Attachment B Pt 1ATTACHMENT B
A
1 sN
• > o
m�
0 .Q
1 0
U
• 0
> ud�
• C1 �
_L 4i 4;
8 4 i,� a v a
r +fit' �• i A L w is 1 A F 4; 4i
fA
It 11 it
i
µ`r 44f` x x
' ti AR � T �. '� r�. 1� s; e�'- '�'�-' '� k ^ �` �r' � ;if ti � �'• � it
Fol
W
-'-
0
CL
H
D
V
. w(j
11
mT
,
41, 1 .
1.' r
;o
Al
'tot"
a
14
At
or
E
15
wt;
a)
v
.00=
c
W
17
19
20
R
S �
e - -,_. Jy'7ji
� •�+
ci' Z�
J
1
Public Outreach Early 2015
Conceptual Design 2"d Meeting
Final Design 3rd Meeting
Bidding Process Spring 2015
Construction Completion Fall 2015
23
;'i urn
mak'
fJ' t : .
1.
rCt
z
196 4 �
•
X
tg g. �
`1 k
2014-12-11 SSRT Community Outreach 001— Community Discussion Summary
ENTRANCE
Community: Why does the trail have to drop down at the entrance?
City: The property owner at 2443 had asked this to keep the privacy of his family when the horses get to
his bedroom windows and the group including equestrians who participated a site meeting last summer
agreed to it. Additionally the City Council has instructed staff to be mindful of the adjacent neighbors
privacy.
Community: Why does it have to be so steep?
City: The 18% slope will bring down the trail to the level of the front yard of the downhill property to
limit the impact and maintain the owner's privacy when equestrians reach their windows.
City: As a point of reference, the driveway at 2477 has a grade of 20%
Resident 2443: Will there be a wall on the downhill side of the entrance? Do not want proposed wall
higher than current garden wall (including screening) and to maintain current view, sunlight exposure,
and general openness.
City: This will be factored into the design. A guardrail / safety rail will be designed similar to the existing
and the landscaping of this portion can be deleted to minimize impact on current view, sunlight
exposure, and general openness.
TRAIL BETWEEN HOMES
Community: Why doesn't City have previous design already discussed by all residents?
City: The previous concept was several years prior and did not include all current residents. The new
concept is similar to the original concept except that it includes a steep slope at the entrance to
minimize impact and maintain privacy of the adjacent property owner.
Resident 2443: Clarification that the initial point of trail elevation being at same elevation of side yard
was a negotiation. Ideally would be at garage, but mandatory at bedroom, midpoint negotiated
acceptable.
Community: We do not want the trail between homes to feel like a tunnel.
City: This is not the intent and will be factored into the design. At next community outreach, a slide
illustrating the profile(s) of the respective existing walls and proposed improvements will be provided.
25
SWITCHBACK PORTIONS
Community: Will there be retaining on slopes?
City: Probably, we will most -likely be engineering proposed solutions for retaining the switchbacks. We
will likely propose use of wood or other natural appearing materials with height not exceeding 2-3 feet,
but only in the areas where absolutely necessary.
Community: Why are switchbacks and retaining necessary? Horses can go down the current grade.
City: There are multiple determinants of the intent to construct switchbacks within the trail. The
switchback sections are topographically challenging. The trail will be a multi -use trail, used by
pedestrians, bicyclists, and equestrians.
STREAM CROSSING
Community: How long will the bridge be?
City: 50' max span. We will explore the possibility of having a shorter span to reduce costs.
Community: Will it be built out of natural material, faux plastic wood, other? Wood will not last.
City: We are not firmed up on any of our ideas but this will be factored into our design. We will provide
a few options.
Community: Do we really need a bridge? There is no water.
Community: Yes there is water. Also, the topography at the bottom is not safe for passage of
pedestrians and bicyclists.
Community: Two people state that they liked the idea of bridge.
Community: At least one person preferred a culvert in lieu of a bridge.
City: We are collecting data for use in determining these components, don't know yet, will review all
determinants prior to making decision.
