Agenda packet — Capitola City Council, August 27, 2026 (part 2 of 3)

SCOPE OF WORK - CAPITOLA TRESTLE

RAILWAY BRIDGE PLANNING AND

FEASIBILITY SEISMIC ASSESSMENT
The existing Capitola Trestle Railway Bridge is located along the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line (SBRL) at MP 15.89 over Wharf Road, Soquel Creek, Riverview Ave and Capitola Ave, between 47th Ave and Monterey Ave. The existing structure is comprised of 5 distinct frames, each consisting of a different superstructure type. It has a multi-span wooden trestle combined with a three span precast concrete box approach on the east end, a cast-in-place concrete tub girder combined with a multi-span wooden trestle approach on the west end, and a large wrought iron truss main span bridge over Soquel Creek. SCCRTC is studying the possible placement of a pedestrian pathway on the existing bridge and had a conceptual repurposing study performed by RailPros in 2021. The RailPros study considered direct conversion to trail use of the entire length of structure considering service and strength limit states as well as an initial condition assessment. The RailPros study did not consider seismic loading and noted that a seismic assessment still needed to be performed. SCCRTC would like to perform a preliminary repurposing seismic assessment to continue to develop the potential design and construction costs associated with potential future pedestrian and bicycle use, if such use is later directed by the SCCRTC. This seismic assessment will build upon the study conducted by RailPros and will not include a service and strength assessment. This seismic assessment will include an updated existing condition assessment, and a seismic assessment which has not previously been conducted. The seismic assessment shall be based upon Caltrans seismic retrofit requirements. This assessment will also include recommendations and probable construction costs for repair, retrofit and seismic isolation options for each portion of the structure.

TASK 1. PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Mark Thomas will provide general project management activities and coordination with the RTC throughout the project. This includes preparing contract paperwork, and emails, and participating in project meetings as necessary to manage the project. Management activities also include financial tracking and preparation of progress reports. The project is anticipated to last four months from NTP to submittal of final technical memorandum.

TASK 2. EXISTING BRIDGE DATA GATHERING
Task 2.1. Existing Bridge Data Gathering
Mark Thomas will review existing structure as-builts and UPRR standard plans. Mark Thomas will also review previous reports and inspection documents. Mark Thomas will also perform a site visit to review the existing bridge, confirming as-built span and frame types and configurations and attempt to determine probable foundation types where visible.

The site visit will also look for potential seismic vulnerabilities.

Task 2.2. Existing Bridge Condition Assessment
Mark Thomas will inspect the bridge to confirm the condition of the existing bridge based upon the condition findings from the RailPros 2021 condition assessment. The site visit will review the existing bridge condition and note major

EXHIBIT A
6-14
299
Item 7 B.

Capitola Trestle Planning and Feasibility Seismic Assessment Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (SCCRTC)

Page 2 of 4 ends

repair tasks observed. The existing condition assessment will be based upon the visual review of the accessible and/or viewable structure, supplemented with a sampling of tactile measurements where readily accessible. The overall structure condition assessment shall be made based upon the RailPros 2021 condition assessment, visual observations and a sampling of readings that will be extrapolated over the entire structure.

MP 15.89a PC/PS Concrete Box Girder: The precast prestressed box approach spans on the east approach will be inspected for any visibly noticeable deterioration. The inspection will consist of a visual inspection of the soffit of the bridge along with the steel and concrete bents and concrete abutment. This will be performed with the naked eye and binoculars. Some soundings of the accessible concrete will also be performed. The top of the bridge deck will also be visually inspected where visible. Any deterioration noted during this process will be included in the final report.

MP 15.89b and 15.89d Timber Trestle: The timber trestles through Capitola and to the west of Soquel Creek have been reviewed multiple times over the last couple of decades with each subsequent report stating wood rot is progressing.

RailPros’ 2021 review of these portions of the structure estimated that 30%-40% of the posts need replacement. The proposed review of this portion of the structure includes an inspection and non-destructive testing (soundings) of the bridge components that are accessible from the ground. Components that are above reach from the ground will be visually inspected with naked eye and binoculars. Component sizes will also be measured during the inspection to determine the costs of replacement. Upon completion of the ground inspection, the team will relocate to the top of the structure for further inspection, non-destructive testing, and measuring. The results of the inspection will be used to estimate the current level of deterioration and potential post replacement accounting for previously performed inspections.

MP 15.89c Wrought Iron Truss: The main span wrought iron truss will be visually inspected from the creek banks using both naked eye and binoculars. The bridge deck will be walked for a visual inspection. Any deterioration noted during this process will be included in the final report, however a detailed inspection of the wrought iron truss will not be performed, and a detailed inspection of fracture critical elements will not be conducted.

MP 15.89e CIP PT U-Girder: The cast-in-place concrete tub girder approach span on the west approach will be inspected for any visibly noticeable deterioration. The inspection will consist of a visual inspection of the soffit of the bridge along with the concrete bent and concrete abutment. This will be performed with the naked eye and binoculars.

Some soundings of the accessible concrete will also be performed. The top of the bridge deck will also be visually inspected. Both ends of this span rest on concrete piers which too will be inspected where visible. Any deterioration noted during this process will be included in the final report.

The existing bridge inspection will be limited to a total of 2 days of inspection by a single inspection party consisting of a senior inspector and junior inspector and will be tailored accordingly during the inspection to fit within the confines that time frame. Inspection will also be conducted from accessible areas without the aid of any additional equipment with the exception of the use of binoculars. Inspection findings will be extrapolated to the entire structure with the aid of the inspection findings from the RailPros 2021 condition assessment.

Task 2.3. Preliminary Geotechnical Seismic Assessment
Crawford will perform a preliminary geotechnical seismic assessment of the existing structure with the primary objective to identify and assess the potential for seismic hazards. Crawford will review available existing boring data and laboratory test data presented in previously completed reports from nearby structures to evaluate and analyze the geotechnical project elements identified above. Crawford will use published correlations based on existing data to identify potentially liquefiable soil layers and associated secondary seismic effects. 6-15
300
Item 7 B.

Capitola Trestle Planning and Feasibility Seismic Assessment Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (SCCRTC)

Page 3 of 4 ends

Task 2.4. Geotechnical Field Investigation
Crawford will perform a limited field investigation at critical support locations using CPT explorations to collect continuous soil data for a preliminary liquefaction evaluation. This will include CPT coordination, obtaining permits and marking for USA, subsurface exploration of up to 4 CPT explorations to 100 ft max depth or refusal and engineering analysis to evaluate the liquefaction potential at the completed exploration locations.

TASK 3. EXISTING BRIDGE SEISMIC VULNERABILITY REVIEW
Mark Thomas will perform a seismic vulnerability review of the existing structure to build upon the Condition Assessment performed by RailPros in their 2021 report. The RailPros 2021 assessment reviewed the existing structure service and strength capacities, however it noted that no seismic considerations were performed as a part of that assessment and that an additional seismic assessment was required.

Task 3.1. Caltrans Seismic Vulnerability Review
Mark Thomas will perform a planning-level seismic vulnerability review of the existing structure using applicable Caltrans seismic criteria as a reference framework. The review will be based upon Caltrans seismic retrofit procedures and requirements specified in Memo To Designers 20-4 and Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria version 2.1, and the Caltrans Seismic Design Specification for Steel Bridges 2nd edition as applicable. The review will review as-builts, the existing structure in the field, and the preliminary geotechnical assessment performed by Crawford to look for potential seismic vulnerabilities. No analysis will be conducted as a part of this assessment.

Task 3.2. MP 15.89c Wrought Iron Truss Assessment
Mark Thomas will provide SCCRTC with alternatives for the potential seismic retrofit or seismic isolation of the existing main span wrought iron truss, MP 15.89c. Seismic retrofit or seismic isolation of the wrought iron truss is anticipated based upon the existing structure type and material type. Seismic retrofit or seismic isolation alternatives will be limited to 2 options including: retrofitting through member and connection strengthening or replacement, or seismic isolating through the use of a steel girder over the existing truss. In addition to reuse, one replacement alternative will be considered through the use of a prefabricated steel truss bridge. These alternatives will also be discussed for their ability to be returned to rail use or shifted to a new alignment at a future date. Alternatives will be presented through the use of figures, photos of similar structures, and exhibits. Construction costs will be based upon similar structure construction costs and square footage cost per structure type.

Alternatives to be considered:
• Seismic Retrofit of Existing Truss
• Seismic Isolation through use of Steel I Girder
• Replacement with Prefabricated Steel Truss Bridge
Task 3.3. MP 15.89b and 15.89d Timber Trestle Assessment Mark Thomas will provide SCCRTC with alternatives for the potential repair or member replacement of the existing timber trestle spans both to the east and west of the existing main span over Soquel Creek, MP 15.89b and 15.89d.

Complete replacement of the timber trestle in kind is anticipated to be a cost effective long term option based upon the high percentage of posts that are anticipated to be recommended for replacement as identified in the RailPros 2021 inspection reports. One alternative for a replacement structure will also be considered assuming the use of steel I girders. Alternatives will also be discussed for their ability to be returned to rail use or shifted to a new alignment at a future date. Alternatives will be presented through the use of figures, photos of similar structures, and exhibits. 6-16
301
Item 7 B.

Capitola Trestle Planning and Feasibility Seismic Assessment Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (SCCRTC)

Page 4 of 4 ends

Construction costs will be based upon similar structure construction costs and square footage cost per structure type.

Mark Thomas will include a basic life cycle cost analysis for the different alternatives compared to the existing timber trestle repair alternative.

Alternatives to be considered:
• Member Repair & Replacement
• Trestle Complete Replacement in Kind (with timber)
• Trestle Complete Replacement with steel I girders
TASK 4. PLANNING AND FEASIBILITY MEMORANDUM
Task 4.1. Planning and Feasibility Memorandum
Mark Thomas will prepare a planning and feasibility study memorandum summarizing the existing condition assessment findings, existing bridge seismic vulnerability review, and existing structure repair and seismic retrofit alternatives. The memorandum will explain how the findings and recommendations build on, advance, modify or supersede the 2021 RailPros Capitola Railroad Bridge – Repurposing Conceptual Study, including its prior conclusions regarding pedestrian/bicycle feasibility, existing condition, and recommended additional work, and will provide guidance on potential next steps. The memorandum will also include potential design and construction costs, project scheduling and project requirements such as environmental, geotechnical and historical studies and investigations that may be required if the existing Capitola Trestle was repurposed for pedestrian use.

Task 4.2. Presentation
Mark Thomas will prepare a presentation summarizing the findings of the Seismic Assessment and present to the Capitola City Council the findings of the Seismic Assessment.

DELIVERABLES
• Evaluation Planning and Feasibility Memorandum
• Alternatives and Cost Summary Matrix
• Presentation Slides for Capitola City Council Presentation • One Presentation to Capitola City Council
Overall Assumptions:
• One round of review by SCCRTC and its representatives shall be addressed per task. 6-17
302
Item 7 B.

Capitola Trestle
Assessment
Cooperative Agreement with the Santa
Cruz County Regional Transportation
Commission
City Council
August 27, 2026
303
Item 7 B.
• Authorize City Manager to execute the Cooperative
Agreement with RTC for Capitola Trestle Assessment
Recommended action
• RTC to issue Mark Thomas engineering a task order and begin assessment
What approval enables
• Does not approve trail conversion, environmental review, final design, construction, operations, maintenance, or future funding
What approval does not do
Capitola Trestle Assessment
304
Item 7 B.
• Five connected bridges: two concrete, two timber, and one wrought-iron bridge.
• Crosses Soquel Creek, Wharf Road, Riverview Avenue, and Capitola Avenue.

Capitola Trestle Assessment
What is the trestle?
305
Item 7 B.

Condition
Update bridge
condition and
timber
deterioration
Ground
Assess soil
conditions and
liquefaction
potential
Seismic
Identify planning
level seismic
vulnerabilities
Options
Compare
potential options
and probable
costs
2021 Conceptual Study found repurposing may be feasible but identified significant information gaps
Capitola Trestle Assessment
Why another study is needed
306
Item 7 B.

Updated bridge
condition
Visual
inspection,
accessible
soundings and
measurements
Preliminary
geotechnical
work
Subsurface
explorations for a
preliminary
liquefaction
evaluation
Seismic
vulnerability
review
Planning-level
review using
Caltrans criteria
Alternatives,
costs and next
steps
Compare repair,
retrofit, and
replacement
concepts
Capitola Trestle Assessment
Study Scope
307
Item 7 B.

Wrought-Iron Main Truss
Retrofit
Strengthen/replace members and
connections
Isolate
Use a steel girder over existing truss
Replace
Consider a prefabricated steel-truss
bridge
Timber Trestle Segments
Repair
Repair and replace deteriorated
members
Replace in kind
Construct new timber-trestle segments
Replace material
Use steel and compare life-cycle costs
Capitola Trestle Assessment
Concepts to Be Evaluated
Conceptual options—not selected or designed projects.
308
Item 7 B.
• Condition, seismic, and preliminary geotechnical findings • Implications for potential trail reuse
• Costs, requirements, and next steps
Planning and Feasibility Memorandum
• Repair, retrofit, isolation, and replacement concepts • Planning-level construction and life-cycle costs
Alternatives and Cost Summary Matrix
• Assessment findings and alternatives
• Presentation to the City Council
Council Presentation
Capitola Trestle Assessment
Study Deliverables
309
Item 7 B.
• Do the updated condition, seismic risks, and probable costs support continued study of trestle reuse?
Does reuse warrant continued study?
• Which repair, retrofit, isolation, or replacement concepts warrant more detailed evaluation?
Which concept merits further study?
• Identify additional structural, geotechnical, environmental, historical, and design work, along with planning-level costs, schedule, risks, and other major requirements.

What would be required next?
Capitola Trestle Assessment
What This Assessment Will Determine
The study refines the decision space; it does not make the policy decision 310
Item 7 B.

City | Sponsor and
Implementing
Agency
Sets technical direction
Manages the assessment
Reviews and accepts
deliverables
Confirms consultant
invoices
RTC | Contract
Administrator
Issues and administers
the task order
Maintains contract
records
Processes consultant
invoices
Provides limited review
and coordination
Funding
$200,000 programmed
RSTPX funds
• $180,000 consultant
• RTC administration:
actual costs up to 10%
Capitola Trestle Assessment
Roles and Funding
311
Item 7 B.

Recommended
Action
Authorize City Manager to
execute a Cooperative
Agreement with Santa
Cruz County Regional
Transportation
Commission (RTC) for
Capitola Trestle
Assessment
312
Item 7 B.

Capitola City Council
Agenda Report
Meeting: August 27, 2026
From: Public Works Department
Subject: Stockton Avenue Bridge Existing Conditions Assessment and Project Development Services Agreement
Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with CSW/ST2 for the assessment of Stockton Avenue Bridge’s existing conditions and project development services in an amount not to exceed $474,912.

Summary: On April 9, 2026, the City Council directed staff to evaluate multiple options for phasing the future of the Stockton Avenue Bridge, including replacement, rehabilitation, retrofit, and deck replacement alternatives, and return with sufficient information for the Council to determine the appropriate next steps.

The proposed agreement is Phase 1 of that work. It provides the engineering investigations, surveys, and technical analyses needed to establish the bridge’s existing conditions, deficiencies, and key project constraints and provides the technical foundation for developing and comparing alternatives.

The funding currently available is sufficient to complete Phase 1, but not the alternatives analysis requested by the Council. At the conclusion of Phase 1, the technical findings will be presented to the Council. Phase 2 would develop and compare the requested alternatives, including planning-level costs, construction considerations, service life, and permitting constraints, and would require separate Council authorization and additional funding.

Approval of this agreement does not commit the City to a particular alternative or future project.

Background: The Stockton Avenue Bridge is one of the City's most important transportation assets, providing the primary connection between Capitola Village and surrounding residential neighborhoods while serving vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, emergency responders, and utility infrastructure.

In FY 2015-16, the City allocated $20,000 from the General Fund to evaluate options for reducing flood risk at Stockton Avenue Bridge. Following completion of a report identifying potential flood-reduction measures, the City allocated an additional $350,000 in FY 2022-23 to evaluate the feasibility of implementing those measures. Before that work began, the City secured $500,000 in grant funding from the California Department of Water Resources, with support from Senator Laird, to evaluate long-term bridge improvements following the January 2023 storms. Since then, the City has completed several technical investigations, including a debris mitigation feasibility study, structural condition evaluation, hydraulic and scour analyses, utility investigations, and preliminary traffic evaluations.

Collectively, these investigations identified several issues requiring further evaluation, including deterioration of portions of the bridge deck, reinforcing steel corrosion, hydraulic and scour concerns, utility conflicts, and questions regarding long-term seismic performance and remaining service life. While these investigations concluded the bridge does not present an immediate collapse risk, they also concluded that additional engineering investigations would be necessary before long-term alternatives could be fully evaluated. The completed engineering investigations are summarized in Attachment 3, with the full Existing Conditions Assessment Memorandum provided as Attachment 4.

On April 9, 2026, the City Council received the structural evaluation findings and directed staff to return with a proposed contract to further evaluate future options for the Stockton Avenue Bridge. Specifically, the City Council directed staff to evaluate multiple bridge replacement options; rehabilitation, retrofit, and deck replacement alternatives; historic preservation considerations; traffic impacts; implementation strategies; funding opportunities; and the potential use of the Capitola Trestle as a temporary pedestrian and bicycle route during bridge construction. The City Council also directed staff to provide a long-term project development strategy and verify consistency with the existing grant requirements. 313
Item 7 C.

The proposed scope of the agreement (Attachment 2) completes the planning-level investigations needed before bridge alternatives can be developed or assessed. In other words, the proposed scope excludes any tasks related to preparing plans, comparing alternatives, estimating alternative-specific costs, or recommending a preferred alternative to the City Council. Any future alternatives analysis, environmental review, or design work would require separate City Council authorization and additional funding.

Discussion: On April 9, 2026, the City Council directed staff to evaluate multiple bridge replacement, rehabilitation, retrofit, and deck replacement alternatives and return with sufficient information for the City Council to determine the appropriate next steps for the project.

The proposed scope (Attachment 2) follows the project-development process typically used for locallyowned bridges to preserve eligibility for potential state and federal funding, which is often necessary given the cost of major bridge rehabilitation or replacement projects.

Attachment 5 illustrates the anticipated project development process and how the proposed agreement fits within the broader evaluation of future bridge improvements. This process begins with engineering investigations to develop a comprehensive understanding of the bridge's existing condition, opportunities, and constraints before long-term alternatives are developed and compared.

This phased approach allows each stage of project development to build upon the findings of the previous phase, ensuring that future alternatives are developed using a comprehensive understanding of the bridge's existing condition and constraints. It also allows the City Council to determine whether additional work is warranted before authorizing subsequent phases of project development.

The Stockton Avenue Bridge is a locally-owned bridge, and as such, the City is responsible for developing the engineering, environmental, and planning information necessary to evaluate future improvements.

While Caltrans administers state and federal bridge funding programs for local agencies, development of project-specific engineering investigations and technical studies for locally owned bridges is the responsibility of the local agency.

Routine bridge inspections prepared under the National Bridge Inspection Standards provide an important assessment of a bridge's current condition and help identify maintenance and repair needs necessary to keep the bridge safely in service. They are an essential component of bridge management and represent one component of a comprehensive understanding of a bridge's overall condition and longterm needs. These inspections are designed to support bridge management and maintenance decisions but are not intended to answer broader project development questions regarding long-term rehabilitation, retrofit, or replacement strategies. Accordingly, a bridge may be determined to be safe for continued service while still exhibiting structural deterioration, seismic vulnerabilities, hydraulic deficiencies, utility conflicts, or other conditions that influence future rehabilitation or replacement decisions. Those broader considerations require engineering investigations and analyses beyond the scope of routine bridge inspections. In the case of the Stockton Avenue Bridge, previous City investigations have already identified several such issues, including deterioration of portions of the bridge deck, reinforcing steel corrosion, hydraulic and scour concerns, utility conflicts, and questions regarding long-term seismic performance and remaining service life.

Building upon the engineering investigations completed to date, the proposed scope expands the evaluation through additional structural, planning-level seismic, hydraulic, traffic, utility, environmental, and historic analyses needed to support future project development. Collectively, the completed and proposed investigations will establish the engineering basis necessary to understand the bridge's deficiencies, opportunities, and constraints and provide the information needed to evaluate future bridge alternatives. A summary of the completed investigations is provided in Attachment 3, with the full Existing Conditions Assessment Memorandum included as Attachment 4.

One of the technical investigations included in the proposed scope is a historic resource evaluation. This work is required as part of the project development process and will document the bridge's historic significance and identify the regulatory requirements that would apply to future potential projects. 314
Item 7 C.

Completion of the historic evaluation does not determine whether the bridge will ultimately be rehabilitated, retrofitted, or replaced, nor does it predetermine the outcome of the alternatives evaluation.

Rather, it ensures that historic considerations are identified early and incorporated into the evaluation of future alternatives. Should a future project affect a historic resource, additional coordination and environmental review would be required in accordance with applicable City, state and federal regulations.

Collectively, the completed and proposed investigations will establish the engineering basis necessary to understand the bridge's deficiencies, opportunities, and constraints and provide the information needed to evaluate future bridge alternatives.

The proposed $474,912 agreement authorizes Phase 1 only. This work will document the bridge’s existing condition, identify the major issues and constraints, and establish the technical basis for developing bridge alternatives in a future phase. It will not develop or compare alternatives, estimate alternative-specific costs, select a preferred alternative, or prepare design plans.

Table 1. Phase 1 Scope and Budget
Phase 1 Task Amount What It Provides
Task 1 – Project Definition
and Funding Strategy
$35,680 Defines the project needs and requirements and confirms the funding pathway with Caltrans.

Task 2 – Existing
Conditions
$184,905 Survey, geotechnical testing, traffic data, utility review, and bridge-condition documentation.

Task 3 – Technical
Evaluation and Outreach
$206,827 Structural, seismic, hydraulic, traffic, environmental, and historic analysis, plus stakeholder outreach and a Council presentation.

Direct Expenses $47,500 Field testing, traffic control, permits, research, and other project costs.

Total Phase 1 $474,912 Provides the basis for developing alternatives in a future phase.

