Reidy Creek. Both sites will be bonded inside the right-of-way of Reidy Creek with limited access to Washington Avenue during construction. The study area for this project encompasses areas of anticipated impact related to the project.

Jack and Bore Option The Jack and Bore Option consist of two jack and bore pits 120’ North of Washington Avenue located in the existing Right-of-Way of Reidy Creek. This option will be constructed in one phase with the installation of the 24” pipeline and bore pits working simultaneously. The proposed project has estimated construction duration of 25 days and to ensure inbound and outbound vehicle don not conflict with the normal street peak hours, vehicle operations times will be from 6 AM to 8AM and 4PM to 6 PM. The construction vehicles will add an additional 15 trips per day during the 25-day period, but once construction is complete. The net trip generation will be zero. See Plan set for the project plans of the Jack and Bore option.

Pedestrian Bridge Option The Pedestrian Bridge Option consist of the construction of a pedestrian bridge directly North of Washington Avenue, running parallel with the existing structures and providing a safe corridor for pedestrians utilizing the North sidewalk of Washington Avenue. The bridge option will be completed in two phases with the construction of imbuements first and then the installation of the pre-casted from an offsite location. The estimated construction duration is 30 days in order to ensure inbound and outbound vehicles do not conflict with the normal street peak hours. Vehicle operations times will be from 6 AM to 8AM and 4PM to 6 PM. The construction vehicles add an additional 8-10 trips per day during the 30-day period, but once construction is complete. The net trip generation will be zero. See Plan set for the project plans of for the Pedestrian Bridge option.

Existing Conditions The following is a brief description of the existing street system within the project area. Roadway classification is based on the City of Escondido Circulation Plan and Street Segment and Donovan and Associates field reconnaissance. City of Escondido Street Standards indicate that Prime Arterials are 106’ wide with 126’ of right-of-way (ROW). Major roads are 82’ wide with 102’ of ROW. Collector streets are 64’ wide with 84’ of ROW. Local Collector streets are 42’ wide with 66’ of ROW.

Washington Avenue is an east-west facility and is classified as a Collector street in the City of Escondido Circulation Element. It is currently constructed with 64’ of roadway and 80’ of ROW with no direct access to Interstate 15. Washington Avenue is constructed as a four-lane roadway with a one-way left turn lane. Parking is prohibited on both sides of street with existing bike lanes traveling along both ways of traffic but ending beginning at the intersection of Washington Avenue and North Spruce Street. There is no designated bike lane through the bridge structure. The speed limit for this segment is 40 mph. Curbs, gutters, and sidewalks are provided. Washington Avenue’s bike lane and sidewalks are non-conforming, per current City Standards and Drawing, along the west bond lanes of Washington. The City Standard for commercial zone sidewalk is 6’ with no utilities obstructing pedestrian path of travel. Figures 3-1 through 3-10 show the existing conditions of the striping, signage, bike lane, and sidewalk for the west bound lanes of Washington Avenue.

North Spruce Street is a north-south facility classified as a Local Collector on the City of Escondido Circulation Element It is currently constructed with 42’ of roadway and 70’ of ROW. North Spruce is constructed as a two-lane roadway with a one-way left turn lane. Parking is prohibited on both sides of street with existing bike lanes traveling along both ways of traffic. The speed limit for this segment is 35 mph. Curbs, gutters, and sidewalks are provided.

Figure 3-1: Existing Striping and R/W for Washington Ave. and N. Spruce St.

Figures 3-2 to 3-4: Existing Signage Washington Ave.

Figure 3-5 & 3-6: Existing Bike Lane and Sidewalk – East-Bound Washington Ave.

Figure 3-7 & 3-8: Existing Bike Lane and Sidewalk - Washington Ave.

Bridge

Figure 3-9 & 3-10: Existing Bike Lane and Sidewalk – West-Bound Washington Ave.