Community: Bridge is a nonnegotiable approved component of the grant.
City: Grant could be amended if determined that construction of the bridge is not necessary.
MISCELLANEOUS
Community: What material will be used for the trail, DG?
26
Community: Regarding entrance, down, and curve, will it be DG or compacted native? Thinks normally
natural trails gully down in path, prefers DG or other to carry weight of using horses on trail.
City: We will consider and investigate and will be factored into design.
Community: There are several types of trails approved by city council as defined in the Western States
Trails Foundation.
City: RPV Conceptual Trail Plan has not been updated. City Council said it would consider inclusion of a
plan with the next update.
City: Some components agreed to with grant may have variations from Western States Trails
Foundation.
City: Western States Trails Foundation guidelines will be taken into consideration when designing.
Community: Regarding the PVDE Entrance; wasn't there some work done there to grade to facilitate
horses.
City: Yes, a separate project titled PVDE Conestoga Trail Connection Project connects to Rolling Hills
Estates. Said trail improvements will be completed prior to this project.
Community: There is a private drive; will Conestoga Trail cross private drive?
City: Yes, it will cross but within the right-of-way. Trail will be inland side of guardrail.
Community: Drainage from other houses has eroded.
City: Yes, drainage daylights at trail and will be addressed in design.
Community: Grant is $300K is City contribution fixed?
City: City has set aside $165K and believes it will be sufficient.
City: Project will be designed within budget.
Community: When coming down the hill, will the line of site facilitate seeing horses coming?
City: This will be taken into consideration.
27
City Closing Statement
All community questions and concerns will be taken into consideration when creating the conceptual
design. The 2nd outreach meeting will present the conceptual design to the community and allow the
community to respond both in the meeting and after with written comments and concerns to be taken
into consideration for the final design.
M
ILSunnyside Ridge Trail Improvements Project
Community Outreach Meeting
LOCATION:
Miraleste Intermediate School
DATE12/11/14
MEETING HELD AT:
Classroom
TIME OF MEETING:
6:30 PM
.14VI _IVV
112,1-4 1- to
Name _
Ac{ orpss, 1
Phone
Email
.14VI _IVV
112,1-4 1- to
4 -1114,
14`ps qSiOw'4t7. 0
_kL_
'S';
J
, , Z"
C-16"
4��
C":�O-Srs-ite
- , 0, 4 -z-
/q
. 4 � � � � - <c z �
Tc�L.4 -7-c e S
- Lee I'll
-16,
f- __
%'Clk1 C SSC twit"
"o'v- "4
�i ("IC i P car~. C'
V1
'�..A' A,
A -m "%vAfAO tAi-.)
in. bv-*-i2Pv
sv!� SIZ?/
uo
LZ
WA
........... . .....
R Aj
(4yp
#7
&AN J-,PAA_(_VeG1_
-.,.-kDA
k0A Cc&P, Ccv-,,
29
Lauren Ramezani
From: Lauren Ramezani
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2015 12:56 PM
To: (Sunnyside HOA president) (ckmeisterheim@gmail.com); Anna McDougall; Bob Laman;
Charlene O'Neil; Hal Winton; Jay Jones; Jean Longacre; Jeanne Laman; John
DeGirolamo; Lorraine Kirk; Madeline Ryan; patpoddatoori@yahoo.com; Sandra
Sandoval; Sharon Yarber; Sherree Greenwood; Sunshine
Subject: Follow up on the 12/11/14 Community Outreach Meeting
Attachments: S35C-415010913460245.pdf
Happy New year to you!
Attached please find the following follow-up regarding the presentation made at the December 11, 2014 community
outreach meeting for the Sunnyside Ridge Road Trail Improvement project:
• Meeting PowerPoint presentation, and
• Community Discussion Summary
You will receive notification of the next, 2nd community outreach meeting later in the month.
Thank you.
Lauren Ramezani
Sr. Administrative Analyst- Public Works
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5245
Laurenr2rpv.com
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
30
2014-12-11 SSRT Community Outreach 001— Community Discussion Summary
ENTRANCE
Community: Why does the trail have to drop down at the entrance?