Table 2 summarizes how the proposed agreement advances each element of the Council's April 9, 2026, direction. Phase 2 is not included in the proposed agreement and would require separate City Council authorization and additional funding.

Table 2. Relationship Between April 9, 2026 Council Direction and the Proposed Scope April 9, 2026, Council Direction How It Is Addressed

1. The contract shall provide the
City Council with preliminary plans
and analysis for multiple bridge
replacement options.

Phase 1 establishes the technical basis for this work.

Preliminary comparisons of rehabilitation, retrofit, deckreplacement, and replacement alternatives, costs, and comparisons would be completed in Phase 2 – Alternatives Analysis (Task 4), subject to future Council authorization.

2. The contract shall also include
evaluation of bridge retrofit and/or
bridge deck replacement
alternatives.

Phase 1 evaluates the bridge’s condition, remaining service life, seismic risk, hydraulics, utilities, traffic, and other constraints. Specific alternatives would be developed and compared in Phase 2.

3. The contract shall allow the City
Council to review the alternatives
and either select a preferred
option.

Alternatives would be presented to the Council following Phase 2 for selection of a preferred option or a decision not to proceed.
315
Item 7 C.

4. The contract shall provide the
City Council with a realistic plan for
evaluating the Capitola Trestle.

Phase 1 evaluates closure impacts, detour needs, and
emergency access. The Trestle is being evaluated in a
separate assessment pursuant to the MOU with the Regional Transportation Commission.

5. The contract shall verify this
approach will satisfy the
requirements of the grant received
for bridge work.

Proposed scope is consistent with the objectives of the existing grant and supports future funding eligibility.

6. The contract shall provide City
Council and the public with a longterm plan for project development and implementation.

Phase 1 identifies the required project-development steps and decision points. A detailed project-development roadmap would be prepared in Phase 2.

7. The contract shall include a traffic
flow chart.

Phase 1 includes existing traffic, detour, and emergency-access analysis. Alternative-specific traffic-flow analysis would be completed in Phase 2.

Next Steps: Upon completion of Phase 1, the technical findings will be presented to the City Council. The City Council may then authorize Phase 2, which would develop and compare rehabilitation, retrofit, deckreplacement, and replacement alternatives, including planning-level costs, service life, construction considerations, and permitting constraints.

Phase 2 and all subsequent environmental review, design, right-of-way, and construction work would require separate City Council authorization and additional funding. Approval of the proposed agreement does not commit the City to a particular alternative or future project.

Public Outreach: The proposed scope includes stakeholder outreach and public engagement throughout the existing conditions assessment. Outreach during this phase will help identify community priorities, local concerns, and operational considerations that may influence future project development.

Community input will be documented and considered as future bridge alternatives are developed and evaluated.

Fiscal Impact: The Stockton Avenue Bridge project is supported by approximately $500,000 in California Department of Water Resources grant funding and $350,000 in previously appropriated City funding, for a total project budget of approximately $850,000.

To date, approximately $200,000 has been expended for bridge access and investigative construction activities, and approximately $151,000 has been expended for professional engineering services, including the debris mitigation feasibility study, structural evaluation, hydraulic and scour analyses, utility investigations, and related technical studies. Approximately $499,000 remains available for completion of the existing conditions assessment and project development services described in this report.

The proposed agreement utilizes the remaining available project funding for the activities described in the proposed scope. The proposed agreement is anticipated to utilize substantially all of the remaining project budget authorized for this phase of work. No additional appropriation is requested as part of this action.

The proposed scope of work integrates the City Council’s phasing strategy into the Caltrans bridge funding process to help ensure that a potential future project is eligible for state funding should the City Council decide pursue such a project.
316
Item 7 C.

Attachments:

1. Professional Services Agreement

2. Scope of Work

3. Executive Summary – Stockton Avenue Bridge Existing Conditions Assessment

4. Existing Conditions Assessment Memorandum

5. Project Development Process Overview

6. Public Comment Received Before Agenda Published
Alignment with 2025-2029 Strategic Plan Priority: Community Safety; Sustainable Infrastructure Report Prepared By: Jessica Kahn, Public Works Director Reviewed By: Julia Gautho, City Clerk
Approved By: Jamie Goldstein, City Manager
317
Item 7 C.

CITY OF CAPITOLA

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
Stockton Avenue Bridge Project
CSWST2

THIS AGREEMENT is entered into on August 27, 2026, by and between the City of Capitola, a Municipal Corporation, hereinafter called "City" and CSWST2, hereinafter called "Consultant".

WHEREAS, City desires certain services described in Appendix One and Consultant is capable of providing and desires to provide these services;
NOW, THEREFORE, City and Consultant for the consideration and upon the terms and conditions hereinafter specified agree as follows:

SECTION 1
Scope of Services
The services to be performed under this Agreement include existing-conditions analysis and technical studies to support evaluation of rehabilitation, retrofit, and/or replacement alternatives for the Stockton Avenue Bridge, as further detailed in Appendix One.

SECTION 2
Duties of Consultant
All work performed by Consultant, or under its direction, shall be sufficient to satisfy the City's objectives for entering into this Agreement and shall be rendered in accordance with the generally accepted practices, and to the standards of, Consultant's profession.

Consultant shall not undertake any work beyond the scope of work set forth in Appendix One unless such additional work is approved in advance and in writing by City. The cost of such additional work shall be reimbursed to Consultant by City on the same basis as provided for in Section 4.

If, in the prosecution of the work, it is necessary to conduct field operations, security and safety of the job site will be the Consultant's responsibility excluding, nevertheless, the security and safety of any facility of City within the job site which is not under the Consultant's control.

Consultant shall meet with Public Works Director, called “Director," or other City personnel, or third parties as necessary, on all matters connected with carrying out of Consultant's services described in Appendix One. Such meetings shall be held at the request of either party hereto. Review and City approval of completed work shall be obtained monthly, or at such intervals as may be mutually agreed upon, during the course of this work.

SECTION 3
Duties of the City
City shall make available to Consultant all data and information in the City's possession which City deems necessary to the preparation and execution of the work, and City shall actively aid and assist Consultant in obtaining such information from other agencies and individuals as necessary.

The Director may authorize a staff person to serve as his or her representative for conferring with Consultant relative to Consultant's services. The work in progress hereunder shall be reviewed from time to time by City at the discretion of City or upon the request of Consultant. If the work is satisfactory, it will be approved. If the work is not satisfactory, City will inform Consultant of the changes or revisions necessary to secure approval.
318
Item 7 C.

Professional Services Agreement August 27, 2026
Stockton Avenue Bridge Project
CSWST2

Page 2 ends

SECTION 4
Fees and Payment
Payment for the Consultant's services shall be made upon a schedule and within the limit, or limits shown, upon Appendix Two. Such payment shall be considered the full compensation for all personnel, materials, supplies, and equipment used by Consultant in carrying out the work. If Consultant is compensated on an hourly basis, Consultant shall track the number of hours Consultant, and each of Consultant’s employees, has worked under this Agreement during each fiscal year (July 1 through June 30) and Consultant shall immediately notify City if the number of hours worked during any fiscal year by any of Consultant’s employees reaches 900 hours. In addition, each invoice submitted by Consultant to City shall specify the number of hours to date Consultant, and each of Consultant’s employees, has worked under this Agreement during the current fiscal year.

SECTION 5
Changes in Work
City may order major changes in scope or character of the work, either decreasing or increasing the scope of Consultant's services. No changes in the Scope of Work as described in Appendix One shall be made without the City's written approval. Any change requiring compensation in excess of the sum specified in Appendix Two shall be approved in advance in writing by the City.

SECTION 6
Time of Beginning and Schedule for Completion
This Agreement will become effective when signed by both parties and will terminate on the earlier of:
 The date Consultant completes the services required by this Agreement, as agreed by the City; or  The date either party terminates the Agreement as provided below.

Work shall begin on or about September 1, 2026.

In the event that major changes are ordered or Consultant is delayed in performance of its services by circumstances beyond its control, the City will grant Consultant a reasonable adjustment in the schedule for completion provided that to do so would not frustrate the City's objective for entering into this Agreement.

Consultant must submit all claims for adjustments to City within thirty calendar days of the time of occurrence of circumstances necessitating the adjustment.

SECTION 7
Termination
City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement at any time upon giving ten days written notice to Consultant. Consultant may terminate this Agreement upon written notice to City should the City fail to fulfill its duties as set forth in this Agreement. In the event of termination, City shall pay the Consultant for all services performed and accepted under this Agreement up to the date of termination. 319
Item 7 C.

Professional Services Agreement August 27, 2026
Stockton Avenue Bridge Project
CSWST2

Page 3 ends

SECTION 8
Insurance
Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract and for 1 years thereafter, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, his agents, representatives, or employees.

Minimum Scope of Insurance
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:

1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (Occurrence Form CG 0001).

2. Insurance Services office Form Number CA 0001 covering Automobile Liability, Code 1 (any auto).

3. Workers’ Compensation insurance as required by the State of California, and Employer’s Liability Insurance.

4. Professional (Errors and Omissions) Liability insurance appropriate to the consultant’s profession. Architects’ and engineers’ coverage shall include contractual liability.

Minimum Limits of Insurance
Consultant shall maintain limits no less than:

1. General Liability:
(including operations,
products and completed
operations)
$1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 in
aggregate (including operations, for bodily injury,
personal and property damage.

2. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.

3. 4.

Employer’s Liability Insurance
Errors and Omissions
Liability:

Limits
$1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and
property damage.
$1,000,000 per claim and $2,000,000 in the
aggregate.
320
Item 7 C.

Professional Services Agreement August 27, 2026
Stockton Avenue Bridge Project
CSWST2

Page 4 ends

Other Insurance Provisions
The commercial general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:

1. The City of Capitola, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as additional insured’s as respects: liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Consultant or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant.

2. For any claims related to this project, the Consultant’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers.

Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.

3. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be canceled except after prior written notice has been given to the City.

Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City.

Waiver of Subrogation
Contractor hereby agrees to waive rights of subrogation which any insurer of Contractor may acquire from Contractor by virtue of the payment of any loss. Contractor agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation. The Workers’ Compensation policy shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City of Capitola for all work performed by the Contractor, its employees, agents and subcontractors.

Verification of Coverage
Consultant shall furnish the City with original certificates and amendatory endorsements affecting coverage by this clause. The endorsements should be on forms provided by the City or on other than the City’s forms provided those endorsements conform to City requirements. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the coverage required by these specifications at any time.

SECTION 9
Indemnification
For General Services: To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its directors, officers, employees from and against any and all claims, demands, actions, liabilities, damages, judgments, or expenses (including attorneys’ fees and costs) arising from the acts or omissions of Consultant’s employees or agents in any way related to the obligations or in the performance of services under this Agreement, except for design professional services as defined in Civil Code § 2782.8, and except where caused by the sole or active negligence, or willful misconduct of the City. 321
Item 7 C.

Professional Services Agreement August 27, 2026
Stockton Avenue Bridge Project
CSWST2

Page 5 ends

For Design Professional Services under Civil Code §2782.8: To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its directors, officers, and employees from and against any and all claims, demands, actions, liabilities, damages, or expenses (including attorneys’ fees and costs) arising from the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant, Consultant’s employees, or agents in any way related to the obligations or in the performance of design professional services under this Agreement as defined in Civil Code §2782.8, except where caused by the sole or active negligence, or willful misconduct of the City. The costs to defend charged to the Consultant relating to design professional services shall not exceed the Consultant’s proportionate percentage of fault per Civil Code §2782.8.and against all claims, damages, losses, and expenses including attorney fees arising out of the performance of the work described herein, caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission of the Consultant, Consultant’s employees, agents or subcontractors, except where caused by the active negligence, sole negligence, or willful misconduct of the City.

SECTION 10
Civil Rights Compliance/Equal Opportunity Assurance
Every supplier of materials and services and all consultants doing business with the City of Capitola shall be in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and shall be an equal opportunity employer as defined by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and including the California Fair Employment and Housing Act of 1980. As such, Consultant shall not discriminate against any person on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, disability, medical condition, marital status, age or sex with respect to hiring, application for employment, tenure or terms and conditions of employment. Consultant agrees to abide by all of the foregoing statutes and regulations.

SECTION 11
Legal Action/Attorneys' Fees
If any action at law or in equity is brought to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees in addition to any other relief to which he or she may be entitled. The laws of the State of California shall govern all matters relating to the validity, interpretation, and effect of this Agreement and any authorized or alleged changes, the performance of any of its terms, as well as the rights and obligations of Consultant and the City.

SECTION 12
Assignment
This Agreement shall not be assigned without first obtaining the express written consent of the Director after approval of the City Council.

SECTION 13
Amendments
This Agreement may not be amended in any respect except by way of a written instrument which expressly references and identifies this particular Agreement, which expressly states that its purpose is to amend this particular Agreement, and which is duly executed by the City and Consultant. Consultant acknowledges that no such amendment shall be effective until approved and authorized by the City Council, or an officer of the City when the City Council may from time to time empower an officer of the City to approve and authorize such amendments. No representative of the City is authorized to obligate the City to pay the cost or value of services beyond the scope of services set forth in Appendix Two. Such 322
Item 7 C.

Professional Services Agreement August 27, 2026
Stockton Avenue Bridge Project
CSWST2

Page 6 ends

authority is retained solely by the City Council. Unless expressly authorized by the City Council, Consultant's compensation shall be limited to that set forth in Appendix Two.

SECTION 14
Miscellaneous Provisions

1. Project Manager. Director reserves the right to approve the project manager assigned by Consultant to said work. No change in assignment may occur without prior written approval of the City.

2. Consultant Service. Consultant is employed to render professional services only and any payments made to Consultant are compensation solely for such professional services.

3. Licensure. Consultant warrants that he or she has complied with any and all applicable governmental licensing requirements.

4. Other Agreements. This Agreement supersedes any and all other agreements, either oral or in writing, between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter, and no other agreement, statement or promise related to the subject matter of this Agreement which is not contained in this Agreement shall be valid or binding.

5. City Property. Upon payment for the work performed, or portion thereof, all drawings, specifications, records, or other documents generated by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement are, and shall remain, the property of the City whether the project for which they are made is executed or not. The Consultant shall be permitted to retain copies, including reproducible copies, of drawings and specifications for information and reference in connection with the City's use and/or occupancy of the project. The drawings, specifications, records, documents, and Consultant's other work product shall not be used by the Consultant on other projects, except by agreement in writing and with appropriate compensation to the City.

6. Consultant's Records. Consultant shall maintain accurate accounting records and other written documentation pertaining to the costs incurred for this project. Such records and documentation shall be kept available at Consultant's office during the period of this Agreement, and after the term of this Agreement for a period of three years from the date of the final City payment for Consultant's services.

7. Independent Contractor. In the performance of its work, it is expressly understood that Consultant, including Consultant's agents, servants, employees, and subcontractors, is an independent contractor solely responsible for its acts and omissions, and Consultant shall not be considered an employee of the City for any purpose.

8. Conflicts of Interest. Consultant stipulates that corporately or individually, its firm, its employees and subcontractors have no financial interest in either the success or failure of any project which is, or may be, dependent on the results of the Consultant's work product prepared pursuant to this Agreement.

9. Notices. All notices herein provided to be given, or which may be given by either party to the other, shall be deemed to have been fully given and fully received when made in writing and deposited in the United States mail, certified and postage prepaid, and addressed to the respective parties as follows:

323
Item 7 C.

Professional Services Agreement August 27, 2026
Stockton Avenue Bridge Project
CSWST2

Page 7 ends

CITY CONSULTANT

CITY OF CAPITOLA
420 Capitola Avenue
Capitola, CA 95010
831-475-7300
By:__________________________________
Benjamin Goldstein, City Manager
By:__________________________________

Dated:________________________________ Dated:_______________________________ Approved as to Form:
_______________________________
Marc Tran, City Attorney

324
Item 7 C.

CSWST2.com
CSWST2 | 303 Twin Dolphin Drive Redwood Shores, 6th Floor, Redwood City, CA 94065 | t. 415.883.9850

WORK PLAN

PROJECT PHASING AND AUTHORIZATION
The scope of work is organized into two phases.

Phase 1 Current Authorization (Tasks 1–3): The currently available grant funding is su,icient to complete Tasks 1 through 3. These tasks establish the purpose and need, document existing conditions, complete technical studies, identify deficiencies and constraints, and provide the information necessary for City Council to evaluate potential bridge rehabilitation, retrofit, and replacement alternatives.

Phase 2 Future Council Authorization (Tasks 4–6): Tasks 4 through 6 are not included in the current authorization and are presented for planning purposes only. Upon completion of Tasks 1 through 3 and presentation of findings to the City Council, the Council may elect to authorize Task 4 (Alternatives Analysis and Advance Planning Study). Following completion of Task 4 and selection of a preferred alternative, the Council may separately authorize Tasks 5 and 6 to complete environmental clearance, permitting, and preliminary engineering through approximately 35 percent design.

PHASE 1
TASK 1 – PROJECT INITIATION & SCOPING (PID / PROJECT DEFINITION) Goal: Establish purpose and need, funding pathway, and baseline scope.

1.1 Project Kicko2 & Coordination. Key members of our team will host a meeting with City sta,, Caltrans District Local Assistance and stakeholders. The goal of the meeting will be to confirm project goals, schedule, and budget, funding strategy (HBP/BIP/other federal programs), required Caltrans deliverables (PID/PSR-PDS/PEAR/PES as applicable).

1.2 Purpose & Need Development. Our team will meet with the City to finalize the logical termini and project limits and define the deficiencies to be analyzed. We will prepare a Project Charter / Initial Project Definition Memorandum. These deficiencies could include the following:

A. Structural condition (from inspection reports)
B. Seismic vulnerability
C. Hydraulic/scour risk
D. Functional obsolescence (width, geometrics)

1.3 Stakeholder & Outreach Strategy. Our team will develop an outreach strategy that establishes the project’s messaging, key stakeholders, and engagement methods and tools.

The strategy may include establishing and updating a project website, small-group stakeholder meetings with adjacent property owners and any other groups identified with City sta,, and two on-site pop-up engagement events at the project site. The strategy will address messaging that is aligned with funding priorities (i.e. safety, resilience, equity).

1.4 Contract Management. CSWST2 will be responsible for the overall management of our design team, including the following:
325
Item 7 C.

Page 2 of 2 ends

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture A. Project Management: CSWST2 will manage the design team as well as track progress, schedule, and budget. We will be responsible for documenting all design decisions and keeping an o,icial record of the project. Furthermore, we will submit monthly progress reports identifying tasks completed, budget status, and issues status.

B. Quality Control/ Assurance: As part of the QA/QC process, an independent member of the design team will complete an internal review of our documents checking for errors, perform a constructability review. Our independent QA/QC reviews will occur at the 35%, 65% and 95% PS&E submittals in parallel with the City review process.

C. Meetings: The team will attend up to three (3) meetings during this phase of work.

Task 1 Deliverable:
• Project Charter / Initial Project Definition (PID framework) TASK 2 – DATA COLLECTION & EXISTING CONDITIONS
Goal: Develop complete technical baseline for analysis.

2.1 Data Collection and Field Review. To support the design e,ort and refine the extent of technical studies required, our team will complete the following:

A. Data Collection. The team will collect and review the following documents:
i. As-Built Records
ii. Previous Environmental Technical Analysis and Documents iii. Relevant Information from Online Databases
iv. Records from Information Centers
v. Area of Potential E,ects (APE) Mapping
B. Field Investigations. To support the assessment of existing bridge conditions, our team will perform the following:
i. Bridge Condition Assessment. This scope has already been completed. ii. Utility Observations. This scope has already been completed. iii. Existing Conditions Mapping. Our team will complete a survey of the Stockton Avenue Bridge to support the final design process. This will include the following tasks.
a. Survey: Our team will perform a topographic survey, which generally will include back of curb, face of curb, street centerline, top of bank, abutments, edge of pavement, and surface utilities.

We will depict drainage patterns with spot elevations and contour data at 1-foot intervals.
b. Prepare Base Map: CSWST2 will develop a detailed base map integrating topography, boundary, and utility information. 326
Item 7 C.

Page 2 of 2 ends

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture C. Tra2ic Data Collection. Fehr and Peers will collect existing tra,ic data. The data collected will include:
i. Vehicular Tra2ic: Average Daily Tra,ic (ADT), Peak hour turning movement counts, Directional distribution, Truck percentages
ii. Multimodal Data: Bicycle volumes, Pedestrian activity, Transit routes and stops, School routes and recreational access
iii. Safety Data: Collision history review (5-year minimum), SWITRS data evaluation, Identification of collision patterns and safety deficiencies iv. Emergency Access: Coordination with emergency responders and Identification of emergency access constraints during construction D. Geotechnical Investigations. ENGEO will perform a preliminary geotechnical investigation to assess the necessary design criteria for a new foundation to support the bridge and evaluate range of potential capacity of the existing foundation system if the bridge were to remain. ENGEO will retain the services of a subcontractor to push two cone penetration tests (CPTs) to depths up to 100 feet below the ground surface, or refusal, whichever occurs first. ENGEO will collect shear wave velocity measurements at intervals of every 5 vertical feet. ENGEO will retain tra,ic control services to guide tra,ic during CPT operations. ENGEO will perform preliminary analyses and prepare a Preliminary Foundation Report that conforms to Caltrans requirements. ENGEO will prepare a single version of the report. The report will be signed by a licensed California Geotechnical Engineer and California Certified Engineering Geologist.

E. Historic Architect Site Visit. GPA will conduct a site visit to photograph the bridge and surrounding properties to identify any known or potential historic properties in the APE. Potential historic properties are those with buildings or structures over 45 years of age. Known historic properties are those that are listed or have been determined eligible for listing under the local, state, or federal landmark and historic district programs (including the bridge). Digital photographs will be taken during the field survey. All photographs will be taken from the public right-of-way, unless property access is granted in advance.

2.2 Utility Agency Coordination. The project team will perform a preliminary utilities assessment to identify existing public and private utility infrastructure that may be a,ected by the proposed bridge rehabilitation or replacement alternatives. This task will include a review of utility records, as-built drawings, field observations, and available mapping to identify overhead and underground facilities, bridge-mounted utilities, drainage infrastructure, and service connections within the project corridor. The team will coordinate with utility providers and the City to evaluate potential utility conflicts, relocation requirements, protection measures, service continuity considerations, and construction constraints associated with each alternative. The assessment will support project planning, 327
Item 7 C.