Project Analysis Traffic and Pedestrian Counts Manual counts of traffic and pedestrians were conducted by Donovan and Associates for the Washington Avenue and North Spruce Street intersection. Traffic and pedestrian counts within the area of interest show typical peak periods in the morning, afternoon, and evening. Table 4-1 and Table 4-2 shows a summary of manual counts completed on February 18, 2020 and February 22, 2020. Table 4-1 includes manual counts for vehicles. Table 4-2 includes manual counts of pedestrians and cyclist in hour intervals during typical peak hours of the day. Given the low impact of the proposed project and no rolling terrain, trucks were calculated with a one passenger car equivalent.

Traffic Generation The traffic estimated to be generated by the project is based on traffic generation rates published by the City of Escondido’s Traffic Department. Table 4-1 shows the traffic generation rates and resulting volumes for the project under the existing zoning and proposed uses. The total daily traffic volumes estimate to be generated by the project are 15 trips per day during construction and zero per day after the completion of the project. The morning peak time was determined to be 8:00 AM, the afternoon peak time was determined to be 11:30 AM, and the evening peak time was determined to be 4:15 PM.

Future Impacts Future immediate area cumulative development potential was taken into consideration. Based on a review of the project area and discussion with City Staff, several specific cumulative development projects were identified that are either planned or on going in the vicinity of the study area. The following is a brief description of the cumulative projects.

ADM19-0070 (540 N. Spruce Street): North County Scaffolding & Planks is currently proposed at 540 N. Spruce Street. There will be 8-12 employees that come to work and 6-10 fleet trucks. Currently, there is no proposed on-site general or ADA parking. The project is estimated to generate 24 daily trips. Project data was obtained from the City of Escondido.

ADM16-0209 (559 N. Hale St): Green Valley Landscape is currently proposed on N. Hale Avenue. There will be 5-8 employees that occupy this building during normal working hours. There will be 26 onsite parking spaces which exceeds the minimum requirement for the proposal. The project is estimated to generate 18 daily trips. Project data was obtained from the City of Escondido.

Conditional Use Permit (635 W. Mission Ave): This site is currently utilized as a location for circuses, festivals, and swap meets. At peak hours, several hundred people occupy both location at 635 West Mission Ave. There are two location that are separated by the channel with a pedestrian bridge connecting them. The is currently 234 parking spaces cumulatively among both sites.

However, a portion of these spaces are occupied during any of the listed events. At peak times, the site is expected to generate 275 daily trips with an estimated 150 trips by pedestrians.

Summary of Cumulative Projects

As discussed above, the 3 cumulative projects are calculated to generate a total of 317 daily trips and 150 pedestrian trips. Although these projects increase daily trips, the proposed Pedestrian Bridge Option would provide a safer means for pedestrians and cyclist with the required dimension per AASHTO.

Figure 4-1: Cumulative Project Map

Table 4-1: Vehicle Counts- Intersection of Washington Ave./N. Spruce St.

Table 4-2: Pedestrian/Bike Counts- Intersection of Washington Ave./N. Spruce St.

Conclusions and Mitigation Measures As shown above, the Pedestrian Bridge Option or Jack and Bore Option will not generate additional trips after construction and thus cannot affect the peak hour traffic conditions. At the long-range forecast, the Pedestrian Bridge Option will provide a protected corridor for pedestrian travelers that meets ADA requirements and provide cyclist a bike lane that meets current AASHTO standards.

From the above, it is the professional opinion of Donovan and Associates, that either the Pedestrian Bridge Option or Jack and Bore Option would not only have an insignificant traffic impact on both the near term and the buildout traffic condition. However, the pedestrian bridge provides a safer corridor for at-risk pedestrians utilizing a non-conforming sidewalk for travel. The current sidewalk does not meet current ADA requirement nor City Standards.

It is recommended that, during construction, trips of incoming and outing materials occur during 6 AM to 8 AM and 4:30 PM to 6:30 PM.

As been shown, with the above time limits, the Escondido Creek Crossing Project can be approved with assurance that its traffic will not worsen traffic conditions in the area.

References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, "A Policy on Design of Urban Highways and Arterial Streets", Current Edition California Department of Transportation, "Highway Design Manual of Instructions", Current Edition. City of Escondido, "Circulation Element of the General Plan", Current Edition County of San Diego Department of Transportation, "Standard Special Provisions," Current Edition. Shahzad, Ail. City Traffic Engineering (Senior Engineer). [email protected]. Newsome, Dakota. 8 February, 2020.