City: The property owner at 2443 had asked this to keep the privacy of his family when the trail gets to
the bedroom windows behind the garage, and the group including equestrians who attended a site
meeting last July agreed to it. Additionally the City Council has instructed staff to be mindful of the
adjacent neighbors' privacy.
Community: Why does it have to be so steep?
City: The 18% slope will bring down the trail to the level of the front yard of the downhill property to limit
the impact and maintain the owner's privacy when the trail reaches their bedroom windows.
City: As a point of reference, the driveway at 2477 has a grade of 20%.
Resident 2443: Will there be a wall on the downhill side of the entrance? Do not want proposed wall
higher than current garden wall (including screening) and to maintain current view, sunlight exposure,
and general openness.
City: This will be factored into the design. A guardrail / safety rail will be used similar to the existing
neighbor's guardrail and the landscaping of this portion can be deleted to minimize impact on current
view, sunlight exposure, and general openness.
TRAIL BETWEEN HOMES
Community: Why doesn't the City have a previous design already submitted by a group of residents?
City: The previous concept was designed by the equestrian community and does not account for the
concerns raised by the residents on Sunnyside Ridge Road. The new concept is similar to the original
concept except that it includes a steeper slope at the entrance to minimize impact and maintain privacy
of the adjacent property owner.
Resident 2443: Clarification that the initial point of trail elevation being at same elevation the neighbor's
side yard was discussed at a site meeting.
Community: We do not want the trail between homes to feel like a tunnel.
City: This is not the intent and will be factored into the design. At the next community outreach, a slide
illustrating the profile(s) of the respective existing walls and proposed improvements will be provided.
31
SWITCHBACK PORTIONS
Community: Will there be retaining on slopes?
City: Probably, we will most -likely be engineering proposed solutions for retaining the switchbacks. We
will likely propose use of wood or other natural appearing materials with height not exceeding 2-3 feet,
but only in the areas where absolutely necessary.
Community: Why are switchbacks and retaining necessary? Horses can go down the current grade.
City: There are multiple determinants of the intent to construct switchbacks within the trail. The
switchback sections are topographically challenging. The trail will be used by pedestrians and equestrians.
STREAM CROSSING
Community: How long will the bridge be?"
City: Approximately 50' max span. We will explore the possibility of having a shorter span to reduce costs.
Community: Will it be built out of natural material, faux plastic wood, other material since wood will
require more maintenance?
City: We are not firmed up on any of our ideas but this will be factored into our design. We will provide
a few options that consider maintenance.
Community: Do we really need a bridge when there is rarely ever water in the ravine?
Community: Yes there is water occasionally. Also, the topography at the bottom is not safe for passage
of pedestrians.
Community: Two people state that they liked the idea of bridge.
Community: At least one person preferred a culvert in lieu of a bridge.
City: We are collecting data for use in determining these components, don't know yet, will review all
determinants prior to making decision.
Community: Bridge is a nonnegotiable approved component of the grant.
City: Grant could be amended if determined that construction of the bridge is not necessary, provided
approval is obtained beforehand.
MISCELLANEOUS
Community: What material will be used for the trail, DG?
32
Community: Regarding entrance off Sunnyside Ridge, down the initial slope between homes, and curve,
will it be DG or compacted native? Resident has concern that natural trails gully down in path, prefers DG
or other to carry weight of using horses on trail.
City: Consideration of different surface materials will be factored into the design based on durability and
maintenance.
Community: There is trail criteria approved by city council as defined in the Western States Trails
Foundation.
City: The City Council has not approved trail standards. The RPV Trail Plan has not been updated yet, but
is in the process.
City: Some components agreed to with grant may have variations from Western States Trails Foundation.
City: Western States Trails Foundation guidelines will be taken into consideration when designing.
Community: Regarding the PVDE Entrance; wasn't there some work done there to grade to facilitate
horses.