Page 2 of 2 ends

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture risk evaluation, cost estimating, environmental documentation, and preliminary design development.

2.3 Bridge Condition Assessment Report & Basis of Design Memorandum A. Draft. CSWST2 and BCA will prepare a draft Bridge Condition Report and Preliminary Basis of Design Memorandum. Field Assessment observation results from the interior of the bridge superstructure will be incorporated along with the deck repair recommendations in the Caltrans Bridge Inspection Reports. Report to include Site Photos, relevant Bridge Inspection Reports, and Key Plan of damage locations, design criteria assumptions, constraints and opportunities, and preliminary repair vs. replacement triggers.

B. Final. We will address one round of comments and questions by the City and provide a final Bridge Condition Report and Basis of Design Memorandum.

2.4 City Council Update. CSWST2 and BCA will meet with the City Council to provide an update on findings from the Data Collection and Existing Conditions Phase.

2.5 Contract Management. We will perform the tasks outlined in Task 1.4. We anticipate three (3) meetings during this phase of work.

Task 2 Deliverables:
• Topographic Survey Map
• Draft and Final Bridge Conditions Assessment Report & Preliminary Basis of Design Memorandum
• Preliminary Foundation Report.
• Utility Conflict Matrix
• Meeting agendas, presentation, and minutes.

TASK 3 – TECHNICAL STUDIES & DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS
Goal: Quantify deficiencies and constraints that drive alternatives.

3.1 Structural Evaluation. BCA will perform a structural evaluation of the existing Stockton Avenue Bridge to identify structural deficiencies, repair needs, service-life considerations, and factors influencing rehabilitation versus replacement alternatives. The evaluation will build upon available bridge inspection reports, as-built information, field assessment findings, and the Bridge Condition Assessment Report prepared under Task 2.3. The evaluation will include the following:

A. Condition-based assessment
B. Load rating review (if needed)
C. Remaining service life estimate
328
Item 7 C.

Page 2 of 2 ends

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture

3.2 Historic Architectural Assessment Reports (HPSR/HRER). GPA will conduct outreach to potentially interested members of the public in accordance with established Caltrans Section 106 procedures. GPA will provide a correspondence log for inclusion in the HPSR.

GPA will prepare the draft and final HPSR and incorporate the results of the Archaeological Survey Report (ASR) prepared by Albion. GPA will incorporate comments received from the interested parties outreach and built-environment resources in the APE.

A. Archaeological Survey and APE Support. Denise Du,y & Associates (DDA) has engaged Albion to support preparation of the Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR) by conducting an archaeological records search, developing the archaeological Area of Potential E,ects (APE), preparing APE mapping and GIS shapefiles, conducting an archaeological field survey, and preparing an Archaeological Survey Report (ASR) in accordance with Caltrans and Section 106 requirements. Albion will provide the records search results, APE mapping, GIS data, and ASR findings to GPA for incorporation into the HPSR and related cultural resources documentation.

3.3 Preliminary Bridge Hydrology and Hydraulics Report. CSWST2 will prepare a draft hydrology and hydraulics report assessing existing bridge conditions and bridge replacement alternatives on Soquel Creek. The report will include the following:

A. Hydraulic capacity
B. Analysis methodology
C. Debris mitigation
D. Storm selection.

E. Freeboard
F. Scour

3.4 Seismic Screening. BCA will perform a planning-level seismic screening of the existing bridge to identify seismic vulnerabilities and determine how seismic performance may influence rehabilitation, retrofit, or replacement alternatives. The screening will be based on available as-built plans, bridge inspection records, field assessment findings, geotechnical information, and applicable Caltrans seismic design guidance. The evaluation will include the following:

A. Caltrans SDC-based evaluation
B. Retrofit vs. replacement triggers

3.5 Tra2ic & Operations. The team will evaluate existing transportation operations within the bridge corridor and adjacent intersections. The analysis will address the following:

A. Lane configuration adequacy
B. Intersection operations
C. Queueing observations
D. Sight distance review
E. Pedestrian and bicycle conflicts
F. Freight movement considerations
329
Item 7 C.

Page 2 of 2 ends

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture

3.6 Detour & Closure Analysis. The team will evaluate temporary bridge closure scenarios associated with rehabilitation and replacement alternatives. The analysis will include:

A. Identification of feasible detour routes
B. Emergency response implications
C. School and transit impacts
D. Freight routing impacts
E. Estimated detour travel times and user delay

3.7 Environmental Constraints (Planning-Level). DDA will prepare an environmental constraints memorandum. The memorandum will address biological resources, cultural resources, hazardous materials screening and permitting complexity risk.

3.8 Outreach.

A. Engagement Toolkit. CSWST2 will build the engagement toolkit, anticipated to include branding, project website, QR code, key messaging and project description, schedule graphic, and mailer template.

B. Stakeholder Meeting. CSWST2 will coordinate and facilitate a meeting with the local business community to gather initial feedback on the project purpose, goals, and schedule

3.9 Council Presentation. CSWST2 and BCA will present the findings of the technical studies and deficiency analysis to the City Council and receive direction.

3.10 Contract Management. We will perform the tasks outlined in Task 1.4. We anticipate three (3) meetings during this phase of work.

ID Task Name Duration Start
1 Stockton Avenue Bridge Project 662 days Thu 6/25/26
2 Council Authorization / NTP 1 day Thu 6/25/26
3 PHASE 1 207 days Fri 7/3/26
4 Task 1 Project Initiation 6 days Fri 7/3/26
5 Project Kickoff 1 day Fri 7/3/26
6 Purpose & Need Workshop 5 days Mon 7/6/26
7 Funding Strategy Confirmation 5 days Mon 7/6/26
8 Stakeholder Outreach Plan 5 days Mon 7/6/26
9 Project Charter 5 days Mon 7/6/26
10 Task 2 Data Collection & Existing Conditions 126 days Mon 7/13/26 11 Collect Existing Documents 5 days Mon 7/13/26
12 Review As-Builts 5 days Mon 7/20/26
13 Field Investigation 45 days Mon 7/27/26
14 Topographic Survey 30 days Mon 7/27/26
15 Utility Mapping 30 days Mon 7/27/26
16 Traffic Data Collection 30 days Mon 7/27/26
17 Field Reconnaissance 30 days Mon 7/27/26
18 Geotechnical Investigation 30 days Mon 8/17/26
19 Historic Site Visit 1 day Mon 9/7/26
20 Utility Coordination 30 days Mon 7/27/26
21 Bridge Condition Report 55 days Mon 9/28/26
22 Draft 30 days Mon 9/28/26
23 City Review 10 days Mon 11/9/26
24 Final 15 days Mon 11/23/26
192429 4 9 14192429 3 8 13182328 2 7 12172227 2 7 12172227 1 6 11162126 1 6 1116212631 5 1015202530 4 9 141924 1 6 1116212631 5 1015202530 5 1015202530 4 9 14192429 4 9 14192429 3 8 13182328 2 7 12172227 2 7 12172227 1 6 11162126 June 2026 July 2026 August 2026 September 2026October 2026 November 2026December 2026 January 2027 February 2027 March 2027 April 2027 May 2027 June 2027 July 2027 August 2027 September 2027October 2027 November 2027 Task
Split
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
Inactive Task
Inactive Milestone
Inactive Summary
Manual Task
Duration-only
Manual Summary Rollup
Manual Summary
Start-only
Finish-only
External Tasks
External Milestone
Deadline
Progress
Manual Progress

Page 1 ends

Project: Schedule - Final
Date: Tue 6/23/26
331
Item 7 C.

ID Task Name Duration Start
25 Council Update 1 day Mon 1/4/27
26 Task 3 Technical Studies & Deficiency Analysis 75 days Tue 1/5/27 27 Structural Evaluation 20 days Tue 1/5/27
28 Historic Assessment 30 days Tue 1/5/27
29 Hydrology/Hydraulics Study 30 days Tue 1/5/27
30 Seismic Screening 20 days Tue 2/2/27
31 Traffic Operations Analysis 30 days Tue 1/5/27
32 Detour Analysis 30 days Tue 1/5/27
33 Environmental Constraints Memo 30 days Tue 1/5/27
34 Outreach 45 days Tue 1/5/27
35 Technical Findings Report 15 days Tue 3/9/27
36 Council Presentation 0 days Mon 4/19/27
37 Council Authorization Task 4 0 days Mon 4/19/27
38 Phase 2 449 days Tue 4/20/27
39 Task 4 Alternatives Analysis & APS 145 days Tue 4/20/27 53 Task 5 Environmental Clearance 304 days Tue 11/9/27
79 Task 6 Preliminary Engineering 96 days Tue 11/9/27
4/19
4/19
192429 4 9 14192429 3 8 13182328 2 7 12172227 2 7 12172227 1 6 11162126 1 6 1116212631 5 1015202530 4 9 141924 1 6 1116212631 5 1015202530 5 1015202530 4 9 14192429 4 9 14192429 3 8 13182328 2 7 12172227 2 7 12172227 1 6 11162126 June 2026 July 2026 August 2026 September 2026October 2026 November 2026December 2026 January 2027 February 2027 March 2027 April 2027 May 2027 June 2027 July 2027 August 2027 September 2027October 2027 November 2027 Task
Split
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
Inactive Task
Inactive Milestone
Inactive Summary
Manual Task
Duration-only
Manual Summary Rollup
Manual Summary
Start-only
Finish-only
External Tasks
External Milestone
Deadline
Progress
Manual Progress

Page 2 ends

Project: Schedule - Final
Date: Tue 6/23/26
332
Item 7 C.

Professional Services Agreement August 27, 2026
Stockton Avenue Bridge Project
CSWST2

Page 8 ends

APPENDIX ONE
Scope of Services

333
Item 7 C.

Professional Services Agreement August 27, 2026
Stockton Avenue Bridge Project
CSWST2

Page 9 ends

APPENDIX TWO
Fees and Payments

Consultant will provide invoices to the City for all services and expenses on a monthly basis.

City will endeavor to pay all invoices within 30 days of receipt. The total amount billed by Consultant and paid by City pursuant to this agreement shall not exceed $474,912 without written advance authorization from the City.

Consultant hereby represents and warrants, based upon Consultant’s independent determination of the time and labor, including overtime, which will be required to perform said services, that Consultant will provide all said services at a cost which will not exceed the maximum price set forth in this agreement for Consultant’s services. Consultant hereby assumes the risk that Consultant will perform said services within this maximum price constraint and Consultant acknowledges that its inability to do so shall not excuse completion of the services and shall not provide a basis for additional compensation.

Salary expenses include the actual direct pay of personnel assigned to the project (except for routine secretarial and account services) plus payroll taxes, insurance, sick leave, holidays, vacation, and other fringe benefits. The percentage of compensation attributable to salary expenses includes all of Consultant’s indirect overhead costs and fees. For purposes of this Agreement, Consultant’s salary expenses and non-salary expenses will be compensated at the rates set forth in the fee schedule attached to this appendix and in accordance with the terms set forth therein. Non-salary expenses include travel, meals and lodging while traveling, materials other than normal office supplies, reproduction and printing costs, equipment rental, computer services, service of subconsultants or subcontractors, and other identifiable job expenses. The use of Consultant’s vehicles for travel shall be paid at the current Internal Revenue Service published mileage rate.

Salary payment for personnel time will be made at the rates set forth in the attached fee schedule for all time charged to the project. Normal payroll rates are for 40 hours per week. Consultant shall not charge the City for personnel overtime salary at rates higher than those set forth in the attached fee schedule without the City’s prior written authorization.

In no event shall the total fee charged for the scope of work set forth in Appendix One exceed the total budget of $474,912, without specific, written advance authorization from the City.

Payments shall be made monthly by the City, based on itemized invoices from the Consultant which list actual costs and expenses. Such payments shall be for the invoice amount. The monthly statements shall contain the following affidavit signed by a principal of the Consultant’s firm:
"I hereby certify as principal of the firm of CSWST2, that the charge of $__________ as summarized above and shown in detail on the attachments is fair and reasonable, is in accordance with the terms of the Agreement dated August 27, 2026, and has not been previously paid." 334
Item 7 C.

STOCKTON AVENUE BRIDGE PROJECT 06.23.2026

CITY OF CAPITOLA

STOCKTON AVENUE BRIDGE PROJECT
CAS 04
JUNE 23, 2026
336
Item 7 C.

CSWST2.com
CSWST2 | 303 Twin Dolphin Drive Redwood Shores, 6th Floor, Redwood City, CA 94065 | t. 415-533-1864 June 23, 2026
Project Number: 2300338.10
Jessica Kahn
Public Works Director
City of Capitola
420 Capitola Avenue
Capitola, CA 95010
SUBJECT: STOCKTON AVENUE BRIDGE PROJECT
Dear Jessica:

The low-lying Capitola Village is a cultural and business center for Capitola. The flood risk debris build up at the Stockton Creek Bridge could be catastrophic to the area. The CSWST2 team presents our proposal to assist the City and community in assessing the historic bridge as a countermeasures and safeguarded this vital transportation asset.

Stockton Avenue Bridge is located in the lower reaches of the Soquel Creek Watershed, which is situated between the cities of Santa Cruz and Watsonville. The Soquel Creek watershed drains an area of approximately 42 square miles. The watershed is comprised of urban development, rural residential development, agriculture, parks and recreation, and mining and timber harvesting. The Village, a cultural and business center in Capitola, is located at the terminus of Soquel Creek, where it enters the Pacific Ocean.

Aerial photograph of Soquel Creek and Stockton Avenue Bridge 337
Item 7 C.

Page 2 of 3 ends

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture Besides State Route 1 Bridge, Stockton Avenue Bridge is the only connection linking east and west Capitola and serves as the primary evacuation route for the low-lying Capitola Village. In addition, the finish line of the popular Wharf to Wharf race is located across the bridge at the Capitola in the Village. Heavy storms that occurred in January 2023 illustrated the increased intensity or rain events occurring as a result of climate change.

In June of 2024 CSWST2 issued the Stockton Avenue Bridge – Bridge Pier Debris Mitigation Feasibility Report that assessed the following counter measures to mitigate the debris risk: debris fins, debris deflectors, debris sweepers and bridge replacement. During the March 2026 City Council Meeting, City staB was directed to utilize the remaining available grant funds to advance the analysis of Stockton Avenue Bridge via the following motion:
“Motion to direct sta to return as soon as possible with a proposed contract to evaluate options for future work on the Stockton Avenue Bridge to include the following: 1) The contract shall provide the City Council with preliminary plans and analysis for multiple bridge replacement options. These options shall include variations in bridge style, width, and constructability, along with associated cost estimates, potential grant opportunities, anticipated construction timelines, environmental constraints, permitting requirements, and historical analysis. 2) The contract shall also include evaluation of bridge retrofit and/or bridge deck replacement alternatives. These alternatives shall include the same level of information provided for the replacement options, as well as estimates of the expected service life for each alternative. 3) The contract shall allow the City Council to review the alternatives and either select a preferred option and authorize preparation of final engineered plans, or discontinue further work under the contract. 4) At the time these bridge alternatives are presented, sta shall also provide the City Council with a realistic plan for evaluating the Capitola Trestle for potential use as a pedestrian and bicycle route during bridge construction, in order to help mitigate impacts to Capitola Village during the construction period. 5) Verify this approach will satisfy the requirements of the grant received for bridge work. 6) Provide City Council and the public with a long-term plan for project development and implementation. 7) Include a traic flow chart” We have assembled the following team to support the City in this goal:
• Robert Stevens of CSWST2 will be the principal for the project. Robert led our San Mateo County bluB stabilization and bridge project and has secured CDPs up and down the coastline. • Julia Harberson of CSWST2 will be the project manager responsible for implementing the work plan and managing the team to seek consensus on design. She is an experienced hydraulics engineer that has worked with FEMA to develop flood control projects throughout the Bay Area. • Tom Swayze of Biggs Cardosa will be our structural engineer leading our bridge design. Tom was the original engineer for the wall along CliB Drive and has collaborated with Robert and Julia on our projects in San Mateo County.
• Kristine Pillsbury of CSWST2, will be our Hydraulics Engineer responsible for evaluating creek capacity. She is experienced at modelling open channel flow using HEC RAS and evaluation hydrologic with HEC-HMS.
• Jeanine RuBoni, PE, GE, of Engeo will be leading our geotechnical evaluation for this project. She has worked on hundreds of relevant projects including investigations of bay and ocean sites, wetlands, and creek and bay channels.
338
Item 7 C.

Page 3 of 3 ends

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture • Matt Johnson and his team from DDA Planning will lead our environmental permitting process. • Erin Ferguson and her team from Fehr & Peers will lead the traBic analysis. • Anrea Galvin, of GPA Consultants will provide Historic Architectural services.

We are prepared to support the Capitola community in evaluating alternatives and advancing the Stockton Avenue Bridge project. Consistent with the City Council's direction, the remaining grant funding is suBicient to complete Tasks 1 through 3 of the attached Work Plan, which will establish the project purpose and need, collect and evaluate existing conditions, and complete the technical studies necessary to identify project deficiencies and constraints. These tasks will provide the City Council with the information needed to evaluate bridge replacement, rehabilitation, and retrofit alternatives.

Task 4 represents the culmination of the Council's motion and will synthesize the technical findings into a comprehensive alternatives analysis and Advance Planning Study, including evaluation of replacement and retrofit options, consideration of the Capitola Trestle as a temporary pedestrian and bicycle connection during construction, a recommended preferred alternative, verification of grant compliance, a project development roadmap, and a traBic flow assessment. Following presentation of the findings from Tasks 1 through 3 to the City Council, Task 4 can be authorized as the next phase of work at the Council's discretion.

Should the City elect to continue project development, Tasks 5 and 6 would complete the preliminary engineering phase of the project, including environmental clearance, permitting, and advancement of the preferred alternative through approximately 35 percent design. These eBorts would position the project to compete for state and federal funding opportunities and advance toward final design and construction. We have developed the attached Work Plan to be consistent with Caltrans standards and funding requirements to support the City's eBorts to secure future implementation funding. In our experience we have developed the following Work Plan, Fee and Schedule.

Thank you for the opportunity to support the development of the project. We look forward to working with you and your team. If I can provide any additional information, please contact me at (415) 884-6443 or by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
CSWST2
Julia Harberson, R.C.E. No. 76626
Principal
339
Item 7 C.

CSWST2.com
CSWST2 | 303 Twin Dolphin Drive Redwood Shores, 6th Floor, Redwood City, CA 94065 | t. 415.883.9850

WORK PLAN

PROJECT PHASING AND AUTHORIZATION
The scope of work is organized into two phases.

PHASE 1
TASK 1 – PROJECT INITIATION & SCOPING (PID / PROJECT DEFINITION) Goal: Establish purpose and need, funding pathway, and baseline scope.

A. Structural condition (from inspection reports)
B. Seismic vulnerability
C. Hydraulic/scour risk
D. Functional obsolescence (width, geometrics)

1.3 Stakeholder & Outreach Strategy. Our team will develop an outreach strategy that establishes the project’s messaging, key stakeholders, and engagement methods and tools.

1.4 Contract Management. CSWST2 will be responsible for the overall management of our design team, including the following:
340
Item 7 C.

Page 2 of 2 ends

C. Meetings: The team will attend up to three (3) meetings during this phase of work.

Task 1 Deliverable:
• Project Charter / Initial Project Definition (PID framework) TASK 2 – DATA COLLECTION & EXISTING CONDITIONS
Goal: Develop complete technical baseline for analysis.

2.1 Data Collection and Field Review. To support the design e,ort and refine the extent of technical studies required, our team will complete the following:

Page 2 of 2 ends

B. Final. We will address one round of comments and questions by the City and provide a final Bridge Condition Report and Basis of Design Memorandum.

2.4 City Council Update. CSWST2 and BCA will meet with the City Council to provide an update on findings from the Data Collection and Existing Conditions Phase.

2.5 Contract Management. We will perform the tasks outlined in Task 1.4. We anticipate three (3) meetings during this phase of work.

TASK 3 – TECHNICAL STUDIES & DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS
Goal: Quantify deficiencies and constraints that drive alternatives.

A. Condition-based assessment
B. Load rating review (if needed)
C. Remaining service life estimate
343
Item 7 C.

Page 2 of 2 ends

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture

A. Hydraulic capacity
B. Analysis methodology
C. Debris mitigation
D. Storm selection.

E. Freeboard
F. Scour

A. Caltrans SDC-based evaluation
B. Retrofit vs. replacement triggers

3.5 Tra2ic & Operations. The team will evaluate existing transportation operations within the bridge corridor and adjacent intersections. The analysis will address the following:

A. Lane configuration adequacy
B. Intersection operations
C. Queueing observations
D. Sight distance review
E. Pedestrian and bicycle conflicts
F. Freight movement considerations
344
Item 7 C.

Page 2 of 2 ends

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture

3.6 Detour & Closure Analysis. The team will evaluate temporary bridge closure scenarios associated with rehabilitation and replacement alternatives. The analysis will include:

A. Identification of feasible detour routes
B. Emergency response implications
C. School and transit impacts
D. Freight routing impacts
E. Estimated detour travel times and user delay

3.8 Outreach.

B. Stakeholder Meeting. CSWST2 will coordinate and facilitate a meeting with the local business community to gather initial feedback on the project purpose, goals, and schedule

3.9 Council Presentation. CSWST2 and BCA will present the findings of the technical studies and deficiency analysis to the City Council and receive direction.

3.10 Contract Management. We will perform the tasks outlined in Task 1.4. We anticipate three (3) meetings during this phase of work.

Task 3 Deliverables:
• Structural Evaluation Report
• Preliminary Hydraulics Report
• Existing Tra,ic Operations Technical Memorandum
• Construction Detour & Access Assessment Memorandum
• Environmental Constraints Memorandum
• Archaeological Survey Report
• Draft and Final HPSR
PHASE 2
TASK 4 – ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS & ADVANCE PLANNING STUDY (APS / PID) Goal: Evaluate repair vs. replacement and select preferred alternative. Note, Task 4 is not included in the current authorization. This task may be initiated only upon direction from the City Council following completion of Tasks 1 through 3 and presentation of the technical study findings. 345
Item 7 C.