APPENDIX C GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION

ESCONDIDO PURE WATER PIPELINE CREEK CROSSING

MARCH 20, 2019

Prepared for:

The City of Escondido

Prepared By:

Donovan & Associates

5500 Campanile Drive

San Diego, CA 92182

Table of Contents

3.1 Introduction

3.2 Background

3.3 Purpose and Objective

3.4 Subsurface Conditions

3.5 Geologic Hazards

3.6 Recommendations

3.7 Conclusions

3.8 References

3.9 Attachments

3.1 Introduction

This geotechnical report was prepared to provide information, recommendations, and guidance for the proposed Escondido Pure Water Pipeline Creek Crossing located near the intersection of Washington and Spruce Street in Escondido, California. This report utilized soils data obtained by bore logs and laboratory testing provided by Ninyo and Moore in order to evaluate subsurface conditions, seismic conditions, and potential design recommendations for any subsurface structures or construction which may be necessary at the project site.

3.2 Background

Two methods of crossing the creek were provided in client request for proposal. One option was to bore underneath the crossing as to not disturb the creek or channel structure. The other option was to construct a structure which could span over the creek and carry the proposed pipeline over. Both methods require work within the subsurface layers of the site and require geotechnical evaluation and guidance to ensure there are no damages to the pipeline, creek, environment, structures, or persons.

3.3 Purpose and Objective

This geotechnical report serves to recompile, analyze, and make recommendations upon soils data that was provided to Donovan and Associates from a previous soils investigation that occurred at the project site. The soils data was provided by Ninyo and Moore, and hence, exploratory boring was not included in the scope of work for this geotechnical evaluation.

The work and services provided by Donovan and Associates for this report:

1. Compile a soil profile with various layers for soil pressure evaluation at various depths.

2. Compile references to include geological maps, fault maps, codes, jurisdictional guidelines, and other geologic reports that are relevant to the project location.

3. Analyze references and provided data to create proper descriptions of site characteristics.

4. Calculate necessary parameters for design recommendations such as soil pressures, bearing capacities, settlement, and dimensioning for subsurface structures.

5. Provide design and construction recommendations based on combination of calculations and references.

3.4 Subsurface Conditions

Boring Log No. 3, which was provided by Ninyo and Moore, was located directly at the proposed project site. Samples collected from the exploratory boring indicate two types of soil layers: Alluvium and Granite Rock. The alluvium at the site consists of a sublayer of silty fine sand, over a layer of fine to medium sand, followed by a layer of dense, well graded sand. The alluvium deposits were found 6’ under artificial fill and deepened to

about 32’ where granite rock was discovered. The exploratory boring continued to a depth of 50’, but no other layer was present aside from the granite rock. The soil at this location is described as “Class-D” type stiff soil.

Groundwater was encountered at approximately 17’ depth. However, the site is located within an alluvial basin the groundwater level is subject to seasonal changes due to changes in rainfall, irrigation, and replenishment. Soil materials located below the groundwater location are denser due to the voids within the material being filled with water. Groundwater in Escondido flows from north to south and east to west (USGS, 1989).

3.5 Geologic Hazards

There are no active faults in Escondido that are reported by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone application. However, faults outside of Escondido still pose a seismological hazard to the site through ground motion. Segments of the San Jacinto, Elsinore, and Rose Canyon fault zones are capable of affecting sites within the county of San Diego, but do not pose a significant risk of ground rupture.

There are no poorly graded loose sands located in the subsurface layers of the site. Thus, liquefaction due to seismic events is not probable, however the Escondido City General Plan places the project site within an area for liquefaction hazard. It is possible that high saturation due to a high water table may lead to lateral spread and uplift. Special care will be taken care to ensure that any structures or construction are not threatened.