City: Yes, a separate project titled PUDE Conestoga Trail Connection Project connects to Rolling Hills
Estates. Said trail improvements will be completed separate from this project.
Community: There is a private drive; will Conestoga Trail cross private drive?
City: Yes, it will cross but within the right-of-way. Trail will be inland side of guardrail.
Community: Drainage from other houses has eroded.
City: Yes, drainage daylights at trail and will be addressed in design.
Community: Grant is $300K is City contribution fixed?
City: City has set aside $165K and believes it will be sufficient.
City: Project will be designed within budget.
Community: When coming down the hill, will the line of site facilitate seeing horses coming?
City: This will be taken into consideration.
33
City Closing Statement
All community questions and concerns will be taken into consideration when creating the conceptual
design. The 2nd outreach meeting will present the conceptual design to the community and allow the
community to respond both in the meeting and after with written comments and concerns to be taken
into consideration for the final design.
34
Sunnyside
Ridge Trail
Improvement Project
MINIMA Z.4 ON
35
* Neighborhood trail connecting
from Sunnyside
Ridge Road to
canyonthe Conestoga Trail on PVDE
existing residential properties,
leading into a steep hillside
11 foot
36
Overview
• City Council approved grant and City funding
• KOA providing engineering design and
construction management services
• Design completed for bidding by Spring 2015
37
61
Project Timeline
✓ City Council Funded Project
✓ Public Outreach Meeting #1 Dec 11, 2014
❑ Design Development Phase
• Preliminary Design
• Public Outreach Meeting #2 Feb 18, 2014 f
Review Preliminary Plan
W
Des�gn development - Preliminary Design
• Define Trail [requirements
• TraH Criteroa
• community concerns
• Preliminary Design Elements
Alignment
Project Elements
Retaining Walls
Railing
Bridge
TrasO Surface
41
Sample Trail Criteria
TRAIL DEVELOPMENT ! MAINTENANCE CRITERIA* of July 4, 2012
"TYPE" is numbered from easiest to most challenging.
TYPE
Trail —15% maximum grade,
GRADE
vertical and
PRISM"
TREAD***
clearance, 6'
Average
Maximum
Distance+
Vertical Horizontal
Minimum Width
1
3%
5%
30'
12' 8'
S'
2
5%
10%
100'
15' 12'
8'
3
5%
15%
100'
15' 10'
8'
4
10%
16%++
100'
12' 8'
6'
5
10%
18%++
100'
12' 6'
4'
6
10%
20%++
100'
12' S'
3'
7
15%
20%++
100'
1 12' 4'
2'
These "guidelines" are based on the assumption that all "unpaved pathways"
are "multi -use trails" unless posted otherwise. The "TYPE" is assigned to
promote the creation of pathways and the ongoing accommodation of various trail
use needs from one destination to another +++ For instance:
Ty_ P.E..1., 1Nhe 1 _h i s:.(AQA QmP.4a—nQ
TYPE 2 —Large emergency vehicles.Fre,.eprtmr._.Qtmpliartt_.
TYPE 3 —Circulation by a large volume of various users and small
e. -me
rg n.�y vehicles. (Reduce user conflicts.)
TYPE 4 — Recreation by a large volume of various users.
TYPE 5 — Recreation by a lesser volume of various users.
TYPE 6 — Challenging or isolated recreation by a sparse volume.
TYPE 7 — Habitat access recreation by a sparse volume.
Type "4"
Trail —15% maximum grade,
12'
vertical and
8'
horizontal
clearance, 6'
tread
Type "5"
Trail —18% maximum grade,
12'
vertical and
6'
horizontal
clearance, 4'
tread
19
42
Trail Development /Maintenance Criteria
rf
it
A
....... ..... . .
I
94,
4, It
...........
vfl," q
kv Ir
tO
CENT GRADE
PEF ?"'EDERC 10
'
20 PER'C"ENT 1", AL,E
10%0" Grade — 5 switchbacks Type 4
15% Grade — 3 sw'ltch,,.