Page 2 of 2 ends

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture

4.1 Develop Alternatives. The project team will develop and evaluate a range of feasible rehabilitation and replacement alternatives for the existing bridge to address identified structural, hydraulic, seismic, operational, and multimodal deficiencies while supporting future federal funding eligibility and environmental clearance. Alternatives will include a NoBuild Alternative, rehabilitation concepts, and full replacement concepts with varying bridge types, span arrangements, foundation systems, and construction staging approaches.

4.2 Alternatives Evaluation. Each alternative, developed in Task 4.1, will be evaluated based on the following:

A. Structural performance & service life
B. Seismic performance
C. Hydraulic performance
D. Constructability/staging
E. Environmental impacts
F. Alternative Transportation Operations Evaluation. The team will assess transportation impacts associated with each bridge alternative developed during the Advance Planning Study phase. Evaluation Criteria will include:
i. Vehicular capacity
ii. Bicycle and pedestrian accommodation
iii. ADA compliance
iv. Emergency access
v. Tra,ic calming opportunities
vi. Complete Streets consistency
vii. Compatibility with local and regional plans
G. Cost (capital + lifecycle)
H. Risk

4.3 Bridge Advance Planning Study (APS). BCA will develop an Advance Planning Study for bridge selection report. The study will provide for up to two replacement structure alternatives and two retrofit structure alternatives for recommendation. Coordination with Caltrans Structures Local Assistance is not included in the APS phase. The report will include the following:

A. Project Overview
B. Design Criteria
C. Provides structure depth setting profile
D. Alternatives Analysis and Recommendations
E. Spans, width, depth, and type
F. Bridge rail type
G. Foundation types
H. Vertical clearance
I. Aesthetics and Historic Status
J. Bridge removal, stage Construction
K. Location of cut and fill slopes
L. Stationing for roadway
346
Item 7 C.

Page 2 of 2 ends

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture M. Corrosion control measures

4.4 Recommended Alternative. Based on the results of the alternatives analysis, technical evaluations, stakeholder coordination, environmental considerations, and planning-level cost assessments, the project team will identify and recommend a preferred alternative for advancement into environmental clearance and preliminary engineering. The recommended alternative will be selected based on its ability to best satisfy the project Purpose and Need while balancing structural performance, hydraulic capacity, seismic resilience, multimodal access, constructability, environmental impacts, maintenance requirements, lifecycle cost, and overall project risk. The team will document the justification for selection of the preferred alternative, including a comparative evaluation of alternatives considered, key decision factors, and anticipated project benefits. The recommended alternative will also be evaluated for consistency with Caltrans standards and federal funding priorities, including improvements to safety, infrastructure resilience, emergency access, system reliability, and long-term asset sustainability. The preferred alternative and supporting rationale will be documented in the Advance Planning Study and used as the basis for subsequent environmental documentation, funding applications, and 35% preliminary design development.

4.5 Funding & Programming Support. The project team will support the City in advancing the project for state and federal funding opportunities and regional transportation programming. This task will include preparation of technical information, cost estimates, schedule assumptions, project descriptions, and supporting documentation necessary for applications associated with the Highway Bridge Program (HBP), Bridge Investment Program (BIP), and other applicable state or federal funding sources. The team will also provide project information and coordination support for inclusion in the FTIP/FSTIP and other applicable regional or statewide programming documents. In support of funding e,orts, the team will prepare benefit narratives and supporting technical justification describing the project’s anticipated improvements related to public safety, structural reliability, emergency access, multimodal connectivity, climate resilience, hydraulic performance, and long-term infrastructure sustainability. Funding support activities will be coordinated with the City, Caltrans, regional agencies, and other stakeholders as necessary to position the project for future grant competitiveness and delivery.

4.6 Outreach. Our team will support the outreach e,ort to property owners and community members within the project area to gather feedback on the recommended alternative. This e,ort will include the following activities.

A. Project Communications. Our team will update the project website with updated information related to the recommended alternative and schedule, along with opportunities to provide feedback. In addition, we will send mailers via hand delivery and/or USPS to businesses and residences in the project area to build awareness of the project website and opportunities to provide feedback B. Stakeholder Meeting. CSWST2 will coordinate and facilitate a meeting with the project area businesses and residents to gather initial feedback on the recommended alternative.
347
Item 7 C.

Page 2 of 2 ends

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture C. Pop-up Engagement. Our team will conduct one on-site pop-up event to share the alternatives analysis, recommended alternative, and gather feedback.

4.7 Council Presentation. CSWST2 and BCA will present the findings of the alternatives analysis to the City Council and receive direction.

4.8 Contract Management. We will perform the tasks outlined in Task 1.4. We anticipate three (3) meetings during this phase of work.

Task 4 Deliverable:
• Recommended Alternative Memorandum
• Advance Planning Study / PID-level Alternatives Analysis Report TASK 5 – ENVIRONMENTAL (PA&ED / NEPA-CEQA)
Goal: DDA will prepare environmental documentation pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), with the City of Capitola (City) as the lead CEQA agency and Caltrans as the lead NEPA agency (under NEPA Assignment Program Caltrans assumes role for the Federal Highway Administration). DDA assumes that an Initial Study/Environmental Assessment (IS/EA) with a corresponding Mitigated Negative Declaration/Finding of No Significant Impact (MND/FONSI) is the appropriate level of environmental documentation. DDA will also assist the City with procurement of appropriate regulatory permits. Note that if the IS/EA analysis determines that the Project could result in potentially significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, an Environmental Impact Report and/ or Environmental Impact Statement would be required, and this scope would require amendment. DDA will reference previous environmental studies and use the information as a baseline to streamline the current environmental process as appropriate. It is estimated that the environmental clearance process will take approximately eighteen to thirty-six months to complete.

Note, this work may be amended or re-sequenced after alternative selection to ensure compliance with Caltrans and Regulatory Agency requirements. Task 5 is contingent upon City Council authorization following completion of Task 4 and selection of a preferred alternative. Task 5 would advance the project through environmental review, permitting, and environmental clearance.

5.1 Phase 1 Site Assessment. Sub task 5.1 description DDA’s subconsultant will assess the site for potential presence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs) (i.e., levels of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products warranting regulatory cleanup action) and the uses and conditions at properties and facilities in the site vicinities with the potential to cause (or have caused) an REC at the site. The “vicinity” of the site would include properties/facilities within 1/8 mile of the Project area. The Phase I ESA will be performed in general accordance with the ASTM International (ASTM) Designation E 1527- 348
Item 7 C.

Page 2 of 2 ends

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture 21 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. Preparation of the Phase I ESA will include a site reconnaissance, visual survey of adjacent properties, review of standard environmental records sources, review geological and other conditions in the Project area, review historical photographs and topographic maps, and review any additional information provided by the client including information obtained during the environmental process for removal of the bridge structure.

5.2 Project Description. Upon completion of the 35% design for the Proposed Project, DDA will initiate the environmental review for the Project. DDA will discuss the proposed improvements included for the Project with City sta, and CSWST2, confirm expectations regarding the tasks to be completed, and gather information and data specific to the Project site. DDA will work closely with the Project team to develop the appropriate level of detail for the Project description. The Project description will describe the components of the Project as well as the environmental setting for the Project area. DDA will provide a draft description to the City and other members of the Project team, as appropriate, for review and comment. DDA will revise the Project description based on comments received by the Project team and use it as the basis for the Administrative Draft Initial Study/Environmental Assessment.

5.3 Technical Documentation

1. Biological Resources Report. DDA will conduct background research in relevant databases to identify the potential for federally and state-listed species or other special-status species to be within the Project area. DDA will develop a Biological Study Area (BSA) that covers direct and indirect impact areas for the Project. DDA will survey the BSA for plant and wildlife species, their signs, and/or potential habitat. DDA will inventory botanical and wildlife resources observed in the BSA and will identify and record existing vegetation communities in this area. DDA will summarize the results of the research and surveys in a Biological Resources Report (BRR) report. The BRR will include a discussion of the existing biological resources in the BSA, potential impacts on these resources as a result of the Project, and proposed mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate these impacts to a less than significant level.

2. Aquatic Resources Delineation. DDA will delineate jurisdictional wetlands and waters of the United States (U.S.), as defined by the USACE, State Water Resources Control Board, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). To identify the boundaries of the waters of the U.S., DDA will identify the ordinary high-water mark (OHWM) for Soquel Creek within the BSA. The presence or absence of wetlands in the BSA will be verified through an analysis of hydrologic conditions, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydric soils. DDA will summarize existing site conditions 349
Item 7 C.

Page 2 of 2 ends

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture on waters of the U.S. and waters of the state in an Aquatic Resources Delineation (ARD) report. The ARD report will summarize the location of wetlands and other waters under jurisdiction of the USACE, Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and CDFW within and immediately adjacent to the Project area.

3. Noise Study Memorandum. The Project is not anticipated to be capacity increasing and is not anticipated to be designated as a Type I noise Project per federal or state-recommended guidance. As a result, DDA’s subconsultant, Ambient will develop a noise analysis limited to the assessment of short-term, construction-related impacts. A technical memorandum will be prepared to address short-term constructionrelated impacts associated with the Project. The memorandum will include a summary description of the existing noise environment, based on existing environmental documentation. Up to five short-term (e.g., 10- minute) noise measurements will be included. Noise measurement surveys will be conducted during the daytime hours at nearby land uses.

Relevant background information, including noise fundamentals, descriptors, and applicable federal, state, and local regulatory framework, will be described.

To assess potential construction noise impacts, nearby land uses and their relative exposure to the Project area (considering topographic barriers and distance) will be identified. Predicted constructiongenerated noise levels will be calculated using the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model (version

1.0) based on construction equipment anticipated to be required for the Project. Construction-generated noise levels at the nearest land uses will be identified and summarized in tabular format within the report. The significance of construction-generated noise and vibration impacts will be assessed in comparison to applicable standards and recommended significance thresholds. Mitigation measures will be identified for significant and potentially significant impacts. The e,ectiveness of proposed mitigation measures will be assessed and presented.

4. Cultural Resources. As part of this task, DDA’s subcontractor Albion will identify and map the Area of Potential E,ect (APE). The APE Map will depict the area that will be impacted by the Project, including staging and construction access area, utility relocation work, and o,-site mitigation.

Albion will prepare a Cultural Resources Assessment Report (CRAR), which will follow the USACE, Section 408 and 404 Cultural Resource Assessment Report Guidelines and Template with a Section 106 technical report appendix. The CRAR will present the results of the cultural resource 350
Item 7 C.

Page 2 of 2 ends

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture surveys and analyses and provide recommendations for the City regarding the e,ect of the Project. The draft report will be subject to one round of review by the City and USACE.

Albion will also prepare a Section 106 Technical Report as an appendix to the CRAR for the proposed demolition of the bridge and construction of a replacement. As permitting agencies, the USACE and others will be responsible for compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, which requires federal agencies to assess e,ects of undertakings on properties on or eligible for the NRHP. The technical report will assess the potential adverse e,ects on historic properties. It will include a description of the undertaking, the APE, the identification and description of the historic properties within the APE, a description of the results of the CRAR, an assessment of adverse e,ects based on the Criteria of Adverse E,ects (36 CFR Section 800.5), and proposed mitigation measures. In addition, outreach will take place to interested parties.

5. Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions. DDA will prepare an Air Quality Study and Greenhouse Gas Emission (AQ/GHG) Assessment for the Project. DDA technical sta, will prepare the air quality analysis for the Project using guidance from the Monterey Bay Air Resources District’s (MBARD’s) adopted CEQA Guidelines and the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). The analysis will consider potential air quality related impacts resulting from the Project during construction and operation. The Project site is located in the North-Central Coast Air Basin (NCCAB), which includes all of Monterey, Santa Cruz, and San Benito counties. CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and GHG emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects.

6. Historical Resource Evaluation Report (HRER). Although the bridge has been previously evaluated by Caltrans and identified as eligible for the NRHP (Category 2 bridge), there are several buildings that are located adjacent to the bridge that are more than 45 years old that will require evaluation for historic significance in accordance with the Caltrans SER.

If any of these buildings have been previously identified, GPA will identify whether they would require reevaluation or maintain its prior evaluation status. The scope of work for the HRER includes the following tasks:
• Research – Property-specific and general research will be conducted to develop relevant historic contexts for the potential historic properties. Research may include general historical information, 351
Item 7 C.

Page 2 of 2 ends

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture building permits, county tax assessor records, historic aerial photos, historic maps, Sanborn maps, etc.
• Evaluations/DPR 523 Inventory Forms – GPA will prepare the relevant historic contexts and evaluate all properties greater than 45 years of age within the project APE. The results of the evaluations will be recorded on DPR 523 inventory forms and included in the HRER. For the purposes of this scope and cost, we assume that no more than six (6) residential properties will require evaluation (not including the bridge). GPA will NOT reevaluate Stockton Avenue Bridge. • Draft Historical Resource Evaluation Report (HRER) – GPA will prepare the draft HRER according to established Caltrans procedures and submit to the client for review.
• Final Historical Resource Evaluation Report (HRER)– GPA will revise the draft HRER based on comments. We assume three rounds of comments: one from the client, one from the City, and one from Caltrans.

7. Draft Finding of E2ect Document (FAE or FNAE). GPA will prepare a Finding of E,ect (FOE) according to established Caltrans procedures and submit to the client for review. This scope and cost assumes no more than four (4) historic properties in the APE: the Stockton Bridge, and up to three additional potential historic properties. It is assumed the report’s conclusion for the undertaking will be either a Finding of No Adverse E,ect with Standard Conditions: SOIS Action Plan (see separate task for SOIS Action Plan) if the bridge can be rehabilitated OR a Finding of Adverse E,ect and Memorandum of Agreement (see separate task for MOA below) if the bridge will be replaced in whole. The outline for each document will be prepared in accordance with Caltrans SER requirements.

8. (Optional) SOIS Action Plan. Based on GPA’s current knowledge of the project, if the existing bridge could be rehabilitated instead of replaced, an SOIS Action Plan will be required to ensure that the project complies with the SOIS and avoids adverse e,ects to Stockton Bridge, throughout design and construction. The proposed scope of work for the SOIS Action Plan includes the following tasks:
• Identify Action Plan Tasks and Responsible Parties – GPA will identify all necessary tasks related to plan reviews and construction monitoring to complete the SOIS Action Plan, as well as responsible parties from the project team, City, and Caltrans.
352
Item 7 C.

Page 2 of 2 ends

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture • Draft SOIS Action Plan – GPA will prepare a draft SOIS Action Plan according to Caltrans format and content requirements. It will include a summary of the project, the significance and characterdefining features of the historic bridge, plan review and construction monitoring tasks, responsible parties, and required qualifications for members of the project team.
• Final SOIS Action Plan – The draft report will be revised based upon client comments. This scope and cost assumes three rounds of comments: one from the client, one from the City, and one from Caltrans.

9. (Optional) MOA. The optional MOA will only be required if the FOE report’s conclusion for the undertaking is a Finding of Adverse E,ect (for replacement of the bridge and/or e,ects on any adjacent historic properties, if identified in the HRER stage). The proposed scope of work for the optional MOA includes the following tasks:
• Draft MOA – If the FOE determines that the undertaking will have an adverse e,ect on one or more historic property in the APE, GPA will prepare a draft MOA according to established Caltrans procedures and submit it to the client for review. It is assumed that Caltrans will provide a sample MOA for reference. For the purposes of this scope and cost, we assume that Stockton Bridge is the only property that will require resolution of adverse e,ects in the MOA stipulations.
• Final MOA – GPA will revise the draft MOA based on comments received. We assume four rounds of comments: one from the client, one from the City, one from Caltrans, and one from SHPO.

10. (Optional) Programmatic Section 4(f) Analysis. Stockton Bridge (Bridge No. 36C-0110) is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and is considered a historic resource for the purposes of Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966. If there is a Section 106 finding of “Adverse E,ect”, a Section 4(f) evaluation will be required to analyze potential impacts to this 4(f) resource. GPA will reference all existing documentation and perform any outstanding research related to attributes of the bridge, and will assist the client with the preparation of a Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation that will describe the Section 4(f) property, potential project impacts, avoidance alternatives, findings, and measures to minimize project impacts. GPA could be available to perform any necessary public outreach e,orts and coordinate, as appropriate, with the agency with jurisdiction over the 4(f) property (State Historic Preservation O,icer) to obtain the appropriate concurrence on 353
Item 7 C.

Page 2 of 2 ends

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture the 4(f) determination, as requested by the client, under a separate scope and fee.

5.4 Caltrans Technical Documentation. Pending the results of the Project Study Report (PSR), Preliminary Environmental Analysis Report (PEAR), and/or Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) DDA will prepare technical documentation to satisfy the environmental process for Caltrans. The list below is based upon DDA’s experience with previous Caltrans projects and review of the resources associated with the Project. The results of the PSR, PEAR, and/or PES may define additional technical reports for Caltrans environmental compliance

1. Natural Environmental Study (NES). The NES will include documentation of the biological resources in the Project area and an assessment of the impacts of the Project alternatives on those resources.

For projects with the potential to impact biological resources, a Natural Environment Study (NES) describes the existing biological environment and how the project alternatives a,ect that environment. A NES or NES Minimal Impact (MI) is prepared for all projects and serves as the technical basis for statements made in the environmental document, concerning plants, animals, and natural communities occurring in the biological study area. The NES summarizes technical documents such as focused species studies, wetland assessments, and biological assessments related to e,ects on biological resources in the Biological Study Area (BSA) for use in the environmental document. The NES will be developed using the Biological Resources Report and Aquatic Resources Delineation developed in Tasks 4.3.1 and 4.3.2, respectively.

2. Biological Assessment. A biological assessment (BA) is required for any project where federally listed species may be adversely a,ected, resulting in formal consultation, or a,ected but not adversely a,ected, resulting in informal consultation. In addition, even if there will be no e,ect on any federally listed species, the presence of proposed or designated critical habitat may require that a BA be prepared. This will be determined and presented in the BA.

DDA’s subconsultant, Applied Marine Sciences (AMS) will prepare a Biological Assessment (BA) to determine the Project impacts on threatened, endangered, or proposed species and habitats that shall be submitted for review by natural resource agencies (i.e., NMFS, USACE).

Avoidance, minimization, and conservation measures will be evaluated as mitigation for the anticipated disturbances during in-water work activities to minimize adverse impacts to any state or federally listed species. This may include best management practices to avoid temporary changes in water quality due to increases in turbidity or 354
Item 7 C.

Page 2 of 2 ends

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture potential release of hazardous materials from onsite construction equipment.

5.5 Administrative Draft Initial Study/Environmental Assessment. Following completion of all appropriate technical analysis described above, DDA will prepare the Administrative Draft IS/EA for the Project in accordance with CEQA and NEPA requirements. The Administrative Draft IS/EA will describe the Project and identify and summarize significant impacts and whether they can or cannot be avoided. The topics expected to be addressed, a description of the analyses to be conducted, and the contents of those sections are discussed below. In addition, the significance of the impacts after implementation of mitigation measures, where necessary, will be included in the analysis.

This scope of work includes two (2) rounds of revision on the Administrative Draft IS/EA based on comments received from the City. DDA anticipates that the Administrative Draft IS/EA will consist of the following components.

Introduction/Need for Proposed Action: This section will indicate that the documentation for the Project has been prepared pursuant to CEQA and NEPA regulations and guidance to evaluate the e,ects of the Project.

Project Description/Goals and Objectives/A2ected Environment: The IS/EA will provide a description of the Project based on the data and mapping identified above, supplemental information provided by the Lead Agency, Project Manager, and DDA’s data collection and review. As required by CEQA, the Project Description will be complete with the precise location and boundaries of the Project, a statement of the objectives of the Project, and a general description of the Project's technical, economic, environmental, engineering, and/or construction aspects. This section will be illustrated with plans, photographs, and other graphics as needed.

Environmental Setting/Impacts and Mitigation Measures/Consultation Summary: DDA will clearly define the environmental setting for the Project based on applicable environmental and regulatory documents and technical studies.

This task includes establishing the baseline environmental conditions within the Project vicinity. This section will describe those aspects of the environment that may be a,ected by the implementation of the Project, specifically an analysis of the following topics:
• Physical environment – visual resources, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, geology, soils, and seismic hazards, hydrology and water quality, and hazardous materials.
• Biological environment – vegetation and wildlife, including migratory birds and forestry resources.
355
Item 7 C.

Page 2 of 2 ends

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture • Social environment – cultural and tribal resources, land use, noise, population and housing, public services, utilities, and energy, recreation, and transportation and tra,ic.

As part of this section, DDA will analyze the environmental impacts that could result from the implementation of the Project. DDA will identify mitigation measures needed to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. DDA assumes that the IS/EA would include an analysis of the following topics:
• Aesthetics/Visual
• Mineral Resources
• Agricultural and Forest Resources
• Noise
• Air Quality
• Population and Housing
• Biological Resources
• Public Services
• Cultural Resources
• Recreation
• Energy
• Socioeconomics/Environmental Justice
• Geology and Soils
• Transportation
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Climate
• Change
• Tribal Cultural
• Resources
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Utilities/Service Systems
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Wildfire
• Land Use/Planning
• Mandatory Findings of Significance
This section would also include a summary of the Native American consultation e,orts undertaken for the Project.

Alternatives: In accordance with NEPA requirements, the IS/EA will define and discuss reasonable alternatives to the Project, including the No Project Alternative, that could feasibly meet the Project objectives and potentially avoid or lessen any significant environmental impacts associated with the Project. DDA shall coordinate with the City and CSWST2 to determine a range of feasible 356
Item 7 C.

Page 2 of 2 ends

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture alternatives. The Alternatives Section in the IS/EA will include a comprehensive analysis of the alternatives carried forward for analysis, as well as describe the alternatives eliminated from the analysis and the rationale for elimination. This section will include a comparison of the alternatives and identify the environmentally superior alternative.

Bibliography/Persons Consulted: This section will include all cited background information, persons contacted, and individuals, agencies, and businesses that contributed to report preparation.