3.6 Recommendations *Upon completion of preliminary evaluation and selection of crossing method, recommendations will be compiled and provided in a final report.*

3.7 Conclusions *Final Conclusions will be provided for the method of conveyance agreed upon by Donovan and Associates and the Client in the final draft of this report.*

3.8 References References for Geotech: References cited list - USGS?NGA? Valdez notebook? Any geotech textbooks? Is this where MArcs provided data/report would go?

Guidelines for Geotechnical Report, City of San Diego 2018 https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/development- services/pdf/industry/geoguidelines.pdf

US Dept. Ag Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service Soil Survey (Page 45 for Escondido Information) https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MANUSCRIPTS/california/CA638/0/part1.pdf

Department of Conservation Geologic Hazards Map ) California Geological Survey Fault Maps and Earthquake Zones https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/geologichazards/#dataviewer

USGS Quaternary Faults Map https://usgs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5a6038b3a1684561a9 b0aadf88412fcf

Seismic Maps (includes Design Values) https://seismicmaps.org/

EarthQuake Authority https://www.earthquakeauthority.com/California-Earthquake-Risk/Faults-By-County

Principles of Geology, Third Edition, Gilluly Water and Woodford Book

San Diego County Geologic Hazards Guidelines https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/dplu/docs/Geologic_Hazards_Guidelines.pdf

FEMA Floodmaps https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=573%20W%20Washington%20Esco ndido#searchresultsanchor https://p4.msc.fema.gov/arcgis/rest/directories/arcgisjobs/nfhl_print/nfhlprinttool2_gpser ver/jdcc218943148416d9315de3c8fda9123/scratch/FIRMETTE_5d124d61-5f7e-11ea- b466-0050569ce01d.pdf

Escondido General Plan (Floor and Seismic Hazards) (Page 14 Flood, Page 18 Seismic) https://www.escondido.org/Data/Sites/1/media/PDFs/Planning/GPUpdate/GeneralPlanC hapterVI.pdf

USGS Geohydrology of Escondido https://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/1988/4223/report.pdf

MFRO Geotechnical Evaluation (PROVIDED BY MARK??)

3.9 Attachments

0

10

20

30

40

26

40

10

12

35

63

50/5"

16.0

18.8

19.8

16.4

13.1

13.6

108.0

104.9

107.1

122.0

GW

ML

SM

SP

SW

ASPHALT CONCRETE: Approximately 5 inches thick. AGGREGATE BASE: Approximately 9 inches thick. ASPHALT CONCRETE: Approximately 12 inches thick (second layer). FILL: Reddish gray to reddish brown, moist, medium dense, fine sandy SILT.

ALLUVIUM: Brown, moist, silty fine SAND; scattered medium to coarse sand.

Medium dense.

Brown to light reddish brown, wet, medium dense, fine to medium SAND; scattered coarse sand.

No recovery.

Light olive gray; medium to coarse; scattered silt.

Light brown to light gray, wet, dense, well-graded SAND.

GRANITIC ROCK: Grayish brown to dark yellowish gray, wet, moderately hard GRANITIC ROCK.

FIGURE A- 4

PIPELINE FOR MFRO FACILITY WEST WASHINGTON AVENUE AND WAVERLY PLACE, ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA

108793002 | 2/20

D E

P T

H (

fe e t)

B u

lk S

A M

P L E

S D

ri ve

n

B L

O W

S /F

O O

T

M O

IS T

U R

E (

% )

D R

Y D

E N

S IT

Y (

P C

F )

S Y

M B

O L

C L

A S

S IF

IC A

T IO

N U

.S .C

.S .

DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION

DATE DRILLED 1/9/20 BORING NO. BH-3

GROUND ELEVATION 644'  MSL SHEET 1 OF

METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow Stem Auger (CME-75) (Baja Exploration)

DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. (Auto Hammer) DROP 30"

SAMPLED BY SJQ LOGGED BY SJQ REVIEWED BY CAT

2

40

50

60

70

80

50/3"

50/3"

50/2"

9.5

10.0

GRANITIC ROCK (Continued): Grayish brown to dark yellowish gray, wet, moderately hard GRANITIC ROCK.

Total Depth = 50.2 feet. Groundwater encountered at the time of drilling at approximately 17 feet. Backfilled shortly after drilling on 1/9/20.