20% Grade — 3 shorter -Swi-L'-chba c ks
14
.............. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
43
ld NCr rn -vsv� mae ,v
IIYA 39YaYO
1.
EVA
Preliminary Trail Alignment
r
SECTION
aECTI 0'ry A—A
E T1
SECTION to—B (MOD)
SECTION C
SECTION C—C (MOD)
� r.rr r- f •y
t l > TTT
1
r
f � � �, } a � 3 t � � a .. - –�'`F— -s–.memo-..––..–i—•� .�..._+a
,i � ( r,.•:.. tai �f X: �..y r�:i•'''�, .i, .r.. �� Ix#: � € n i t�"'r�.r _..
}
�It-•�! .sr tfX L i .: ~�,,,� k r r XkX _ m f� j E
>. 4
Exact alignment will be adjusted to best fit to existing contours (dashed line)
Wall height
varies up to
about 6 feet
total
45
J.J
ry
rn
N
m
4A
c
4-J
V)
9G
W
O
ca
WA
jqh
9
m
aq_q
m
oN
n
.0
Id
What's Next?
• Public Comments /Feedback
• Written Comments at this meeting
• Correspondence to Staff
• Final Design Plans, Specification and Estimate
• Environmental Approva9
• Final Design Review
• Update report to City CouncH / Contract
• Proceed to Construction Award and Constructoon
54
Sunnyside
Ridge Trail
Improvement Project
Community Outreach
Meeting February 18, 2015
Discussion
55
Lauren Ramezani
From: Lauren Ramezani
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 10:40 AM
To: (Sunnyside HOA president) (ckmeisterheim@gmail.com); Anna McDougall ; Bob Laman;
Charlene O'Neil; Clarinda Kotowski; Hal Winton; Jay Jones; Jean Longacre; Jeanne
Laman; John DeGirolamo; Lorraine Kirk; Madeline Ryan; patpoddatoori@yahoo.com;
Sandra Sandoval; Sharon Yarber; Sherree Greenwood; Sunshine
Subject: Sunnyside Ridge Trail Improvement Project Meeting Summary
Attachments: S35C-4150227113302451.pdf
Good morning,
Attached please find a summary of the discussions and design direction regarding the Sunnyside Ridge Trail
Improvement Project from the Community meeting held on 2/18/15.
Thank you.
Lauren Ramezani
Sr. Administrative Analyst- Public Works
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
310-544-5245
Laurenr@rpv.com
www. pa losverdes.com/rpv
56
2/27/2015 C iTV OF RANCHO PALOS VERGES
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Sunnyside Ridge Trail Improvement Project
Community Outreach #2
February 18, 2015
Meeting Summary
On February 18, 2015, staff and KOA Corporation (City's consultant) met with interested trail
users, neighborhood residents and equestrians. The purpose of this second public outreach
meeting was to present conceptual ideas for the Sunnyside Ridge trail project (SSR) and to obtain
feedback on the community's preference for a wide variety design issues.
The discussion was very open and resulted in a clearer understanding by attendees of the specific
trail design elements, and resulted in agreements on the project's design direction on the majority
of the project's design components.
As a result, KOA is proceeding with the project design based on the following list of the agreed
parameters:
1. The width of trail between the two houses, (2443 and 2477 Sunnyside Ridge Road
(SSRR), to be a minimum width of 8 -feet, however, should be as wide as possible within
the City's 10 feet easement. See attached picture.
2. The width of the trail in the canyon should be the same width as that between the two
houses on SSRR.
3. The retaining wall in the canyon, required to provide a relatively level tread for the 10 -foot
width, to be segmental block (Keystone type) similar to adjacent property on 2477 SSRR.
See attached picture.
4. Where safety railing in the canyon is required, 2 -rail round treated wood rail (similar to
other RPV locations) will be used. See attached picture.
5. Trail surfacing options, to improve stability and minimize erosion, include native or
decomposed granite (DG), possibly treated with Gorilla snot stabilizer to reduce dust, or
perhaps a natural grass surface. Cost analysis of options will be a consideration.