5.6 Draft Initial Study/Environmental Assessment. DDA will prepare the Public Review Draft IS/EA following the revisions on the 2nd Administrative Draft IS/EA. DDA will work with the City and CSWST2 to prepare all required notices for public circulation of the IS/EA. DDA will provide a copy in electronic PDF format to City and to responsible agencies. The document will be circulated for a public review period of 30 days, as required for state agency review under CEQA. As part of this task, DDA will be responsible for the development of the Draft and Final Notice of Completion (NOC), Summary Form, and Notice of Intent (NOI) for the Draft IS/EA. DDA is available to upload the environmental documentation and noticing to the O,ice of Planning and Research (OPR) CEQA Submit system. DDA will also assist with local posting of notices at the Project site, Santa Cruz County Clerk, and other locations as required. DDA will maintain a file of any comments received during the public circulation period for use in preparing the final document. It is assumed that DDA will not attend any public hearings during the public circulation process. Any filing fees associated with the Draft IS/EA MND/FONSI will be paid directly by the City.

5.7 Final Initial Study/Environmental Assessment. DDA will prepare responses to comments for review by City sta, prior to completing the final environmental document.

The final document will include a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) that includes all mitigation measures that must be incorporated into the Project, or the bid documents, for ease of tracking. If the City decides to approve the Project, the Notice of Determination (NOD) will be filed with the County Clerk within five business days. This scope of work assumes that the City shall be responsible for filing the NOD and paying the required CDFW filing fee.

Following the conclusion of the 30-day review period, DDA will review the comments received on the Draft IS/EA and assist the City with responding to the comments as required. DDA, in consultation with the City, will prepare formal responses to these comments. The comment letters and responses, as well as any necessary changes to the text of the Draft IS/EA, will be the primary components of the Final IS/EA. DDA will provide 357
Item 7 C.

Page 2 of 2 ends

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture the Final IS/EA to the City for review and comment. This scope of work assumes that this would be limited to one (1) round of revisions on the Final IS/EA.

As part of this task, DDA will be responsible for the preparation of the Notice of Determination (NOD) after final adoption of the IS/MND. DDA will also prepare the appropriate CEQA and NEPA findings for the adoption of the MND and FONSI and approval of the Project. This scope of work assumes that the City sta, or legal counsel will be responsible for preparing all accompanying sta, reports and resolutions. In addition, this scope assumes that the City would file the NOD with the County Clerk and would be responsible for paying all required filing fees.

DDA will prepare a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 and include it in the ultimate approval by the City in conjunction with the Project approval. The MMRP, at a minimum, will include the following information:

1. The full text of each mitigation measure

2. The monitoring and reporting requirements

3. The entity or entities responsible for implementation, reporting, and monitoring

4. The timing for implementation and monitoring.

DDA will also be responsible for posting the notices and sending the notices and final document to OPR and CEQAnet.

5.8 Regulatory Permitting. Soquel Creek is expected to fall under the jurisdiction of the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW. If the Project will result in permanent and/or temporary impacts on Soquel Creek, a Section 404 Permit from the USACE, Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB, and 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW will be required. DDA will prepare the Pre-Construction Notification package for submittal to the USACE, application for a Section 401 Water Quality Certification for submittal to the RWQCB, and Streambed Alteration Notification package for submittal to the CDFW. The applications will include a brief description of the Project, an assessment of impacts on jurisdictional areas, proposed best management practices, and other pertinent Project information, as required by the regulatory agencies. This scope of work assumes that any filing fees associated with the regulatory permits will be paid directly by the City. This task includes one round of coordination with the regulatory agencies after the permit applications have been submitted.

5.9 Coastal Development Permit. As part of this scope of work, DDA will compile the CDP Application in coordination with CSWST2 and the City. DDA will prepare and submit a preapplication request form to the City to initiate the CDP process under the Local Coastal Program. After the City has conducted their initial review, a formal application will be provided by the City at a formal application meeting. DDA will be responsible for the 358
Item 7 C.

Page 2 of 2 ends

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture formal application submittal, and coordination with the City regarding any supplemental requests for information. After the formal submittal of the Project application, the City, as part of their interdepartmental review process, will have 30-days to determine whether the application is “complete.” DDA will regularly communicate with the City during their review process to ensure that the Project completion determination is conducted in a timely manner. Please note that, depending on the nature of potential requests, a contract amendment may be necessary. DDA will review all City prepared sta, reports and/or other supporting information as part of the City’s deliberative process. This task assumes that DDA will coordinate any comments with the City. This task assumes that DDA will be available to participate in one (1) City hearing and one (1) Board of Supervisor’s hearing (if the Project is appealed). DDA will be prepared to make presentations to each of the hearing bodies on behalf of the Project and address any potential concerns related to the Project.

5.10 Project Management and Meeting Attendance. DDA would provide Project Management services throughout the Project to ensure that key deliverables are completed on schedule and within the contract amount. DDA would routinely coordinate with CSWST2 and the City to provide progress reports as part of this task. DDA would attend to all aspects of managing the Project, including scheduling resources, handling team communication, sub-consultant management, and responding to requests for information. DDA would be available to participate in meetings and/or conference calls with CSWST2, the City, and other Project team members. These meetings would be scheduled on an as-needed basis and are in addition to those meetings identified above. If requested, DDA can be available to attend additional meetings and conference calls beyond those identified within the scope of the budget. This task also includes coordination with Caltrans on technical documentation and environmental clearance.

Task 5 Deliverables We will provide electronic (PDF, and MS Word) of the following documents:
• Phase 1 Site Assessment
• Project Description
• Biological Resources Report
• Aquatic Resources Delineation
• Noise Study Memorandum
• Cultural Resources Assessment Report
• Natural Environment Study
• Biological Assessment
• Section 106 Technical Report
• Administrative Draft Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Mitigated Negative Declaration/Finding of No Significant Impact
359
Item 7 C.

Page 2 of 2 ends

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture • Draft Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Mitigated Negative Declaration/Finding of No Significant Impact, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Notice of Intent, and Notice of Completion
• Final Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Mitigated Negative Declaration/Finding of No Significant Impact and Notice of Determination
• Draft and Final HRER
• Draft and Final FOE
• Draft and Final SOIS Action Plan (Optional)
• Draft and Final MOA (Optional)
• Draft and Final Programmatic Section 4(f) Analysis (Optional) TASK 6 – PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING (0% → 35%)
Goal: Advance preferred alternative to Caltrans Type Selection (35%). Note, Task 6 is contingent upon City Council authorization following completion of Task 4 and selection of a preferred alternative. Task 6 would advance the preferred alternative through preliminary engineering and approximately 35% design, completing the project's preliminary engineering phase.

6.1 Conceptual Design. Our team will develop the following conceptual level documents:

A. Bridge Type Selection Report. Our team will consolidate the collected data and develop a Bridge Type Selection Report in accordance with Caltrans standards.

The report will include the following:
i. Proposed Structure Alternative Report and Design Criteria ii. BSDS Forms
iii. As-built drawings
iv. Bridge plans
v. Project Risk Matrix
vi. Cost Estimate
vii. Preliminary Foundation Report (Engeo)
B. Conceptual Plans. To document the design, we will prepare the following plans:
i. Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plans and Details (CSWST2) ii. Preliminary Utility Plans and Details (CSWST2)
iii. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment Plans (CSWST2)
iv. Preliminary Bridge General Plan (BCA)
v. Preliminary DRAFT Bridge Foundation Plan (BCA)
vi. Preliminary Staging and Tra,ic Handling (CSWST2)

6.2 35% Design Development
A. Technical Studies. Our team will prepare the following technical studies:
i. Photometric Analysis. Our team will complete a photometric analysis to determine how lighting at the bridge is achievable. We will ensure the proposed pedestrian scale lighting is consistent with City 360
Item 7 C.

Page 2 of 2 ends

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture and State standards. This will include ensuring lighting levels are both dark sky and temperature friendly.
ii. Stormwater Control Plan. We will evaluate options to integrate stormwater green infrastructure. Our team will develop these features consistent with Santa Cruz County’s C.3 standards.
iii. Bridge Hydrology and Hydraulics Report. We will update the preliminary study outlined in Task 3.3.
iv. Water Quality Study. We will provide a draft Water Quality Study indicating no adverse impacts to water quality.

B. Plans. To document the design, we will prepare the following plans:
i. Title, Vicinity/Site, Key Map, and General Sheets (CSWST2) ii. Demolition Plans (CSWST2)
iii. Existing Utility Plans (CSWST2)
iv. Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plans and Details (CSWST2) v. Preliminary Utility Plans and Details (CSWST2)
vi. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment Plans (CSWST2)
vii. Bridge General Plan (BCA)
viii. DRAFT Bridge Foundation Plan (BCA)
ix. Preliminary Electrical Plans and Details
x. Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan (CSWST2)
xi. Tra,ic Management Plan (Fehr & Peers)
xii. Specifications Outline

6.3 Bridge Site Data Submittal (BSDS). Our team will prepare a Bridge Site Data Submittal package (BSDS) consistent with the Caltrans O,ice of Special Funded Projects (OSFP).

6.4 Right of Way Verification. The project team will conduct a preliminary right-of-way assessment to identify potential property, easement, and access constraints associated with the rehabilitation and replacement alternatives. This task will include a review of existing right-of-way records, assessor parcel maps, easements, and available title information to evaluate potential impacts to adjacent properties, access points, temporary construction easements, and staging areas. The assessment will identify potential right-ofway acquisition needs, coordination requirements, and property constraints that may a,ect project design, constructability, environmental clearance, schedule, or cost. Findings from this e,ort will be incorporated into the alternatives analysis, project risk assessment, and preliminary engineering development.

6.5 Cost Estimate & Risk. Our team will develop the following.

A. Cost Estimate. We will prepare a cost model consistent with the 35% documents and aligned with the budgets from the various funding sources.

B. Project Risk Matrix. We will develop a project risk matrix. 361
Item 7 C.

Page 2 of 2 ends

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture

6.6 Outreach. Our team will support the outreach e,ort to property owners and community members within the project area to gather feedback on the preliminary design. This e,ort will include the following activities.

A. Project Communications. Our team will update the project website with updated information related to the preliminary design and schedule, along with opportunities to provide feedback. In addition, we will send mailers via hand delivery and/or USPS to businesses and residences in the project area to build awareness of the project website and opportunities to provide feedback B. Stakeholder Meeting. CSWST2 will coordinate and facilitate a meeting with the project area businesses and residents to gather initial feedback on the preliminary design.

C. Pop-up Engagement. Our team will conduct one on-site pop-up event to share the alternatives analysis, preliminary design, and gather feedback.

6.7 Council Presentation. CSWST2 and BCA will present the 35% design to the City Council.

6.8 Contract Management. We will perform the tasks outlined in Task 1.4. We anticipate three (3) meetings during this phase of work.

Task 6 Deliverables:
• 35% Plans
• Type Selection Report
• BSDS Package
• Cost Estimate & Risk Matrix
362
Item 7 C.

Page 1 ends

Project: Schedule - Final
Date: Tue 6/23/26
363
Item 7 C.

Page 2 ends

Project: Schedule - Final
Date: Tue 6/23/26
364
Item 7 C.

STOCKTON AVENUE BRIDGE PROJECT 06.23.2026

SUMMARY OF PROJECT COSTS
Phase 1
Task 1 Project Initiation & Scoping
CSWST2 $ 11,475
BIGGS CARDOSA $ 19,869
ENGEO $ -
DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES $ -
GPA CONSULTING $ 2,167
FEHR & PEERS $ 2,169
Subtotal $ 35,680
Task 2 Data Collection & Existing Conditions
CSWST2 $ 63,625
BIGGS CARDOSA $ 47,332
ENGEO $ 50,068
DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES $ -
GPA CONSULTING $ 5,113
FEHR & PEERS $ 18,769
Subtotal $ 184,905
Task 3 Technical Studies & Deficiency Analysis
CSWST2 $ 32,300
BIGGS CARDOSA $ 75,659
ENGEO $ -
DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES $ 3,563
GPA CONSULTING $ 47,663
FEHR & PEERS $ 47,642
Subtotal $ 206,827
Reimbursable Expenses
CSWST2 $ 3,500
BIGGS CARDOSA $ 2,500
ENGEO $ 28,000
DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES $ 10,000
GPA CONSULTING $ -
FEHR & PEERS $ 3,500
Subtotal $ 47,500
Total Fee - Phase 1
CSWST2 $ 110,899 9%
BIGGS CARDOSA $ 145,360 12%
ENGEO $ 78,068 6%
DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES $ 13,563 1%
GPA CONSULTING $ 54,943 4%
FEHR & PEERS $ 72,079 6%
Total $ 474,912 38%
Phase 2
Task 4 Alternatives Analysis & Advance Planning Study
CSWST2 $ 73,858
BIGGS CARDOSA $ 90,757
ENGEO $ 6,404
DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES $ -
GPA CONSULTING $ 2,988
FEHR & PEERS $ -
Subtotal $ 174,006
Task 5 Environmental Clearance
CSWST2 $ 14,935
BIGGS CARDOSA $ 584
ENGEO $ -
DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES $ 269,883
GPA CONSULTING $ 54,132
FEHR & PEERS $ -
Subtotal $ 339,534
Task 6 Preliminary Engineering (35%)
CSWST2 $ 93,058
BIGGS CARDOSA $ 107,265
ENGEO $ 6,404
DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES $ -
GPA CONSULTING $ -
FEHR & PEERS $ 25,675
Subtotal $ 232,402
Reimbursable Expenses
CSWST2 $ 7,000
BIGGS CARDOSA $ 2,500
ENGEO $ -
DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES $ 69,319
GPA CONSULTING $ -
FEHR & PEERS $ -
Subtotal $ 78,819
STOCKTON AVENUE BRIDGE PROJECT 06.23.2026

SUMMARY OF PROJECT COSTS
Total Fee
CSWST2 $ 296,251 24%
BIGGS CARDOSA $ 343,965 27%
ENGEO $ 62,875 5%
DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES $ 342,765 27%
GPA CONSULTING $ 112,063 9%
FEHR & PEERS $ 94,254 8%
Total $ 1,252,173 100%
CERTIFICATION OF DIRECT COSTS:

1. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)

2. Terms and conditions of the contract

3. Title 23 United States Code Section 112 - Letting of Contracts

4. 48 Code of Federal Regulations Pare 31 - Contact Cost Principles and Procedures

5. 6. 48 Code of Federal Regulations Par 9904 - Cost Accounting Standards Board (when applicable) Prime Consultant
Name: Robert Stevens Title: President
Signature: Date: 06.23.2026
Email: [email protected] Phone Number: 415.533.1864
23 Code of Federal Regulations Part 172 - Procurement, Management, and Administration of Engineering and Designee Related Service
All costs must be applied consistently and fairly to all contracts. All documentation of compliance must be retained in the project files and be in compliance with applicable federal and state Local governments are responsible for applying only cognizant agency approved or CALTRANS accepted Indirect Cost Rate(s).

I, the undersigned, certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that all direct costs identified on the cost proposal(s) in this contract are actual, reasonable, allowable, and allocable to the contract in accordance with the contract terms and the following requirements:
2025 Hourly Rate ($/ hour)
Fringe
Overhead
Profit
Multiplier
Billable Rate ($/ hour)
Task 1 Project Initiation & Scoping

1.1 Project Kickoff 8 $1,821

1.2 Purpose & Need Development 8 $1,609

1.3 Stakeholder & Outreach Strategy 8 $2,064

1.4 Contract Management
Project Management 15 $3,643
Quality Control 2 $516
Meetings 8 $1,821
49 $11,475
Task 2 Data Collection & Existing Conditions

2.1 Data Collection and Field Review
Data Collection 18 $3,764
Field Investigation 180 $41,130
Traffic Data Collection 0 $0
Geotechnical Investigation 2 $516
Historic Architect Site Visit 0 $0

2.2 Utility Coordination 30 $5,373

2.3 Bridge Condition Assessment Report & Basis of Design Draft 18 $3,552
Final 16 $3,127

2.4 City Council Update 4 $941

2.5 Contract Management
Project Management 8 $2,064
Quality Control 2 $516
Meetings 12 $2,641
290 $63,625
Task 3 Technical Studies & Deficiency Analysis

3.1 Structural Evaluation 0 $0

3.2 Historic Architectural Assessment Reports (HPSR/HRER) 0 $0

3.3 Preliminary Bridge Hydrology and Hydraulics Report 68 $13,600

3.4 Seismic Screening 0 $0

3.5 Traffic & Operations 0 $0

3.6 Detour & Closure Analysis 0 $0

3.7 Environmental Constraints Memorandum 0 $0

3.8 Outreach
Engagement Toolkit 36 $6,739
Stakeholder Meeting 28 $6,071

3.9 City Council Update 4 $941

3.10 Contract Management
Project Management 2 $516
Quality Control 2 $516
Meetings 18 $3,916
158 $32,300
Task 4 Alternatives Analysis & Advance Planning Study

4.1 Develop Alternatives 56 $10,989

4.2 Alternatives Evaluation 56 $10,443

4.3 Bridge Advance Planning Study (APS) 0 $0

4.4 Recommended Alternative 48 $9,471

4.5 Funding & Programming Support 16 $3,764

4.6 Detour & Closure Analysis 0 $0

4.7 Environmental Constraints Memorandum 0 $0

4.8 Outreach
Project Communications 30 $5,828
Stakeholder Meeting 24 $5,464
Pop-up Engagement 56 $11,596

4.9 City Council Presentation 8 $1,882

4.10 Contract Management
Project Management 20 $5,161
Quality Control 2 $516
Meetings 40 $8,743
300 $73,858
Task 5 Environmental Clearance

5.1 Phase 1 Site Assessment 0 $0

5.2 Project Description 8 $1,882

5.4 Caltrans Technical Documentation
Natural Environment Study 0 $0
Biological Assessment 0 $0

5.5 Administrative Draft Initial Study/Environmental 0 $0

5.6 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 0 $0 12 12 16 16
4 12
2 0
4 20
4 4
0 0
6 6
Task 3 Technical Studies & Deficiency Analysis Subtotal: 2 22 24 32 2 6
2 4
2 2
8 2
2 6
8 28
8 2
28 50
8 0 06 2
40 67
40 0 0
10 5
151.78 Various Engineer I182.14
2 2
2 11

STOCKTON AVENUE BRIDGE PROJECT
Kristine PillsburySenior Engineer
212.50
CSWST2
Project Manager, Surveyor, Engineer and Outreach
Julia HarbersonSr. Project ManagerTwo Person Survey Crew 324.82
Robert StevensPrincipalJessie MaranSr. Project Manager (Outreach)Various Surveyor IIVarious Surveyor I 182.14 151.78258.03 Various Engineer II258.03

85.00 85.00 85.00

0.00%

FEE PROPOSAL
Submittal Date: 06.23.26
258.03
2 2
Task 2 Data Collection & Existing Conditions Subtotal: 2 8 8
4 Task 1 Project Initiation & Scoping Subtotal: 0 18
12 24
0 0
2 2
2 10%

3.0 2
73 50.00 70.00 60.00 50.00 60.00 50.00 107.00

0.00%
175.97%

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
2 2
67 6 8
2 12
2 151.78
2 2
20 8
2 4
2 12
12 40
6 0 0 14 58 8 73
12 20 8
12 18
175.97% 175.97% 175.97% 175.97% 175.97% 175.97% 175.97% 175.97% 175.97%

3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Total HoursTotal Fee Proposal
10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%

0.00% 0.00%
Brenda PayneGraphic Illustrator
8 20 20
8 8
4 24 24 4
4 20
Task 4 Alternatives Analysis & Advance Planning Study 2 84 48 46 52 80 44 0 0 4 12 4 4
16 8 16
2 2025 Hourly Rate ($/ hour)
Fringe
Overhead
Profit
Multiplier
Billable Rate ($/ hour) 151.78 Various Engineer I
182.14

85.00 85.00 85.00

0.00%

FEE PROPOSAL
Submittal Date: 06.23.26
258.03
10%

3.0 50.00 70.00 60.00 50.00 60.00 50.00 107.00

0.00%
175.97%

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
151.78
175.97% 175.97% 175.97% 175.97% 175.97% 175.97% 175.97% 175.97% 175.97%

3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Total HoursTotal Fee Proposal
10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%

0.00% 0.00%
Brenda PayneGraphic Illustrator

5.7 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 0 $0

5.8 Regulatory Permitting 16 $3,764

5.9 Coastal Development Permit 8 $1,882

5.10 Contract Management
Project Management 15 $3,643
Quality Control 0 $0
Meetings 16 $3,764
63 $14,935
Task 6 Preliminary Engineering (35%)

6.1 Conceptual Design
Bridge Type Selection Report 4 $880
Conceptual Plans 50 $8,895

6.2 Preliminary Engineering (35%)
Technical Studies
Photometric Analysis 11 $1,791
Stormwater Control Plan 11 $1,791
Bridge Hydrology and Hydraulics Report 52 $10,018
Water Quality Study 13 $2,444
Plans 104 $18,821

6.3 Bridge Site Data Submittal Package 0 $0

6.4 Right of Way Verification 0 $0

6.5 Cost Estimate & Risk
Cost Estimate 20 $3,612
Project Rsk Matrix 32 $6,436

6.6 Outreach
Project Communications 30 $5,828
Stakeholder Meeting 24 $5,464
Pop-up Engagement 56 $11,596

6.7 City Council Presentation 8 $1,882

6.8 Contract Management
Project Management 8 $2,064
Quality Control 4 $1,032
Meetings 48 $10,503
475 $93,058
Total Labor Expenses: 1335 $289,251
Reimbursable Expenses
General Expenses $10,500
$10,500
$299,751
4 8
5 73 40
8 4
0 132
8 2
0 34
8 12
0 18
4 24
Task 5 Environmental Clearance Subtotal: 0
8 10
Total CSWST2 Fee:
253 124 67348 150
29 0 0 0 0
Total Reimbursable Expenses:
10 194
2 8 20 20
16 40 40
2 4 12 4 4
4 4 4
24 8
4 Task 6 Preliminary Engineering (35%) Subtotal: 4 67 48 46 60 154 96 0 0 0 20 8 20
1 2 8
1 2 8
1 4 4 4
4 8 40
2 8 8
8 8 8 8
2 2026 Hourly Rate ($/ hour)
Fringe
Overhead
Profit
Multiplier
Billable Rate ($/ hour)
Task 1 Project Initiation & Scoping