Notes: Groundwater may rise to a higher level due to seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in the report.

The ground elevation shown above is an estimation only. It is based on our interpretations of published maps and other documents reviewed for the purposes of this evaluation. It is not sufficiently accurate for preparing construction bids and design documents.

FIGURE A- 5

PIPELINE FOR MFRO FACILITY WEST WASHINGTON AVENUE AND WAVERLY PLACE, ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA

108793002 | 2/20

D E

P T

H (

fe e t)

B u

lk S

A M

P L E

S D

ri ve

n

B L

O W

S /F

O O

T

M O

IS T

U R

E (

% )

D R

Y D

E N

S IT

Y (

P C

F )

S Y

M B

O L

C L

A S

S IF

IC A

T IO

N U

.S .C

.S .

DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION

DATE DRILLED 1/9/20 BORING NO. BH-3

GROUND ELEVATION 644'  MSL SHEET 2 OF

METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow Stem Auger (CME-75) (Baja Exploration)

DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. (Auto Hammer) DROP 30"

SAMPLED BY SJQ LOGGED BY SJQ REVIEWED BY CAT

2

Fi gu

re 1

– M

ap pe

d Fa

ul ts

in S

an D

ie go

C ou

nt y

G ui

de lin

es fo

r D

et er

m in

in g

S ig

ni fic

an ce

2 3

G eo

lo gi

c H

az ar

ds

F

ig ur

e 2

– A

lq ui

st -P

ri ol

o an

d C

ou nt

y S

pe ci

al S

tu dy

F au

lt Zo

ne s

G ui

de lin

es fo

r D

et er

m in

in g

S ig

ni fic

an ce

2 4

G eo

lo gi

c H

az ar

ds

Fi gu

re 3

– N

ea r-

S ou

rc e

S ha

ki ng

Z on

es

G ui

de lin

es fo

r D

et er

m in

in g

S ig

ni fic

an ce

2 5

G eo

lo gi

c H

az ar

ds

Fi gu

re 4

– P

ot en

tia l L

iq ue

fa ct

io n

A re

as

G ui

de lin

es fo

r D

et er

m in

in g

S ig

ni fic

an ce

2

6 G

eo lo

gi c

H az

ar ds

Fi gu

re 5

– C

ou nt

y La

nd sl

id e

S us

ce pt

ib ili

ty A

re as

G ui

de lin

es fo

r D

et er

m in

in g

S ig

ni fic

an ce

2 7

G eo

lo gi

c H

az ar

ds

G ui

de lin

es fo

r D

et er

m in

in g

S ig

ni fic

an ce

28

G

eo lo

gi c

H az

ar ds

Fi gu

re 6

– P

ot en

tia l E

xp an

si ve

S oi

l A re

as

Page VI-14 Escondido General Plan Community Protection

Figure VI-7

Page VI-18 Escondido General Plan Community Protection

Figure VI-9

APPENDIX D SITE – CIVIL AND UTILITIES

ESCONDIDO PURE WATER PIPELINE CREEK CROSSING

MARCH 20, 2019

Prepared for:

The City of Escondido

Prepared By:

Donovan & Associates

5500 Campanile Drive

San Diego, CA 92182

Table of Contents

4.1 Introduction

4.2 Background

4.3 Methodology and Approach

4.4 Deliverables

6.4.1 Utility Plans

*All Site and Utility Plans will be provided in our final submittal after the

bridge is designed. *

APPENDIX E STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS

ESCONDIDO PURE WATER PIPELINE CREEK CROSSING

MARCH 20, 2019

Prepared for:

The City of Escondido

Prepared By:

Donovan & Associates

5500 Campanile Drive

San Diego, CA 92182

Table of Contents

6.1 Introduction

6.2 Methodology and Approach

6.3 Hand Calculations

Introduction

Donovan & Associates plans to provide the City of Escondido with an effective design

for the pedestrian bridge moving forward in order to get the pipeline across the channel.