6. The retaining walls and railing on top of the retaining walls at the two SSRR houses to be
similar to the existing wall and railing existing on each adjacent property. See attached
picture.
7. Staff/consultant to take into account the cost of installing fencing/railing on the Poddatoori
property line, 2477 SSRR, between the two SSRR houses. See attached Picture.
8. The trail slope to be 15% in the canyon, with the alignment being in a practical location for
aesthetics and privacy of adjacent neighbors.
30940 1 { v I it't( "iE �C}UI_Li6ARt:i t' Rlr p ;I li)'. F\L.{ 's VmDEs, C,� 9021.)"5391 / 1310) 544-5252 !! AX (310) 544-027'1 vVMki. ;4LOSVEROES (COfvi/R \
I I P a g e
1)IZIIV I LU ON REC14iLEIJ hAI'tR
57
9. The departure slope from Sunnyside Ridge for the initial 60-80 feet, between the two
houses, to be 18%-20% and is to meet the adjacent grade within 5-10 feet north of the
corner of DeGirolamo's garage, 2443 SSRR.
10. The recommended bridge is to conform to economic restraints, and will possibly be a pre -
manufactured steel truss type bridge, with a shallow camber for a length of about 50 -feet.
See attached picture.
11. The preferred exposed tread material on the bridge deck is dirt.
12. The bridge should be located a reasonable distance from the western property line of the
adjacent property close to PVDE. See Attached Picture.
13. Install a short railing barrier or a narrowing at the trail's SSRR entrance to act as an
indication to the horse(s) that the trail is ending and that they are approaching the street.
14. The property owner to the west of the trail, 27806 and/or 27804 PVDE, is to be contacted
to be made aware of the project since the bridge could be located close to their patio. Staff
informed the attendees that a notification would be sent to the 500 feet radius of the
project. Staff will also reach out to the adjacent neighbors on PVDE. See attached picture.
15. Investigate creating a "green" retaining wall on the Poddatoori side, 2477 SSRR, of the
trail with a vine type planting to improve aesthetics.
16. Managing storm runoff originating at the top of slope from the 2477 SSRR property and
runoff from slopes within the canyon will occur through a pipe system to be routed to
bottom of canyon through a pipe system.
17. The construction of the project was supported by many in attendance who indicated the
cost of the project is a primary concern. Staff and consultants were apprised of concerns
regarding the cost of construction. To that end, cost savings measures will be incorporated
into the design to produce a safe, compliant, cost effective solution for the trail project.
The third and last meeting will be held in approximately one month to present for review the
completed design, and receive final input prior to presentation to the City Council.
The ideas and comments exchanged at the meeting were very helpful and consensus was
reached on what was preferred for each component of the trail, which helps the project designers'
move forward with the support of the community.
If anyone has any additional comments, please make them in writing to Lauren Ramezani and
send them to laurenr(a)mv.com by the noon on Thursday, 3/5/2015.
Thank You.
RPV Public Works
Attachments: As noted
2 1 P a 9 e
W•
a _
Amm1E r.• it �.� � r � .�.',
„f r.
J �}
Item # 10 _...
Bridge
The abutment
«� K" will have a
veneer of PV
Stone, similar
to this location
5 t
at PVDS at
t.T, } Terranea
If
- moi• .�• '-
- a
I P I e e
M
Sunnyside
Ridge Trail
Improvement Project
City of Rancho -Palos EZS
i uv
62
Overview
• Neighborhood trail connecting from Sunnyside Mdge
Road to the Conestoga Trail on PVDE
• 10 foot easement between two existing residential
properties, leading into a steep hillside canyon 100
foot easement
63
Project Timeline
✓ City Council Funded Project
✓ Public Outreach Meeting #1 Dec 11, 2014
❑ Design Development Phase
• Preliminary Design
• Public Outreach Meeting #2 Feb 18, 2015
Review Preliminary Plan
• Public Outreach Meeting #3 May 6, 2015
Review Final Alternates
w
r��
1'
r7TV"
00,
Reference Trail Criteria — Western States Trails Foundation
TRAIL DEVELOPMENT ! MAINTENANCE CRITERIA* of July 4, 2012
"TYPE" is numbered from easiest to most challenging.