1.1 Project Kickoff 12 $3,502

1.2 Purpose & Need Development 12 $3,502

1.3 Stakeholder & Outreach Strategy 6 $1,824

1.4 Contract Management
Project Management 22 $5,599
Quality Control 10 $2,452
Meetings 10 $2,991
72 $19,869
Task 2 Data Collection & Existing Conditions

2.1 Data Collection and Field Review
Data Collection 16 $3,269
Field Investigation 16 $3,541
Traffic Data Collection 0 $0
Geotechnical Investigation 15 $4,387
Historic Architect Site Visit 0 $0

2.2 Bridge Condition Assessment Report & Basis of Design Draft 40 $8,980
Final 31 $7,637

2.3 City Council Update 14 $4,158

2.4 Contract Management
Project Management 24 $5,909
Quality Control 21 $4,782
Meetings 16 $4,669
193 $47,332
Task 3 Technical Studies & Deficiency Analysis

3.1 Structural Evaluation 115 $21,011

3.2 Historic Architectural Assessment Reports (HPSR/HRER) 8 $2,334

3.3 Preliminary Bridge Hydrology and Hydraulics Report. 11 $3,220

3.4 Seismic Screening 112 $21,127

3.5 Traffic & Operations 6 $1,751

3.6 Detour & Closure Analysis 6 $1,751

3.7 Environmental Constraints Memorandum 0 $0

3.8 Outreach
Electronic Updates/Mailers 0 $0
Stakeholder Meeting 0 $0

3.9 City Council Update 14 $4,158

3.10 Contract Management
Project Management 26 $6,565
Quality Control 36 $7,907
Meetings 20 $5,836
354 $75,659
Task 4 Alternatives Analysis & Advance Planning Study

4.1 Develop Alternatives 52 $10,213

4.2 Alternatives Evaluation 116 $19,612

4.3 Bridge Advance Planning Study (APS) 100 $20,334

4.4 Recommended Alternative 37 $8,466

4.5 Funding & Programming Support 16 $4,669

4.6 Detour & Closure Analysis 0 $0

4.7 Environmental Constraints Memorandum 0 $0

4.8 Outreach
Electronic Updates/Mailers 0 $0
Stakeholder Meeting 0 $0
Pop-up Engagement 0 $0

4.9 City Council Presentation 20 $5,836

4.10 Contract Management
Project Management 24 $5,909
Quality Control 44 $9,372
Meetings 22 $6,347
431 $90,757
Task 5 Environmental Clearance

5.1 Phase 1 Site Assessment 0 $0

5.2 Project Description 0 $0

5.4 Caltrans Technical Documentation
Natural Environment Study 0 $0
Biological Assessment 0 $0

5.5 Assessment 0 $0

5.6 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 0 $0

5.7 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 0 $0

5.8 Regulatory Permitting 0 $0

5.9 Coastal Development Permit 0 $0

5.95 Historic Approval 14 $4,012

5.10 Contract Management
Project Management 4 $1,167
Quality Control 0 $0
Meetings 2 $584
20 $5,763
Task 6 Preliminary Engineering (35%)

6.1 Preliminary Engineering (35%)
Bridge Type Selection Report 102 $21,414
Conceptual Plans 112 $20,718

6.2 Preliminary Engineering (35%)
Technical Studies
Photometric Analysis 0 $0
Stormwater Control Plan 0 $0
Bridge Hydrology and Hydraulics Report 4 $1,167
Water Quality Study 0 $0
Plans 112 $21,899

6.3 Bridge Site Data Submittal Package 50 $8,482
8 8
2 6 8
28 32
8 1 6 12 12
24 4
8 8
12 8
Total HoursTotal Fee Proposal
Dan DevlinSenior Principal
Thomas Swayze
PrincipalJohn Alciati
Associate
Greg TolanEngineering Manager

64.62 65.19 46.73 64.62 53.94

COST PROPOSAL
Submittal Date: 06.12.25
130.38 114.23 96.06 88.85
Natsuki OkudaProject EngineerMandy PedersonProject EngineerKomalpreet Mehroke Assistant Engineer
Steve HickeySr. CAD/BIM Specialist

0.00% 0.00%
161.25% 161.25% 161.25% 161.25% 161.25%

2.9 2.9
10% 10%

2.9 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Capitola - Stockton Avenue
Bridge Preliminary Evaluation & Design
Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc.

Structural Engineering
Daniel ArredondoSr. CAD/BIM Specialist

51.92 0.00%
161.25%
10%

2.9 149.21
Pavlik GribanovskyJunior Engineer

36.00 0.00%
161.25%
10%
161.25%
Kara HorwaldProject Engineer

63.75 6 6

0.00%
161.25% 161.25%
374.68 328.27 276.05 255.33 185.70 187.34 134.29 185.70

2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9
10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%
6 4 2
6 6
2 2 2
8 8
4 8 6
Task 1 Project Initiation & Scoping Subtotal: 0 32 2 28 0 0 6 6 4
0 0 0
6 10
1 8
8 8
Task 2 Data Collection & Existing Conditions Subtotal: 3 42 8 64 12 36 0 8 8
20 0 0
4 8 20 32 32 16
1 4 6
4 4
3 3 3
Task 3 Technical Studies & Deficiency Analysis Subtotal: 10 58 10 76 24 68 32 0 10 10
0 68 0
16 0
8 6
8 161.25%

0.00%Joseph Doetsch Project Administrator
10%

2.9 6
155.01
8 8
103.46
0 0
16 0.00%
161.25%
10%
8 8
32 12
183.20

2.9 4
12 16
24 0
2 8 20 20
4 16 36 40
2 2
8 12 24 40
6 16 16 24
28 2 2
Task 5 Environmental Clearance Subtotal: 11 0
40 0 0
1 0 0 0
1 0 9 0
6 8
3 8 16 36
Task 4 Alternatives Analysis & Advance Planning Study 9 58 10 90 32 92 0 56 32 28 16 8 10 12
2 10 32
10 10
8 8
12 20
24 2 6 16 32
2 6 16 28
1 4
36 0.00%
2 10
10 1
3 2026 Hourly Rate ($/ hour)
Fringe
Overhead
Profit
Multiplier
Billable Rate ($/ hour)
Total HoursTotal Fee Proposal
Dan DevlinSenior Principal
Thomas Swayze
PrincipalJohn Alciati
Associate
Greg TolanEngineering Manager

64.62 65.19 46.73 64.62 53.94

COST PROPOSAL
Submittal Date: 06.12.25
130.38 114.23 96.06 88.85
Natsuki OkudaProject EngineerMandy PedersonProject EngineerKomalpreet Mehroke Assistant Engineer
Steve HickeySr. CAD/BIM Specialist

0.00% 0.00%
161.25% 161.25% 161.25% 161.25% 161.25%

2.9 2.9
10% 10%

2.9 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Capitola - Stockton Avenue
Bridge Preliminary Evaluation & Design
Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc.

Structural Engineering
Daniel ArredondoSr. CAD/BIM Specialist

51.92 0.00%
161.25%
10%

2.9 149.21
Pavlik GribanovskyJunior Engineer

36.00 0.00%
161.25%
10%
161.25%
Kara HorwaldProject Engineer

63.75 0.00%
161.25% 161.25%
374.68 328.27 276.05 255.33 185.70 187.34 134.29 185.70

2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9
10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%
161.25%

0.00%Joseph Doetsch Project Administrator
10%

2.9 103.46 155.01

0.00%
161.25%
10%
183.20

2.9 0.00%

6.4 Right of Way Verification 0 $0

6.5 Cost Estimate & Risk
Cost Estimate 39 $7,097
Project Rsk Matrix 0 $0

6.6 Outreach
Electronic Updates 0 $0
Stakeholder Meeting 0 $0
Pop-up Engagement 0 $0

6.7 City Council Presentation 0 $0

6.8 Contract Management
Project Management 24 $5,909
Quality Control 64 $13,211
Meetings 26 $7,368
533 $107,265
Total Labor Expenses: 1603 $346,645
Reimbursable Expenses
General Expenses $5,000
$5,000
Total BCA Fee: $351,645
Total Reimbursable Expenses:
36 16 48
Task 6 Preliminary Engineering (35%) Subtotal: 7 52 16 88 120 100
8 8
38 16
251 46 357 310 20 204 96 32
10 16
48 114 0 80 68
8 8
29 1 2 10 10 16
2025 Hourly Rate ($/ hour)
Fringe
Overhead
Profit
Multiplier
Billable Rate ($/ hour)
Task 1 Project Initiation & Scoping

1.1 Project Kickoff 0 $0

1.2 Purpose & Need Development 0 $0

1.3 Stakeholder & Outreach Strategy 0 $0

1.4 Contract Management
Project Management 0 $0
Quality Control 0 $0
Meetings 0 $0
0 $0
Task 2 Data Collection & Existing Conditions

2.1 Data Collection and Field Review
Data Collection 0 $0
Field Investigation 0 $0
Traffic Data Collection 0 $0
Geotechnical Investigation 190 $50,068
Historic Architect Site Visit 0 $0

2.2 Utility Coordination 0 $0

2.3 Bridge Condition Assessment Report & Basis of Design Draft 0 $0
Final 0 $0

2.4 City Council Update 0 $0

2.5 Contract Management
Project Management 0 $0
Quality Control 0 $0
Meetings 0 $0
190 $50,068
Task 3 Technical Studies & Deficiency Analysis

3.1 Structural Evaluation 0 $0

3.2 Historic Architectural Assessment Reports (HPSR/HRER) 0 $0

3.3 Preliminary Bridge Hydrology and Hydraulics Report 0 $0

3.4 Seismic Screening 0 $0

3.5 Traffic & Operations 0 $0

3.6 Detour & Closure Analysis 0 $0

3.7 Environmental Constraints Memorandum 0 $0

3.8 Outreach
Electronic Updates/Mailers 0 $0
Stakeholder Meeting 0 $0

3.9 City Council Update 0 $0

3.10 Contract Management
Project Management 0 $0
Quality Control 0 $0
Meetings 0 $0
0 $0
Task 4 Alternatives Analysis & Advance Planning Study

4.1 Develop Alternatives

4.2 Alternatives Evaluation 24 $6,404

4.3 Bridge Advance Planning Study (APS) 0 $0

4.4 Recommended Alternative 0 $0

4.5 Funding & Programming Support 0 $0

4.6 Detour & Closure Analysis 0 $0

4.7 Environmental Constraints Memorandum 0 $0

4.8 Outreach
Electronic Updates/Mailers 0 $0
Stakeholder Meeting 0 $0
Pop-up Engagement 0 $0

4.9 City Council Presentation 0 $0

4.10 Contract Management
Project Management 0 $0
Quality Control 0 $0
Meetings 0 $0
24 $6,404
Task 5 Environmental Clearance

5.1 Phase 1 Site Assessment 0 $0

5.2 Project Description 0 $0

4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1
Various Project Assistant
ENGEO
Geotechnical Engineer
129.81 76.92 62.50 50.48 43.75 53.37 62.50
0 4.1

0.00%
40 10 10
0 Total Fee Proposal
0 0 0
272.00%

0.00%
255.75

STOCKTON AVENUE BRIDGE PROJECT
Various PrincipalVarious AssociateVarious Senior EngineerVarious Project EngineerVarious Staff EngineerVarious CAD Specialist

FEE PROPOSAL
Submittal Date: 06.23.26
272.00% 272.00% 272.00% 272.00%

4.1 272.00%

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
10% 10% 10% 10%
272.00%
0 0 0
30 10 10 80
Task 1 Project Initiation & Scoping Subtotal:
10 10 80 40 10 10
0 0 0 0 0 0
30 Task 2 Data Collection & Existing Conditions Subtotal:

Task 3 Technical Studies & Deficiency Analysis Subtotal:
3 3 3 15
Task 4 Alternatives Analysis & Advance Planning Study 3 3 15 0 0 0 2025 Hourly Rate ($/ hour)
Fringe
Overhead
Profit
Multiplier
Billable Rate ($/ hour)
Total Hours
531.18 314.76 255.75 206.56 179.03 218.39
10% 10% 10%

4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1
Various Project Assistant
ENGEO
Geotechnical Engineer
129.81 76.92 62.50 50.48 43.75 53.37 62.50

4.1 0.00%
Total Fee Proposal
272.00%

0.00%
255.75

STOCKTON AVENUE BRIDGE PROJECT
Various PrincipalVarious AssociateVarious Senior EngineerVarious Project EngineerVarious Staff EngineerVarious CAD Specialist

FEE PROPOSAL
Submittal Date: 06.23.26
272.00% 272.00% 272.00% 272.00%

4.1 272.00%

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
10% 10% 10% 10%
272.00%
Historic Resources Effects Reports (FAE/FNAE) 0 $0
(Optional) SOIS Action Plan 0 $0
(Optional) MOA 0 $0

5.4 Caltrans Technical Documentation
Natural Environment Study 0 $0
Biological Assessment 0 $0

5.5 Administrative Draft Initial Study/Environmental 0 $0

5.6 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 0 $0

5.7 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 0 $0

5.8 Regulatory Permitting 0 $0

5.9 Coastal Development Permit 0 $0

5.10 Contract Management
Project Management 0 $0
Quality Control 0 $0
Meetings 0 $0
0 $0
Task 6 Preliminary Engineering (35%)

6.1 Conceptual Design
Bridge Type Selection Report 24 $6,404
Conceptual Plans 0 $0

6.2 Preliminary Engineering (35%)
Technical Studies
Photometric Analysis 0 $0
Stormwater Control Plan 0 $0
Bridge Hydrology and Hydraulics Report 0 $0
Water Quality Study 0 $0
Plans 0 $0

6.3 Bridge Site Data Submittal Package 0 $0

6.4 Right of Way Verification 0 $0

6.5 Cost Estimate & Risk
Cost Estimate 0 $0
Project Rsk Matrix 0 $0

6.6 Outreach
Electronic Updates 0 $0
Stakeholder Meeting 0 $0
Pop-up Engagement 0 $0

6.7 City Council Presentation 0 $0

6.8 Contract Management
Project Management 0 $0
Quality Control 0 $0
Meetings 0 $0
24 $6,404
Total Labor Expenses: 238 $62,875
Reimbursable Expenses
Task 2.1 - Subcontractors (Traffic Control, CPT rig), Permits, Mileage $28,000 $28,000
$90,875
3 3 3 15
Task 5 Environmental Clearance Subtotal: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 3 3 15 0 0 0
Total Reimbursable Expenses:

Total Fee:
36 16 16 110 40 10 10
Task 6 Preliminary Engineering (35%) Subtotal:
2025 Hourly Rate ($/ hour)
Fringe
Overhead
Profit
Multiplier
Billable Rate ($/ hour)
Task 1 Project Initiation & Scoping

1.1 Project Kickoff 0 $0

1.2 Purpose & Need Development 0 $0

1.3 Stakeholder & Outreach Strategy 0 $0

1.4 Contract Management
Project Management 0 $0
Quality Control 0 $0
Meetings 0 $0
0 $0
Task 2 Data Collection & Existing Conditions

2.1 Data Collection and Field Review
Data Collection 0 $0
Field Investigation 0 $0
Traffic Data Collection 0 $0
Geotechnical Investigation 0 $0
Historic Architect Site Visit 0 $0

2.2 Utility Coordination 0 $0

2.3 Bridge Condition Assessment Report & Basis of Design Draft 0 $0
Final 0 $0

2.4 City Council Update 0 $0

2.5 Contract Management
Project Management 0 $0
Quality Control 0 $0
Meetings 0 $0
0 $0
Task 3 Technical Studies & Deficiency Analysis

3.1 Structural Evaluation 0 $0

3.2 Historic Architectural Assessment Reports (HPSR/HRER) 0 $0

3.3 Preliminary Bridge Hydrology and Hydraulics Report 0 $0

3.4 Seismic Screening 0 $0

3.5 Traffic & Operations 0 $0

3.6 Detour & Closure Analysis 0 $0

3.7 Environmental Constraints Memorandum 20 $3,563

3.8 Outreach
Electronic Updates/Mailers 0 $0
Stakeholder Meeting 0 $0

3.9 City Council Update 0 $0

3.10 Contract Management
Project Management 0 $0
Quality Control 0 $0
Meetings 0 $0
20 $3,563
Task 4 Alternatives Analysis & Advance Planning Study

4.1 Develop Alternatives

4.2 Alternatives Evaluation 0 $0

4.3 Bridge Advance Planning Study (APS) 0 $0

4.4 Recommended Alterantive 0 $0

4.5 Funding & Programming Support 0 $0

4.6 Detour & Closure Analysis 0 $0

4.7 Environmental Constraints Memorandum 0 $0

4.8 Outreach
Electronic Updates/Mailers 0 $0
Stakeholder Meeting 0 $0
Pop-up Engagement 0 $0

4.9 City Council Presentation 0 $0

4.10 Contract Management
Project Management 0 $0
Quality Control 0 $0
Meetings 0 $0
0 $0
Task 5 Environmental Clearance

5.1 Phase 1 Site Assessment 8 $1,625

5.2 Project Description 68 $11,162

5.3 Technical Studies
Biological Resources Assessment 70 $10,598
Aquatic Resources Delineation 70 $10,598
Noise Study memorandum 30 $4,864
Cultural Resources 38 $6,476
Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions 58 $8,866
Historic Resources Effects Reports (FAE/FNAE) 58 $8,866 (Optional) SOIS Action Plan 58 $8,866
(Optional) MOA 58 $8,866

5.4 Caltrans Technical Documentation
Natural Environment Study 148 $22,846
12 8 8 8 2
Task 4 Alternatives Analysis & Advance Planning Study 0 0 0 0 0 0 Task 3 Technical Studies & Deficiency Analysis Subtotal: 0 4 8 8 0 Task 1 Project Initiation & Scoping Subtotal:

Task 2 Data Collection & Existing Conditions Subtotal:
4 4
2 2 16 24 36 48 16 6
8 8 16 24
4 8 8
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Principal Senior Project Manager Senior Planner/Scientist II Assoc Planner/Scientist Asst Planner/Scientist

FEE PROPOSAL
Submittal Date: 06.23.26
STOCKTON AVENUE BRIDGE PROJECT Denise Duffy & Associates Environmental Permitting
GIS/Computer SpecialistAdmin/Editing
Total HoursTotal Fee Proposal

58.17% 58.17% 58.17% 58.17% 58.17% 58.17% 58.17%

94.25 68.50
8 8
0 0 0 0
2 16 8 12 16
00 0
8 8 24 16
10 10
8 8 24 16
8 8 16 24
8 4
12 0
2 0
2 62.75 48.00 41.75 44.75 33.25
10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%
###### ###### ###### ###### ###### ###### ######
289.49 210.40 192.74 147.43 128.24 137.45 102.13

3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1
0 2 4 2
2 8 8 16 24 2
8 8 16 24 2
2025 Hourly Rate ($/ hour)
Fringe
Overhead
Profit
Multiplier
Billable Rate ($/ hour)
PrincipalSenior Project ManagerSenior Planner/Scientist IIAssoc Planner/ScientistAsst Planner/Scientist

FEE PROPOSAL
Submittal Date: 06.23.26
STOCKTON AVENUE BRIDGE PROJECT Denise Duffy & Associates Environmental Permitting
GIS/Computer SpecialistAdmin/Editing
Total HoursTotal Fee Proposal

58.17% 58.17% 58.17% 58.17% 58.17% 58.17% 58.17%

94.25 68.50 62.75 48.00 41.75 44.75 33.25
10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%
###### ###### ###### ###### ###### ###### ######
289.49 210.40 192.74 147.43 128.24 137.45 102.13

3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1
Biological Assessment 64 $9,620

5.5 Administrative Draft Initial Study/Environmental 190 $30,130

5.6 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 140 $22,014

5.7 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 92 $14,375

5.8 Regulatory Permitting 192 $28,581

5.9 Coastal Development Permit 142 $22,728

5.10 Contract Management
Project Management 60 $12,624
Quality Control 40 $4,085
Meetings 120 $22,094
1704 $269,883
Task 6 Preliminary Engineering (35%)

6.1 Conceptual Design
Bridge Type Selection Report 0 $0
Conceptual Plans 0 $0

6.2 Preliminary Engineering (35%)
Technical Studies
Photometric Analysis 0 $0
Stormwater Control Plan 0 $0
Bridge Hydrology and Hydraulics Report 0 $0
Water Quality Study 0 $0
Plans 0 $0

6.3 Bridge Site Data Submittal Package 0 $0

6.4 Right of Way Verification 0 $0

6.5 Cost Estimate & Risk
Cost Estimate 0 $0
Project Rsk Matrix 0 $0

6.6 Outreach
Electronic Updates 0 $0
Stakeholder Meeting 0 $0
Pop-up Engagement 0 $0

6.7 City Council Presentation 0 $0

6.8 Contract Management
Project Management 0 $0
Quality Control 0 $0
Meetings 0 $0
0 $0
Total Labor Expenses: 1724 $273,446
Reimbursable Expenses
Printing/Copies (assumes 15 hard copies @ $30 ea) $450
Equipment (GPS, UAV, etc) $1,750
Mileage (at current IRS mileage rate) $750
Miscellaneous (hardcopies, phone, fax, cellular, postage, courier etc.) $1,000 Administration Fee $7,737
$11,687
$285,133
$16,232
Albion - ASR $10,000
$19,000
$7,900
$4,500
$57,632
$342,765
Ambient
Phase 1 Subconsultant
Total Subconsultant Fees:

Total Project Fee:

Total Reimbursable Expenses:

Total Fee:

Subconsultants
Albion
Applied Marin Science
28 312 244 428 456 140 116
Task 6 Preliminary Engineering (35%) Subtotal: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Task 5 Environmental Clearance Subtotal: 28 308 236 420 456 140 116 4 60 16 16 16 8
40 2 16 16 60 60 32 6
60 4 20 24 36 36 16 6
2 4 24 24 24 8 6
16 24 32 40 16 8
8 8 16 24 4
4 4
6 20 32 60 48 16 8
2026 Hourly Rate ($/ hour)
Fringe
Overhead
Profit
Multiplier
Billable Rate ($/ hour)
Task 1 Project Initiation & Scoping