Our structural engineers work closely with the geotechnical team to design a strong

foundation for the pedestrian bridge moving forward. Upon determining the structural

foundation our team is working with, they will also provide a full design of the bridge

along with a full set of structural plans for construction.

Methodology and Approach

Project Requirements: With the proposed pedestrian bridge, the clear width of the bridge would be 12’ - 15’, the clear space is determined by the constraints of the 24” diameter pipe on top of the bridge, which left the clear width of approximately 12’ for the pedestrians. The steel railing will be placed between the walkway and the walking surface to avoid pedestrians interfere with the pipe. As for a riding surface, the bridge deck should be smooth, a concrete deck will be proposed. The preferred superstructure type is a steel through- truss bridge. This approach of material is preferred over the other types of beam bridges where the main girders (usually precast concrete or steel I-beams) are situated completely underneath the bridge deck. The steel truss bridge supports located alongside and above the bridge deck. For this type of commonly used pedestrian bridge design, Donovan and Associates have reached out to Contech Engineered Solution, they are commonly used for this type of bridge application. This will give an advantage of fast and cost-efficient means of construction. With the approach of using a prefabricated bridge, it will give an advantage of higher quality welding die to being assembled in a controlled shop environment versus field welding. The contractor would cast the concrete seat-type bridge abutments in place, offload and erect the prefabricated steel truss bridge onto the abutment bolts and pour the concrete bridge deck. This will give a result of a lightweight solution with minimal temporary construction impacts. Bridge Design Criteria and Details Structural design of the bridge will be in accordance with the Sixth Edition of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Load and Resistance Factor (LRFD) Bridge design Specifications (BDS) with Caltrans Amendments. The design is supplemented by the AASHTO LRFD Guide Specifications for the Pedestrian Bridges, Second Edition. Other design supplements will be ASCE 7, Sixteenth Edition, and ACI 318, Nineteenth Edition. Seismic Design of the bridge would be in accordance with Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria. The bridge would be designed for a 90 psf live pedestrian load (AASHTO), and a power thrust 24” pipeline assuming at full volume capacity as dead load. Loads will be applied to the width of the bridge deck.

The proposed prefabricated bridge would be 70 feet long, self-weathering steel trusses, chemically resistant to corrosion. These properties used for the bridge will be less expensive than painting the bridge, which would also require regular maintenance. Bridge railings would have a minimum height of 42 inches (per AASHTO and Caltrans). And openings in the railings should be smaller than 6 inches. A concrete deck would be poured onto the prefabricated steel deck pan. Galvanized steel plates would cover the joints at the ends of the bridge. *Donovan and Associates will provide a detailed calculation and structural performance of the bridge upon our final submittal.*

Hand Calculations

APPENDIX F CONSTRUCTION

ESCONDIDO PURE WATER PIPELINE CREEK CROSSING

MARCH 20, 2019

Prepared for:

The City of Escondido

Prepared By:

Donovan & Associates

5500 Campanile Drive

San Diego, CA 92182

Table of Contents

6.1 Introduction

6.2 Background

6.3 Methodology and Approach

6.4 Deliverables

6.4.1 Construction Phasing

6.4.2 Site Access and Construction Layout

6.4.3 Construction Schedule

6.4.4 Cost Estimate

6.1 Introduction

The project planned and prepared by Donovan and Associates contains two potential methods to fulfill the 24-inch pipe to cross city streets safely and effectively; jack and bore method and pedestrian bridge. Donovan and Associates have conjured a schedule construction activities will adhere to with minimal delays due to having adequate room for error. Construction will follow a traditional phase schedule consisting of four for each option considered. Phase one entails all plans for the jack and bore and pedestrian bridge option, including but not limited to determining right-of-way, obtaining materials list and schedule breakdown. The most dynamic phases are the second and third phase involving designing and breaking ground to assume project. The final phase is after construction has been completed and pipe has successfully been placed via jack and bore method or pedestrian bridge. With the jack and bore option, excavation of the launch pit will occur for a 15 x 20 ft area as well as a receiving pit with similar dimensions. When machine is in placed in the launch pit, an auger will drill horizontally through area between the two pits and casing pipe will be placed and welded as needed to satisfy the proper length. The pedestrian bridge option will entail the formation of the abutments and the installation of a precast bridge with the pipe travel alongside the pedestrian course of travel, allowing it cross the creek safely and effectively, as well as allowing a safe pathway for pedestrians.