TYPE
Trail —15% maximum grade,
GRADE
vertical and 8'
PRISM" *
TRE 4D***
tread
Average
Maximum
Distance+
Vertical Horizontal
Minimum Width
1
3%
5%
30'
12' 8'
S'
2
5%
10%
100'
15' 12'
8'
3
6%
15%
100'
15' 10'
8'
4
10%
15%++
100'
12' 8'
6'
5
10%
18%++
100'
12' 6'
4'
6
10%
20%++
100'
12' S'
3'
7
15%
20%++
100'
12' 4'
2'
These "guidelines" are based on the assumption that all "unpaved pathways"
are "multi -use trails" unless posted otherwise. The "TYPE" is assigned to
promote the creation of pathways and the ongoing accommodation of various trail
use needs from one destination to another,+++ For instance:
TYPE 2 —Large emergency vehicles. Fi_re__ _ p rkmn . Q— mpli.a
TYPE 3 — Circulation by a large volume of various users and small
ej er.g.Ucy., vehicles. (Reduce user conflicts.)
TYPE 4 — Recreation by a large volume of various users.
TYPE 5 — Recreation by a lesser volume of various users.
TYPE 6 — Challenging or isolated recreation by a sparse volume.
TYPE 7 — Habitat access recreation by a sparse volume.
Type "4"
Trail —15% maximum grade,
12'
vertical and 8'
horizontal
clearance, 6'
tread
Type "5"
Trail —18% maximum grade,
12'
vertical and 6'
horizontal
clearance, 4'
tread
6
67
Reference Trail Criteria — FHWA/ USFS
Vaa*'9,
0UUWW 0 4�t
t
Figure 4 -13 --Trait typical cross sections. Full bench
construction gives the fewest problems, especially
Oil steep slopes.
The Pennsylvania Trail Program (1980) recommends switchback landings no narrower than
8 feet (2.4 meters) on its trails. On horse trails, the Pitkin County, CO, Open Space and
Trails Program (Parker 1994) specifies a minimum switchback radius of 10 feet (3 meters)
and a minimum trail curve radius of 12 feet (3.6 meters) elsewhere,
Table 4 -5 -Minimum suggested turning radius for horse
trails, depending on site conditions. Agency
specifications may vary.
_.
Low development N Low developinent H gb development
l (feet) (feet) (feet)
® �5 to 6 ..� _,.. 6 to 8 � i .: 8 to 10.
8&e--*.
10140rAd tr i
f%E4a t+xaX, 3f�T�
860M a tRiM
t -V AAM Via
in A tl� tk rt
L. Fi
MM 16% rix. dope
o "vt
is
a.
. RWft 1 VMI
FHWA/ US Forest Service
Recommended radius 5' to 10' (used 7.5')
Switchback slope of 5% max
7
Area 2 (between houses):
20% maximum slope in Area 2
Retaining walls to match existing
Railings to match existing
Landscaping to cover wall surfaces
Native soil trail surface
Preliminary Design Guidelines
Area 1 (canyon):
15% maximum slope in Area 1
Keystone type retaining wall
Native soil trail surface
Manufactured steel truss bridge
with dirt surface
• •
� 1
VVV yyyf//TTTaaca"i... �1 �
i \•h� I . ' . k'BYYl„-'.
as
Final Design Alternatives
• Developed 4 fully loaded Alternatives with
varying slopes /bridge height in Area 2
• Provided alternatives for cost reductions:
-Wood retaining structure (Area 1)
-Reduce trail width to 8' (Area 1)
-Narrower trail without retaining structure
71
Final Design Alternatives -#1
Slope = 18% max
H bridge = 15'
R n: -'�-I- I- - -I
— T
T --------- T ---T T
-------_T------
r--------,-TVTffT
T1lZC-
Vl CtTI C7rvi M z 5
i
rni+:
WA,T
��-
Har_—��'- --- --
------- ---- ----------
�-
-------
---
✓.