1.1 Project Kickoff 4 $948

1.2 Purpose & Need Development 0 $0

1.3 Stakeholder & Outreach Strategy 0 $0

1.4 Contract Management
Project Management 0 $0
Quality Control 0 $0
Meetings 6 $1,219
10 $2,167
Task 2 Data Collection & Existing Conditions

2.1 Data Collection and Field Review
Data Collection (Records Searches at Info Centers/letters) 16 $2,045 Field Investigation 0 $0
Traffic Data Collection 0 $0
Geotechnical Investigation 0 $0
Historic Architect Site Visit 24 $3,068

2.2 Utility Coordination 0 $0

2.3 Bridge Condition Assessment Report & Basis of Design Draft 0 $0
Final 0 $0

2.4 City Council Update 0 $0

2.5 Contract Management
Project Management 0 $0
Quality Control 0 $0
Meetings 0 $0
40 $5,113
Task 3 Technical Studies & Deficiency Analysis

3.1 Structural Evaluation 0 $0

3.2 Historic Architectural Assessment Reports (HPSR/HRER) 420 $47,663

3.3 Preliminary Bridge Hydrology and Hydraulics Report 0 $0

3.4 Seismic Screening 0 $0

3.5 Traffic & Operations 0 $0

3.6 Detour & Closure Analysis 0 $0

3.7 Environmental Constraints Memorandum 0 $0

3.8 Outreach
Electronic Updates/Mailers 0 $0
Stakeholder Meeting 0 $0

3.9 City Council Update 0 $0

3.10 Contract Management
Project Management 0 $0
Quality Control 0 $0
Meetings 0 $0
420 $47,663
Task 4 Alternatives Analysis & Advance Planning Study

4.1 Develop Alternatives 0 $0

4.2 Alternatives Evaluation 16 $2,988

4.3 Bridge Advance Planning Study (APS) 0 $0

4.4 Recommended Alterantive 0 $0

4.5 Funding & Programming Support 0 $0

4.6 Detour & Closure Analysis 0 $0

4.7 Environmental Constraints Memorandum 0 $0

4.8 Outreach
Electronic Updates/Mailers 0 $0
Stakeholder Meeting 0 $0
Pop-up Engagement 0 $0

4.9 City Council Presentation 0 $0

4.10 Contract Management
Project Management 0 $0
Quality Control 0 $0
Meetings 0 $0
16 $2,988
Task 5 Environmental Clearance

5.1 Phase 1 Site Assessment 0 $0

5.2 Project Description 0 $0

5.3 Technical Studies
Biological Resources Assessment 0 $0
Aquatic Resources Delineation 0 $0
Noise Study memorandum 0 $0
Cultural Resources 0 $0
Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0 $0
Historic Resources Effects Reports (FAE/FNAE) 164 $28,850 STOCKTON AVENUE BRIDGE PROJECT GPA Consulting
Historic Architectural Studies
Total HoursTotal Fee Proposal
Andrea Galvin Principal Architectural HistorianJenna Kachour Sr. Associate Architectural HistorianAmanda Duane Senior Architectural HistorianAudrey vonAhrens Senior Architectural Historian

50.48% 50.48% 50.48% 50.48% 50.48% 50.48% Martin Rose Sr. GIS Analyst Jessica Nwankwo Associate Project Coordinator

FEE PROPOSAL
Submittal Date: 06.23.26
100.96 75.72 63.46 52.88 62.50 40.38
10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%

93.47% 93.47% 93.47% 93.47% 93.47% 93.47%
270.93 203.20 170.30 141.91 167.72 108.36

2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7
2 2
Task 1 Project Initiation & Scoping Subtotal: 2 8 0 0 0 6 00
8 8
Task 2 Data Collection & Existing Conditions Subtotal: 0 0 20 0 0 10 102 24
20 0
284
Task 3 Technical Studies & Deficiency Analysis Subtotal: 0 10 102 0 24 8 8
0284
Task 4 Alternatives Analysis & Advance Planning Study 0 8 8 0 00 0 28 136
Phoebe Rayburn Architectural Historian

31.80 50.48%

93.47%
10%

2.7 85.34
12 12
2026 Hourly Rate ($/ hour)
Fringe
Overhead
Profit
Multiplier
Billable Rate ($/ hour)
STOCKTON AVENUE BRIDGE PROJECT GPA Consulting
Historic Architectural Studies
Total HoursTotal Fee Proposal
Andrea Galvin Principal Architectural HistorianJenna Kachour Sr. Associate Architectural HistorianAmanda Duane Senior Architectural HistorianAudrey vonAhrens Senior Architectural Historian

50.48% 50.48% 50.48% 50.48% 50.48% 50.48% Martin Rose Sr. GIS Analyst Jessica Nwankwo Associate Project Coordinator

FEE PROPOSAL
Submittal Date: 06.23.26
100.96 75.72 63.46 52.88 62.50 40.38
10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%

93.47% 93.47% 93.47% 93.47% 93.47% 93.47%
270.93 203.20 170.30 141.91 167.72 108.36

2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 Phoebe Rayburn Architectural Historian

31.80 50.48%

93.47%
10%

2.7 85.34
(Optional) SOIS Action Plan 64 $11,425
(Optional) MOA 72 $13,856

5.4 Caltrans Technical Documentation
Natural Environment Study 0 $0
Biological Assessment 0 $0

5.5 Administrative Draft Initial Study/Environmental 0 $0

5.6 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 0 $0

5.7 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 0 $0

5.8 Regulatory Permitting 0 $0

5.9 Coastal Development Permit 0 $0

5.10 Contract Management
Project Management 0 $0
Quality Control 0 $0
Meetings 0 $0
300 $54,132
Task 6 Preliminary Engineering (35%)

6.1 Conceptual Design
Bridge Type Selection Report 0 $0
Conceptual Plans 0 $0

6.2 Preliminary Engineering (35%)
Technical Studies
Photometric Analysis 0 $0
Stormwater Control Plan 0 $0
Bridge Hydrology and Hydraulics Report 0 $0
Water Quality Study 0 $0
Plans (Traffic Management Plan) 0 $0

6.3 Bridge Site Data Submittal Package 0 $0

6.4 Right of Way Verification 0 $0

6.5 Cost Estimate & Risk
Cost Estimate 0 $0
Project Rsk Matrix 0 $0

6.6 Outreach
Electronic Updates 0 $0
Stakeholder Meeting 0 $0
Pop-up Engagement 0 $0

6.7 City Council Presentation 0 $0

6.8 Contract Management
Project Management 0 $0
Quality Control 0 $0
Meetings 0 $0
0 $0
Total Labor Expenses: 786 $112,063
Reimbursable Expenses
Airfare $700
Lodging $300
Meals $240
Rental Car/ Fuel $400
Research Fees $50
$1,690
$113,753
16 48
Task 5 Environmental Clearance Subtotal: 8 68 224 0 0 0 0 Total Reimbursable Expenses:

Total Fee:
0 10 94 354 0 24 0
Task 6 Preliminary Engineering (35%) Subtotal: 0 0 0 0 00 304
8 24 40
2026 Hourly Rate ($/ hour)
Fringe
Overhead
Profit
Multiplier
Billable Rate ($/ hour)
Task 1 Project Initiation & Scoping

1.1 Project Kickoff 10 $2,169

1.2 Purpose & Need Development 0 $0

1.3 Stakeholder & Outreach Strategy 0 $0

1.4 Contract Management
Project Management 0 $0
Quality Control 0 $0
Meetings 0 $0
10 $2,169
Task 2 Data Collection & Existing Conditions

2.1 Data Collection and Field Review
Data Collection 0 $0
Field Investigation 0 $0
Traffic Data Collection 94 $18,769
Geotechnical Investigation 0 $0
Historic Architect Site Visit 0 $0

2.2 Utility Coordination 0 $0

2.3 Bridge Condition Assessment Report & Basis of Design Draft 0 $0
Final 0 $0

2.4 City Council Update 0 $0

2.5 Contract Management
Project Management 0 $0
Quality Control 0 $0
Meetings 0 $0
94 $18,769
Task 3 Technical Studies & Deficiency Analysis

3.1 Structural Evaluation 0 $0

3.2 Historic Architectural Assessment Reports (HPSR/HRER) 0 $0

3.3 Preliminary Bridge Hydrology and Hydraulics Report 0 $0

3.4 Seismic Screening 0 $0

3.5 Traffic & Operations 98 $19,107

3.6 Detour & Closure Analysis 140 $28,535

3.7 Environmental Constraints Memorandum 0 $0

3.8 Outreach
Electronic Updates/Mailers 0 $0
Stakeholder Meeting 0 $0

3.9 City Council Update 0 $0

3.10 Contract Management
Project Management 0 $0
Quality Control 0 $0
Meetings 0 $0
238 $47,642
Task 4 Alternatives Analysis & Advance Planning Study

4.1 Develop Alternatives

4.2 Alternatives Evaluation 0 $0

4.3 Bridge Advance Planning Study (APS) 0 $0

4.4 Recommended Alterantive 0 $0

4.5 Funding & Programming Support 0 $0

4.6 Detour & Closure Analysis 0 $0

4.7 Environmental Constraints Memorandum 0 $0

4.8 Outreach
Electronic Updates/Mailers 0 $0
Stakeholder Meeting 0 $0
Pop-up Engagement 0 $0

4.9 City Council Presentation 0 $0

4.10 Contract Management
Project Management 0 $0
Quality Control 0 $0
Meetings 0 $0
0 $0
Task 5 Environmental Clearance

5.1 Phase 1 Site Assessment 0 $0

5.2 Project Description 0 $0

5.3 Technical Studies
Biological Resources Assessment 0 $0
Aquatic Resources Delineation 0 $0
Noise Study memorandum 0 $0
Cultural Resources 0 $0
Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0 $0
Historic Resources Effects Reports (FAE/FNAE) 0 $0
STOCKTON AVENUE BRIDGE PROJECT Fehr & Peers
Traffic Engineers
Total HoursTotal Fee Proposal
Steve Davis Principal-in-Charge
Alexandra Lee-Gardner Project Manager | Senior Engineer/Planner IIISuzanne Luckjiff Senior Associate Engineer IIKevin Zamzow-Pollock Senior Engineer/Planner IIIMichelle Chung GraphicsBrandon Aviles Project Coordinator

FEE PROPOSAL
Submittal Date: 06.23.26

97.60 62.74 93.27 62.74 51.20
175.97% 175.97% 175.97% 175.97% 175.97% 175.97%

45.19 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%
296.28 190.46 283.14 190.46 155.43 137.18
4 4 2
Task 1 Project Initiation & Scoping Subtotal: 0 4 4 0 0 8 16 12 32 16 10
2 Task 2 Data Collection & Existing Conditions Subtotal: 8 16 12 32 16 8 16 24 64 16 12
4 24 12 32 16 10
Task 3 Technical Studies & Deficiency Analysis Subtotal: 12 40 36 96 32 22 Task 4 Alternatives Analysis & Advance Planning Study 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 2026 Hourly Rate ($/ hour)
Fringe
Overhead
Profit
Multiplier
Billable Rate ($/ hour)
STOCKTON AVENUE BRIDGE PROJECT Fehr & Peers
Traffic Engineers
Total HoursTotal Fee Proposal
Steve Davis Principal-in-Charge
Alexandra Lee-Gardner Project Manager | Senior Engineer/Planner IIISuzanne Luckjiff Senior Associate Engineer IIKevin Zamzow-Pollock Senior Engineer/Planner IIIMichelle Chung GraphicsBrandon Aviles Project Coordinator

FEE PROPOSAL
Submittal Date: 06.23.26

97.60 62.74 93.27 62.74 51.20
175.97% 175.97% 175.97% 175.97% 175.97% 175.97%

45.19 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%
296.28 190.46 283.14 190.46 155.43 137.18
(Optional) SOIS Action Plan 0 $0
(Optional) MOA 0 $0

5.4 Caltrans Technical Documentation
Natural Environment Study 0 $0
Biological Assessment 0 $0

5.5 Administrative Draft Initial Study/Environmental 0 $0

5.6 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 0 $0

5.7 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 0 $0

5.8 Regulatory Permitting 0 $0

5.9 Coastal Development Permit 0 $0

5.10 Contract Management
Project Management 0 $0
Quality Control 0 $0
Meetings 0 $0
0 $0
Task 6 Preliminary Engineering (35%)

6.1 Conceptual Design
Bridge Type Selection Report 0 $0
Conceptual Plans 0 $0

6.3 Bridge Site Data Submittal Package 0 $0

6.4 Right of Way Verification 0 $0

6.5 Cost Estimate & Risk
Cost Estimate 0 $0
Project Rsk Matrix 0 $0

6.6 Outreach
Electronic Updates 0 $0
Stakeholder Meeting 0 $0
Pop-up Engagement 0 $0

6.7 City Council Presentation 0 $0

6.8 Contract Management
Project Management 0 $0
Quality Control 0 $0
Meetings 0 $0
122 $25,675
Total Labor Expenses: 464 $94,254
Reimbursable Expenses
Direct Costs: Count Data Collection and MileagDirect Costs: Count Data Collection and Mileage $3,500 $3,500
$97,754
Task 5 Environmental Clearance Subtotal: 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Fee:
10 28 84 84 152 72 44
Task 6 Preliminary Engineering (35%) Subtotal: 8 24 32 24 24 Total Reimbursable Expenses:
8 24 32 24 24 10
CSWST2.com
CSWST2 | 303 Twin Dolphin Drive Redwood Shores, 6th Floor, Redwood City, CA 94065 | t. 415.883.9850

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
DATE: April 2, 2026 Job No.: 2300338
TO: Jessica Kahn, City of Capitola
FROM: Julia Harberson, CSWST2
RE: STOCKTON AVENUE BRIDGE EXISTING CONDITION – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Stockton Avenue Bridge is an aging structure (approximately 93 years old) that is showing clear signs of deterioration and increasing risk. Recent inspections found significant corrosion in key structural elements, especially in the bridge deck, along with cracking, exposed reinforcement, and ongoing maintenance needs.

While the bridge is still safe for use today, its condition will continue to decline over time.

In addition to structural concerns, the bridge is vulnerable to scour (erosion around its foundations) during high flows in Soquel Creek. Analysis indicates the bridge is “scour critical,” meaning its foundations could become unstable under severe storm conditions, especially when debris accumulates.

The bridge also carries multiple utilities (sewer, water, and electrical). While some are in acceptable condition, others show deterioration such as corrosion, cracking, and aging infrastructure, and there are discrepancies between existing utilities and historical records.

Key Findings:
• Remaining service life: Estimated at 5–10 years, though uncertain due to hidden deterioration. • Timing: Replacement planning should begin immediately, as studies and approvals alone may take ~2 years.
• Why not repair: Even major repairs (like full deck replacement) are not cost-e?ective long-term and would not address underlying issues such as corrosion, debris impacts, and seismic vulnerabilities. • Risk of delaying replacement: Continued deterioration could lead to severe cracking, unsafe conditions, or even partial closure, with potential for prolonged roadway shutdown if failure occurs. • Monitoring needs: Increasing deck cracking is the main warning sign; frequent inspections (about every 3 months) are recommended.

Conclusion: While short-term maintenance can keep the bridge operational, the combination of advanced age, structural deterioration, hydraulic/scour risks, and seismic deficiencies make full bridge replacement the most practical and cost-e?ective long-term solution. Planning should begin now to avoid higher risks, costs, and potential service disruptions in the near future. 379
Item 7 C.

CSWST2.com
CSWST2 | 303 Twin Dolphin Drive Redwood Shores, 6th Floor, Redwood City, CA 94065 | t. 415.883.9850

MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 1, 2026 Job No.: 2300338
TO: Jessica Kahn, City of Capitola
FROM: Julia Harberson, CSWST2
RE: STOCKTON AVENUE BRIDGE EXISITING CONDITION MEMORANDUM

INTRODUCTION
This memorandum is a summary of the existing condition of the Stockton Avenue Bridge in Capitola, California.

UTILITY INSPECTION RESULTS
Based on the field investigation conducted on July 16, 2025, the Stockton Avenue Bridge contains multiple utilities within two primary corridors, including sanitary sewer, water, electrical, and unknown lines. Most PVC utilities appear to be in generally serviceable condition with no visible signs of distress, while observed conditions of other utilities include cracking and spalling of the 18-inch asbestos cement sanitary sewer force main, corrosion on ductile iron sewer lines, and exposed or aged electrical wiring. The investigation also identified differences between field conditions and available as-built documentation, including the presence of additional utilities not previously recorded. Proper documentation, including the photos and exhibits gathered during this field visit, will support the design team in evaluating feasible utility strategies during the bridge repair or replacement. See Attachment 1 – Utility Inspection Results.

SCOUR ANALYSIS
Stockton Avenue Bridge was evaluated for bridge scour in four flow scenarios, low flow (Q=1,200 cfs) with and without debris, and high flow (Q=17,500 cfs) with and without debris. Based on these evaluations, FHWA Item 113 (Code & Recommendation) is identified as Code 3, and the bridge is classified as scour critical. Detailed results and recommendations are provided in Table 6 of the Scour Analysis. See Attachment 2 – Scour Analysis.

SUPPLEMENTAL STRUCTURAL CONDITION EVALUATION
Excerpt from Attachment 3 - Supplemental Structural Condition Evaluation:

Conclusion
At a minimum, the widespread loss of a significant percentage of transverse deck reinforcement from corrosion requires a full deck slab replacement. Since the lost reinforcing bars are the bottom transverse 380
Item 7 C.

Page 2 of 8 ends

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture bars, their repair cannot be addressed with a deck overlay or methacrylate treatment. The recent records for the bridge indicate substantially increased frequency and cost for structural repairs to address corrosion and corrosion related spalls. Given the advanced age of the bridge (93 years), hydraulic and seismic deficiencies, and the substantial cost to restore the deck slab, a full bridge replacement is recommended. In the interim, a load rating reduction is not regarded as necessary since the lost reinforcement alone will not lead to a collapse risk. The deck will continue to deteriorate showing more numerous and wider surface cracks.

Cracking should be monitored and recorded. The deck should be re-assessed if cracking is found to be significantly increased.

Based on the 2022 Caltrans bridge inspection report, this bridge is currently eligible for Bridge Preventive Maintenance Program (BPMP) funding to repair the bridge deck. With the benefit of the photos from our March 2026 observations, Caltrans may reassess the deck and superstructure resulting in HBP funding for rehabilitation and potentially for replacement based on the results of a feasibility study.

Refer to Attachment 3 for complete Supplemental Structural Condition Evaluation.

CSWST2.com
381
Item 7 C.

CSWST2.com
CSWST2 | 303 Twin Dolphin Drive Redwood Shores, 6th Floor, Redwood City, CA 94065 | t. 415.883.9850

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Utility Inspection Results
Attachment 2: Scour Analysis
Attachment 3: Supplemental Structural Condition Evaluation 382
Item 7 C.

CSWST2.com
CSWST2 | 303 Twin Dolphin Drive Redwood Shores, 6th Floor, Redwood City, CA 94065 | t. 415.883.9850 Attachment 1
Utility Inspection Results
383
Item 7 C.

CSWST2.com
CSWST2 | 504 Redwood Blvd Suite 310, Novato, CA 94947 | t. 415.883.9850

MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 16, 2025 Job No.: 2300338
TO: Jessica Kahn, P.E.

FROM: Julia Harberson, P.E.

RE: Stockton Avenue Bridge Utility Inspection Results

INTRODUCTION
On July 16, 2025, CSWST2, in conjunction with Biggs Cardosa, & Associates (BCA), conducted a field inspection of the utility infrastructure located at Stockton Avenue Bridge in Capitola, California. Our team investigated the utility infrastructure within the existing bridge. Our inspection focused on evaluating the condition of utilities running through two primary utility corridors situated beneath the bridge deck. Prior to the inspection, we reviewed the Caltrans’ as-built drawings from the original bridge construction, which provided a baseline understanding of expected utility alignments and types. The inspection was prompted by the ongoing planning for the rehabilitation or replacement of the bridge structure and was intended to document the existing conditions of utility lines and assess whether any adjustments, protections, or replacements will be necessary as part of future work.

The Stockton Avenue Bridge serves as a key vehicular and pedestrian link over Soquel Creek and supports several critical utility lines. As such, understanding the type, size, condition, and relative position of these utilities is essential for both design and construction planning.

METHODS & RESULTS
Utility Corridor 1
The inspection began with access to the manholes associated with Utility Corridor 1, located beneath the existing northern sidewalk, see Figure 1. The corridor houses multiple utility lines and was accessed via the existing manholes, see Attachment 1. After opening the manholes, accumulated dust and debris was cleared from the surfaces to ensure clear visibility and access to the utilities.
384
Item 7 C.

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture Figure 1. Manhole Access to Utility Corridor 1 & 2
We documented the existing conditions through both direct measurement and photographic records. Photos of Corridor 1 utilities can be found in Attachments 3 through 8. Pipe materials, diameters, and configurations were noted to the extent possible from the limited access. Tables 1 through 6 show the utilities found in this corridor.

Table 1. Manhole 1 Utilities
Manhole 1
Pipe Size Utility Type Material Condition
18” Sanitary Sewer Force
Main
Asbestos Cement
Pipe
Visible cracking and spalling in
several sections of the outer
encasement.
3” Unknown Polyvinyl Chloride
(Dark Gray)
No visible signs of deformation,
stress, or leaks.
3” Unknown Polyvinyl Chloride
(Light Gray)
No signs of deformation, stress,
or leaks.

Utility Corridor 1
Utility Corridor 2

Page 2 of 7 ends

385
Item 7 C.

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture Table 2. Manhole 2 Utilities
Manhole 2
Pipe Size Utility Type Material Condition
18” Sanitary Sewer Force
Main
Asbestos Cement
Pipe
Exterior is encrusted in sand. No
visible cracks or fractures.
3” Unknown Polyvinyl Chloride
(Dark Gray)
Surface is dirty. No visible signs of
structural damage.
2” Electrical Polyvinyl Chloride
(White)
Conduit is intact. Wires are
exposed and appear tangled and
aged.