6.2 Background

The project location is located off of North Spruce Street and West Washington Ave and

is currently surrounded by small businesses, including the community swap meet which

occurs throughout most of the week during peak commute hours. The assumed

designated area for staging is located across from the project site and is approximately

10.32 acres, leaving an abundance of room to store all necessary equipment. Estimated

cost utilizing the jack and bore method is approximately $1,583,055 and $490,583.62

for the pedestrian bridge option (changes to made as needed or at discretion of team).

The main goal for this project is to ensure the pipe crosses the creek in a way that does

affect daily commute, therefore both options narrows down to a benefit of this.

6.3 Methodology and Approach

*Upon completion of preliminary evaluation and selection of crossing method, recommendations will be compiled and provided in a final report.*

6.4 Deliverables

6.4.1 Construction Phasing

Between the two options of constructing a pedestrian bridge and jack and bore method, Donovan and Associates concluded the pedestrian bridge is the best option to complete this project. There will be several phases entailing procedures needed to progress towards the completion of the project. During the first phase, information is gathered for each option. The next phase includes mobilization and staging will be determined at a nearby location to store all pertinent gear and equipment with the precast bridge to initiate this phase, should the pedestrian bridge follow through as the best option fit. The location decided on is conveniently located nearby the project site. The City of Escondido’s Public Works Yard will be designated as our staging area allows easy and convenient access for workers and equipment utilized for the project. The remaining phases includes tireless efforts to design and project the project duration for each option best fit.

6.4.2 Site Access and Construction Layout

6.4.3 Construction Schedule

*Upon completion of preliminary evaluation and selection of crossing method, recommendations will be compiled and provided in a final report.*

6.4.4 Cost Estimate

No. Item Code Item Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount Total

1 Mobilization and Stagging 1 LS $60,000.00 $60,000

General Construction Requirements $60,000

2 Erosion Control 1 LS $13,000.00 $13,000

Storm Water Pollution Control $13,000

3 Construction Area Traffic Control Devices 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000

Temporary Traffic Control $10,000

4 Clearing and Grubbing 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000

5 Unclassified Fill- form existing stockpile 562 CY $5.10 $2,866

6 Unclassified Excavation- excludes dewatering 592 CY $50.00 $29,600

7 Excavation Transportation (disposal) 3 LS $400.00 $1,200

8 Excavation Transportation (storage) 115 LS $350.00 $40,250

9 Curb and Gutter Removal LF $8.35 $0

Demolition and Earthwork $83,916

10 3" AC paving 300 LF $3.05 $915

Asphalt Concrete Paving $915

11 3 1/2" PCC Sidewalk; G-7 50 SF $6.45 $323

Miscellaneous Concrete Construction $323

12 Temporary Fence (Type ESA) 300 LF $4.50 $1,350

Traffic Control Facilities (Permanent) $1,350

13 Chain Link Fence 50 LF $40.00 $2,000

14 Chain Link Fence Gate (14') 2 EA $2,000.00 $4,000

$6,000

15 Horizontal Boring, 42" Casing Included 200 LF $650 $130,000

16 Dewatering, Pumping, 24hr, 3" Cent. Pump 30 EA $2,655.00 $79,650

17 Drilling Fuild Mix 1 EA $7,810.00 $7,810

18 Soldier Pile and Lagging Wall (Remain in Place) 4340 SF $147.58 $640,497

$857,957

19 24" CML-WSP Water Main; WP-02, G-1-E 384 LF $340.00 $130,560

20 4" Blowoff Assembly; W-9-E 1 EA $4,435.00 $4,435

21 24" Butterfly Valve 4 EA $10,420.00 $41,680

22 Concrete Thrust Block; WT-01 4 EA $548.00 $2,192

23 Concrete Anchor Block; WT-01 2 EA $637.00 $1,274

$178,867

24 Seeding and Mulching 1000 SF $2 $1,870

25 Planting 40 EA $6 $231

$182,242

$1,394,570

$209,185

$1,603,755Construction Contract Estimate (CCE)