-------- - � --
-�'-------
-
--- - x _ ---------
----
-- — ----
-------
--------
-------
---
--►-----
------------
-------
- - ----' -----------
-
�.
---- --
-----------------
---'+''-- ----------------- ----- —
' ---40-
,:' ---
-------- ------ :.
--,. ---
----------------
-------�
------------
-------- ---------------------
-----ar-
-h--
-------- ------
oc, —
-------- -- --
-------+
942
f r
xa
NtO!!•ST tQT.fi�Q
�
LWSTMIL`T,aa" W-Ak On rtv&
a
ewc.�-•rare
+,P,Al l� '
�.----------------
--------—_—__—_ __—_— —_—_—_
l� P;PiQT
� h rt,wS
.�,,. _... ...
_. _. -"'""""'."""ye"""a
4.X*
G�La`l
"�isrx oaa wsz
01 +�'i!I�C OiIiRMn Wl. �alWvek dh�taut aTrz'RFL
WA,T
}
i'M 0 MtS47�Uitli % L�6T wt'kl¢•
l6- p PLb fYGi VN
•, ,r,
. +, n
0 WT" M0 a u'r6 F:I= WA A.IItm i1Wl9i r p1YU PiOLIIYc
3M1L cG! /F'1� A11 R+vt 6'R -l. Pall
"" !,
` .
;r,�
£
V WMIM �i SCTIRi4TA
Kwt wewuxr st'•m:s pM T��*,f rwt D?+�rA Ti caJlm rC.cc
�6�
Q�KTitl A'ix 91618
,
MPLL MmN►: rva w TW Y *4L N w KP T4 ow- fC t
}
NtO!!•ST tQT.fi�Q
�
LWSTMIL`T,aa" W-Ak On rtv&
a
ewc.�-•rare
+,P,Al l� '
l� P;PiQT
� h rt,wS
M
sn �
ue:PP
TP "W7..
-m . _ _ ..-.
- Vag :�'
j
aKM
DRAFT S � ITTAL
ALTERNATIVE 1 -18% MAX
i -d
-lL �M'
m►a�®rrr a 5UNNY5PG'E R PGE TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT "w #w
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TRAIL PIAN AND PROFILE
2
Final Design Alternatives -#2
Slope = 15% max
H bridge = 13'
R n _ __LA rn/ _1 _
--------T--------T--------T--------T--------T---------r---T--------
—
------
eat
i
#
t
t
w
--------
--------
----- ----
— _ --- ---------
------ — —�'� —--------
---+ter--
--------
--------
-------+
.
Ni!
-------
---_----
--------------y_-yam---rte
----------
-------- — --- ---
---
J}-- --------
---
--------
-------
i
.
k
T
`$
*44
�"--------------------------------------------
�'---------------
j
-------------------------------
—
--------
-- ----
----------------
- — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — —
— -----
-- -------
----- -----
— -- — —-
--------
asF- ----------
---BiC --
--------
------�
------
---
i Rwk
—
-------
-----
----------------
--------
— —d'�ro
yyr-------- r„e�------ -----
.............LRM �O< ...�,�.�....,..
amw
GGr wl:.7t �;titlb 5
-- ---
MM r1W ff•A-------„„------------
blam
�• �V ' - 0 1$ �j &�
� $M tK �� a Ti=.r.- LTA' -1]7X
a„ .}.�.
1
m S4LSf3 pp
E k nn• razes O
STR 4ats.YP
O.ir [tY:A
7
'J
Q
ena: a vfa#s
<
�;Lv ybn,ajt
�,. T'1R Ae
�
{$ P
t'
a.�
�y
DRAFT SUB ; �ITTAL
T
ALTERNATIVE 2 -15% MAX.
„
�nxc
01CITY
CF RANCHO PALLS VERDES � {
F
5uNN-T RIPGr- T 1� irrt avEwi r PROJECT
a,.rn4. zx
SHT. �
TRAIL PLAN AND PROFILE
3