24" Recycled Water Main Installation

24" Recycled Water Main Installation

Landscaping

Landscaping

Base Construction Estimate (BCE)

Contingency (PS&E Level)

Miscellaneous Concrete Construction

Traffic Control Facilities (Permanent)

Right-of-Way

Right-of-Way

Jack and Bore Pits

Jack and Bore Pits

Escondido Pure Water Pipeline Creek Crossing- Jack and Bore

General Construction Requirements

Storm Water Pollution Control

Temporary Traffic Control

Demolition and Earthwork

Asphalt Concrete Paving

No. Item Code Item Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount Total

1 Mobilization and Staging 1 LS 63,000.00$ 63,000.00$

63,000.00$

2 160102 Clearing and Grubbing 1 LS 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$

3 193003 Structure Backfill 500 CY 40.00$ 20,000.00$

4 192003 Structure Excavation 175 CY 171.59$ 30,028.25$

5 731840 Curb and Gutter Removal (Concrete) 50 LF 8.00$ 400.00$

60,428.25$

6 44669 3 LF 5.40$ 16.20$

16.20$

7 010261 PCC (Sidewalk) 50 SF 10.41$ 520.50$

8 Sidewalk Ramp 2 EA 1,505.00$ 3,010.00$

3,530.50$

9 4" PVC Storm Drain 30 LF 30.00$ 900.00$

900.00$

10 820850 Roadside Sign 1 EA 595.00$ 595.00$

595.00$

11 034352 Temporary Fence (ESA) 300 LF 3.00$ 900.00$

12 840656 Paint traffic Stripe (2 coats) 500 LF 0.55$ 275.00$

13 840515 Theroplastic Pavement Marking 231 SF 3.50$ 808.50$

1,983.50$

14 800360 Chain Link Fene (CL-6) 50 LF 40.00$ 2,000.00$

15 Chain Link Fence Gate (14') 2 EA 2,000.00$ 4,000.00$

6,000.00$

16 Precast 1 EA 204,860.00$ 204,860.00$

204,860.00$

17 24" CML-WSP Water Main; WP-02, G-1-E 105 LF $340.00 35,700.00$

18 4" Blowoff Assembly; W-9-E 1 EA $4,435.00 4,435.00$

19 24" Butterfly Valve 4 EA $10,420.00 41,680.00$

20 Concrete Thrust Block; WT-01 4 EA $548.00 2,192.00$

21 Concrete Anchor Block; WT-01 2 EA $637.00 1,274.00$

85,281.00$

22 Seeding and Mulching 1000 SF 2.00$ 2,000.00$

23 Planting 40 EA 6.00$ 240.00$

2,240.00$

426,594.45$

63,989.17$

490,583.62$

Contingency (PS&E Level)

Construction Contract Estimate (CCE)

Bridge Structure Cost

24" Recycled Water Main Installation

24" Recycled Water Main Installation

Landscaping

Landscaping Cost

Base Construction Estimate for Pedestrian Bridge

Signs Cost

Traffic Control Facilities (Permanent)

Traffic Control Facilities (Permanent)

Right of Way

Right of Way Cost

Bridge Structure

Asphalt Concrete Paving Cost

Miscellaneous Concrete Construction

Miscellaneous Concrete Construction Cost

Drainage and Utility Facilities

Drainage and Utility Facilities Cost

Signs

Escondido Pure Water Pipeline Creek Crossing-Pedestrian Bridge

General Construction Requirements

General Construction Requirements Cost

Demolition and earthwork

Demolition and earthwork Cost

Asphalt Concrete Paving

APPENDIX G SUMMARY OF ASSUMPTIONS

ESCONDIDO PURE WATER PIPELINE CREEK CROSSING

MARCH 20, 2019

Prepared for:

The City of Escondido

Prepared By:

Donovan & Associates

5500 Campanile Drive

San Diego, CA 92182

*To be included in the final design.*