Table 3. Manhole 3 Utilities
Manhole 3
Pipe Size Utility Type Material Condition
18” Sanitary Sewer Force
Main
Asbestos Cement
Pipe
Visible cracking and spalling in
several sections of the outer
encasement.
3” Unknown Polyvinyl Chloride
(Dark Gray)
Joints and fittings intact. No
visible evidence of leaking or
stress.
3” Unknown Polyvinyl Chloride
(Light Gray)
Joints and fittings intact. No
visible evidence of leaking or
stress.
2” Electrical Polyvinyl Chloride
(White)
Joints and fittings intact. No
visible evidence of stress.

Table 4. Manhole 4 Utilities
Manhole 4
Pipe Size Utility Type Material Condition
18” Sanitary Sewer Force
Main
Asbestos Cement
Pipe
Visible cracking and spalling in
several sections of the outer
encasement.
3” Unknown Polyvinyl Chloride
(Dark Gray)
Joints and fittings intact. No
visible evidence of leaking or
stress.
3” Unknown Polyvinyl Chloride
(Light Gray)
Joints and fittings intact. No
visible evidence of leaking or
stress.
2” Electrical Polyvinyl Chloride
(White)
Joints and fittings intact. Minor
surface wear.

Page 3 of 7 ends

386
Item 7 C.

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture Table 5. Manhole 5 Utilities
Manhole 5
Pipe Size Utility Type Material Condition
18” Sanitary Sewer Force
Main
Asbestos Cement
Pipe
Visible cracking and spalling in
several sections of the outer
encasement.
3” Unknown Polyvinyl Chloride
(Dark Gray)
Joints and fittings intact. No
visible evidence of leaking or
stress.
3” Unknown Polyvinyl Chloride
(Light Gray)
Joints and fittings intact. No
visible evidence of leaking or
stress.
2” Electrical Polyvinyl Chloride
(White)
Minor surface wear. No visible
evidence of stress.

Table 6. Manhole 6 Utilities
Manhole 6
Pipe Size Utility Type Material Condition
18” Sanitary Sewer Force
Main
Asbestos Cement
Pipe
Minor surface wear. Water leaking
onto pipe, source untraceable.
3” Unknown Polyvinyl Chloride
(Dark Gray)
Joints and fittings intact. No
visible evidence of leaking or
stress.
3” Unknown Polyvinyl Chloride
(Light Gray)
Joints and fittings intact. No
visible evidence of leaking or
stress.
2” Electrical Polyvinyl Chloride
(White)
Joints and fittings intact. No
visible evidence of stress.

Utility Corridor 2
Utility Corridor 2 runs along the south side of the bridge, see Figure 1. Similar to Corridor 1, manhole lids were removed and cleared of dust and debris to properly document the utility lines.

We measured visible utilities and took photos from multiple angles to assess their condition and configuration, see Tables 7 and 8. Photos of Corridor 2 utilities can be found in Attachments 9 and

10.

Page 4 of 7 ends

387
Item 7 C.

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture Table 7. Manhole A Utilities
Manhole A
Pipe Size Utility Type Material Condition
4” Water Polyvinyl Chloride
(Dark Gray)
Joints and fittings intact. No
visible evidence of leaking or
stress.
6” Unknown Polyvinyl Chloride
(White)
Surface is dusty but intact. No
visible deformation or major
damage.
5” Unknown Polyvinyl Chloride
(White with Gray
joints)
Covered in soil; no visible
damage, but full condition not
assessable.
5” Unknown Polyvinyl Chloride
(White with Gray
joints)
Buried in soil. No visible defects
from exposed sections.
3” Unknown Polyvinyl Chloride
(Dark gray)
Coated in dust. Appears
structurally intact. No visible
signs of stress.
2” Unknown Polyvinyl Chloride
(White)
Mostly buried. Visible section
intact, but condition uncertain.
6” Sanitary Sewer Force
Main
Ductile Iron Surface heavily corroded and
flaking. Likely abandoned.
10” Sanitary Sewer Force
Main
Ductile Iron Outer surface shows some wear.

Moderate corrosion present.
8” Unknown Polyvinyl Chloride
(Gray)
Minor joint staining.

Page 5 of 7 ends

388
Item 7 C.

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture Table 8. Manhole B Utilities
Manhole B
Pipe Size Utility Type Material Condition
4” Water Polyvinyl Chloride
(Dark Gray)
Hidden mostly behind other
pipes. Visible section intact.
6” (3”) Unknown Polyvinyl Chloride
(White; interior pipe -
Dark Gray)
Surface is dusty but intact. 6”
pipe encasing 3” pipe. Both pipes
visibly intact.
5” Unknown Polyvinyl Chloride
(White with Gray
joints)
Covered in soil. No visible
damage. Joints and fittings intact.
5” Unknown Polyvinyl Chloride
(White with Gray
joints)
Covered in soil. No visible
damage Joints and fittings intact.
3” Unknown Polyvinyl Chloride
(Dark gray)
Buried in dust. Appears
structurally intact. No visible
signs of stress.
2” Unknown Polyvinyl Chloride
(White)
Minor dirt and grime. No visible
signs of damage.
6” Sanitary Sewer Force
Main
Ductile Iron Buried in soil. Surface heavily
corroded and flaking.
10” Sanitary Sewer Force
Main
Ductile Iron Outer surface shows some wear.

Minor corrosion present.
8” Unknown Polyvinyl Chloride
(Gray)
Minor staining. No visible signs of
damage.

Utility investigation revealed additional utilities to those listed in the as-built documentation, see Attachment 1 for the location of the utilities.

Proper documentation, including the photos and exhibits gathered during this field visit, will support the design team in evaluating feasible utility strategies during the bridge repair or replacement.

Page 6 of 7 ends

389
Item 7 C.

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Stockton Avenue Bridge Utility Inspection Exhibit Attachment 2: Caltrans Stockton Avenue Bridge As-Builts Attachment 3: Manhole 1: Interior Picture
Attachment 4: Manhole 2: Interior Picture
Attachment 5: Manhole 3: Interior Picture
Attachment 6: Manhole 4: Interior Picture
Attachment 7: Manhole 5: Interior Picture
Attachment 8: Manhole 6: Interior Picture
Attachment 9: Manhole A: Interior Picture
Attachment 10: Manhole B: Interior Picture

Page 7 of 7 ends

390
Item 7 C.

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture ATTACHMENT 1
391
Item 7 C.

SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
A
- Graphic Scale (in feet)
0 1 inch = 20 ft. 20 20 40

SOQUEL CREEK STOCKTON AVE PACIFIC OCEAN

CAPITOLA CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ COUNTY
Date: 07/25/25
Scale:

Prepared Under the Direction of: Rev
Job No. 2300338
P:\Shared\Projects\2023\2300338 Capitola Stockton Bridge Replacement\DWG\wd-nd\Stockton Ave Bridge Section.dwg 09/12/2025 - 10:47 AM natalie 1:3.5602

STOCKTON AVENUE BRIDGE BRIDGE
UTILITY INSPECTION EXHIBIT ( /2)
Engineering
Landscape Architecture
Surveying
Urban Planning
504 Redwood Boulevard, #310
Novato, CA 94947
415.533.1864
CSWST2.com SCALE:
= PLAN VIEW 1" 20'
1 1" = 20' MH 1 MH 2 MH 3 MH 4 MH 5 MH 6 LEGEND LIMIT OF UTILITY CORRIDOR MANHOLE (WELDED) ACCESS MANHOLE (OPENED) CATCH BASIN MH A MH B ROAD CENTERLINE SD UTILITY CORRIDOR 2 UTILITY CORRIDOR 1 392
Item 7 C.
4' CLASS II 11' TRAVEL LANE 11' TRAVEL LANE 4' CLASS II 6' SIDEWALK 6' SIDEWALK SCALE: SECTION NTS A
1 -
2 -
3" PVC
3" PVC
4" PVC WATER
5" PVC
5" PVC
2" PVC
8" PVC SCALE: ENLARGEMENT NTS
1 SCALE: ENLARGEMENT NTS
2 18" ACP SSFM
6 " DI
2" PVC

ELECTRICAL
3" PVC ENCASED
IN 6" PVC
3" PVC

ABANDONED
10" DI SSFM
- UTILITYCORRIDOR - UTILITYCORRIDOR

CAPITOLA CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ COUNTY
Date: 07/25/25
Scale:

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture ATTACHMENT 2
394
Item 7 C.

California Department of Transportation
Division of Maintenance
Structure Maintenance and Investigations
BRIDGE

INSPECTION

RECORDS

INFORMATION
SYSTEM
The requested documents have been generated by BIRIS.

These documents are the property of the California Department of Transportation and should be handled in accordance with Deputy Directive 55 and the State Administrative Manual.

Records for “Confidential” bridges may only be released outside the Department of Transportation upon execution of a confidentiality agreement. 395
Item 7 C.
396
Item 7 C.
397
Item 7 C.
398
Item 7 C.
399
Item 7 C.

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture ATTACHMENT 3
400
Item 7 C.

MANHOLE 1: INTERIOR PICTURE
401
Item 7 C.

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture ATTACHMENT 4
402
Item 7 C.

MANHOLE 2: INTERIOR PICTURE
403
Item 7 C.

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture ATTACHMENT 5
404
Item 7 C.

MANHOLE 3: INTERIOR PICTURE
405
Item 7 C.

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture ATTACHMENT 6
406
Item 7 C.

MANHOLE 4: INTERIOR PICTURE
407
Item 7 C.

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture ATTACHMENT 7
408
Item 7 C.

MANHOLE 5: INTERIOR PICTURE
409
Item 7 C.

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture ATTACHMENT 8
410
Item 7 C.

MANHOLE 6: INTERIOR PICTURE
411
Item 7 C.

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture ATTACHMENT 9
412
Item 7 C.

MANHOLE A: INTERIOR PICTURE
413
Item 7 C.

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture ATTACHMENT 10
414
Item 7 C.

MANHOLE B: INTERIOR PICTURE
415
Item 7 C.

CSWST2.com
CSWST2 | 303 Twin Dolphin Drive Redwood Shores, 6th Floor, Redwood City, CA 94065 | t. 415.883.9850 Attachment 2
Scour Analysis
416
Item 7 C.

CSWST2.com
CSWST2 | 303 Twin Dolphin Drive Redwood Shores, 6th Floor, Redwood City, CA 94065 | t. 415.883.9850

MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 1, 2026 Job No.: 2300338
TO: Jessica Kahn, City of Capitola
FROM: Julia Harberson, CSWST2
RE: STOCKTON AVENUE BRIDGE SCOUR ANALYSIS

INTRODUCTION
This memorandum is prepared to provide a summary of the preliminary findings of the scour analysis for the Stockton Avenue Bridge in Capitola, California as a part of Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM), Section 16-1 – Hydraulic Design for Structures Over Walkways. Stockton Avenue Bridge spans the lower reaches of Soquel Creek near the mouth of the creek. Soquel Creek Watershed, which is situated between the cities of Santa Cruz and Watsonville, drains an area of approximately 42 square miles. The watershed is comprised of urban development, rural residential development, agriculture, parks and recreation, and mining and timber harvesting. Stockton Avenue Bridge serves as a key vehicular and pedestrian link and supports several critical utility lines. Thus assessing the condition of the bridge and the effect of scour is key.

Figure 1: Stockton Avenue Bridge Looking Upstream

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Stockton Avenue Bridge is furthest downstream bridge in the Soquel Creek watershed, which is known to have large woody debris (LWD) that has historically caused flooding by damming up bridges, specifically in 417
Item 7 C.

Page 2 of 8 ends

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture 1955 and 1982 storm seasons. Stockton Avenue Bridge has a center clear span of 80 feet and is supported by two piers.

Figure 2: Stockton Avenue Bridge As-Built with Pile Caps Highlighted (Red is the top of the pile cap and blue is the bottom of the pile cap)
At the mouth of Soquel Creek, downstream of the Stockton Avenue Bridge, a lagoon is artificially formed in the summer by building or allowing a sandy berm/sandbar at the creek’s outlet. A concrete flume under the sand that allows Soquel Creek to discharge to the ocean when the sandbar is in place. Flow is managed through this flume. Once creek flows rise sufficiently (often in winter / the rainy season), the sandbar is opened or breached so the creek can flow freely to the ocean. This helps prevent flooding, overflow, or other hazards. For the purpose of our analysis, we assume the sandbar has been breached.

METHODOLOGY
In alignment with Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines HEC-18, bridge scour analysis was completed utilizing the Army Corp of Engineer’s Hydrologic Engineering Center’s River Analysis Computer Program (HEC-RAS). Use of HEC-RAS to model channel hydraulics for the scenarios provided is considered appropriate as the water in the channel, at the elevations modeled, is flowing in one direction, downstream, toward the ocean during the flow event. Additionally, HEC-RAS model provides bridge scour depths for contraction, piers and abutments.

Geometry:

The HEC-RAS geometry file which defines the water channel (Soquel Creek) and adjacent topography is based on topographic information of the area sourced from the County of Santa Cruz Geographic Information Systems Department. This topographic information is supplemented by field points taken by CSWST2 in July 2025 utilizing the Trimble Geo 7x Handheld GNSS System. The bridge information is based on the As-Built Plans Set from Caltrans, Document No. 40008995 for Capitola Bridge, dated October 1933.

Peak Flow:

The peak flow used for the 100-year storm event is 17,500 cfs in accordance with the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for Santa Cruz County, CA and Incorporated Areas, FIS No. 06087CV001C.
418
Item 7 C.

Page 3 of 8 ends

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture The peak flow for the lower flow event of 1,200 cfs is pulled from the United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) website, “USGS Water Data for the Nation” (waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis). USGS provides data retrieved from a flow monitoring location in Soquel Creek. Between January 2024 and March 2024 four storms produced flows of 1000 cfs or more in Soquel Creek. Large woody debris was observed to be caught below the Stockton Avenue Bridge in February 2024 and in March 2024.

Starting Hydraulic Grade Line:

In this preliminary analysis, to evaluate the response of hydraulic grade line upstream of the Stockton Avenue Bridge to each of the Countermeasure Alternatives, it is assumed that the tide is low and Soquel Creek flows freely at normal depth conditions toward the Pacific Ocean.

Channel Roughness:

United States Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2339 “Guide for Selecting Manning’s Roughness Coefficients for Natural Channels and Flood Plains” G. Arcement, Jr. & V. Schneider Main Channel:

Table 1. “Base values of Manning’s n”
Sand Channel
n = 0.026
Floodplains:

Utilize a base value of 0.026 and add an adjustment factor from:

Table 2. “Adjustment values for factors that affect the roughness of a channel” Amount of vegetation – medium – adjustment factor 0.010 n = 0.036
Debris Piers:

HEC-RAS includes the ability to identify the width and depth of floating debris caught on bridge piers, which affect the channel cross section geometry. Data is not available for the amount of LWD that could be caught on a structure for any given storm event. Assumptions were made for the amount of floating debris caught on the Stockton Avenue Bridge and the counter measure alternatives. These assumptions are provided below. • Assumes that debris is caught on the bridge piers.
• Debris capture is represented by debris piers in the HEC-RAS model • Debris piers extend 15 feet on either side of the centerline of the eastern bridge pier. • Debris piers extend 10 feet on either side of the centerline of the western bridge pier. • The debris pier floats below the water surface at 6’ deep. 419
Item 7 C.

Page 4 of 8 ends

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture Bridge Scour:

The HEC-RAS program automatically inputs the results of the hydraulic analysis in the bridge scour analysis.

To complete the bridge scour analysis, the following assumptions were made:
• The river bed was assumed to be silty sandy DG type soil where D50=1mm and D95=10mm. • Per the HEC-18 guidelines, the bed was assumed to be clear-water. • Based on the As-Built drawings of the bridge and a conservative approach, square-nosed piers. • The water-flow to pier angle is set at 0-degrees as the water flow is perpendicular to the bridge.

SCOUR ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
Four scenarios were considered in the bridge scour analysis of Stockton Avenue Bridge, see Table 1 below.

Flow Scenario Flow Rate (cfs)
Low Flow no Debris 1,200
Low Flow with Debris 1,200
High Flow no Debris 17,500
High Flow with Debris 17,500
Table 1: Flow Scenarios
From the HEC-RAS analysis, the scour depth is adjusted for the approximate channel invert and an actual approximate scour depth elevation is calculated which is compared to the bridge pier elevations. Table 2 below shows the pier scour depth results from the analysis and adjustment to approximate scour elevation.

As shown in Table 1 below, in the low flow condition (Q=1,200 cfs), large woody debris does not impact the scour analysis. In the high flow condition (Q=17,500 cfs), the large woody debris increases the scour depth.

Flow Condition Pier + Contraction Scour
(ft)
Approximate Channel
Invert (ft)
Pier + Contraction Scour
Depth Elevation (ft)
Peak
Flow
(cfs)
Large
Woody
Debris
North/Right
Pier
South/Left
Pier
North/Right
Pier
South/Left
Pier
North/Right
Pier
South/Left
Pier
1,200 No 5.68 5.68 -1.5 -1.5 -7.18 -7.18
1,200 Yes 5.68 5.68 -1.5 -1.5 -7.18 -7.18
17,500 No 14.39 14.39 -1.5 -1.5 -15.88 -15.88
17,500 Yes 17.15 17.15 -1.5 -1.5 -18.65 -18.65
Table 2: Pier Scour Results
The results of the scour analysis at the abutments as well as the adjustment to scour depth elevation are shown in Table 3 below. As shown in Table 3, only the right bridge abutment in the high flow (Q=17,500 cfs) condition with woody debris, is impacted by pier scour. 420
Item 7 C.

Page 5 of 8 ends

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture Flow Condition Abutment + Contraction
Scour
Approximate Channel
Invert (ft)
Abutment + Contraction
Scour Depth Elevation (ft)
Peak
Flow
(cfs)
Large
Woody
Debris
North/Right
Abutment
South/Left
Abutment
North/Right
Abutment
South/Left
Abutment
North/Right
Abutment
South/Left
Abutment
1,200 No n/a n/a 4.42 8.4 n/a n/a
1,200 Yes n/a n/a 4.42 8.4 n/a n/a
17,500 No n/a n/a 4.42 8.4 n/a n/a
17,500 Yes 5.95 n/a 4.42 8.4 -1.53 n/a
Table 3: Abutment Scour Results
The following relevant single-digit and bridge condition status are per Attachment B of the FHWA Revision of Coding Guide, Item 113 – Scour Critical Bridges Memorandum dated April 27, 2001 (HIBT-30):

Code Description
5 Bridge foundations determined to be stable for assessed or calculated scour conditions. Scour is determined to be within the limits of footing or piles (Example B) by assessment (i.e., bridge foundations are on rock formations that have been determined to resist scour within the service life of the bridge), by calculations or by installation of properly designed countermeasures (see HEC 23).
3 Bridge is scour critical; bridge foundations determined to be unstable for assessed or calculated scour conditions:
-Scour within limits of footing or piles (Example B)
-Scour below spread footing base or pile tips.

Examples Calculated Scour Depth Action Needed
A. Above Top of
Footing
None – indicate rating of 8 for this
item
B. Within Limits
of piles
Conduct foundation structural
analysis
C. Below pile tips Provide for monitoring and scour
countermeasures as necessary
421
Item 7 C.

Page 6 of 8 ends

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture As shown in Table 4 below, for all flow scenarios, the entire pier caps are exposed. In the low flow condition (Q=1,200 cfs), the length of pier exposure may vary over the course of a storm event with the possible variance in the channel bed elevation at the piers. The scour depth falls between the top of the pile cap and the bottom of the pile but near the pile cap which, per FHWA Item 113 is coded as 3 or 5 meaning additional structural analysis is required to determine whether the bridge foundations are stable or not and additional measures to protect the exposed foundations may be required.

Per the as-built drawings, the length of the pier pile timbers is approximately 25’ long. As such, in the high flow conditions (Q=17,500 cfs), the scour depth falls in the bottom half of the exposed pier pile. Per Item 113 (FHWA NBIP), the bridge is coded as 3 which indicates the bridge is scour critical and additional foundation structural analysis is needed.

Flow Condition Pier + Contraction Scour
Depth Elevation (ft)
Pier Cap Top/Bottom
Elevation (ft)
Pier Cap Exposed Top/Bottom
(Yes/No)
Peak
Flow
(cfs)
Large
Woody
Debris
North/Right
Pier
South/Left
Pier
North/Right
Pier
South/Left
Pier
North/Right
Pier
South/Left
Pier
1,200 No -7.18 -7.18 -3 / -7 -3 / -7 Yes / Yes Yes / Yes 1,200 Yes -7.18 -7.18 -3 / -7 -3 / -7 Yes / Yes Yes / Yes 17,500 No -15.88 -15.88 -3 / -7 -3 / -7 Yes / Yes Yes / Yes 17,500 Yes -18.65 -18.65 -3 / -7 -3 / -7 Yes / Yes Yes / Yes Table 4: Pier Scour – Adjusted Scour Depth
As noted in Table 3, only the northern (right) abutment is impacted by bridge scour in the high flow scenario accounting for debris. As shown in Table 5 below, the entire abutment pier cap is exposed. Approximately 2- feet of the piles are exposed and per FHWA Item 113, the bridge is coded as 3 or 5 which means additional structural analysis is required to determine whether the bridge foundations are stable or not and additional measures to protect the exposed foundations may be required.

Flow Condition
Abutment + Contraction
Scour Depth Elevation
(ft
Abutment Pier Cap
Top/Bottom Elevation (ft)
Abutment Pier Cap
Exposed Top/Bottom
(Yes/No)
Peak
Flow
(cfs)
Large
Woody
Debris
North/Right
Abutment
South/Left
Abutment
North/Right
Abutment
South/Left
Abutment
North/Right
Abutment
South/Left
Abutment
1,200 No n/a n/a 2.5 / 0 4.5 / 2 n/a n/a
1,200 Yes n/a n/a 2.5 / 0 4.5 / 2 n/a n/a
17,500 No n/a n/a 2.5 / 0 4.5 / 2 n/a n/a
17,500 Yes -1.53 n/a 2.5 / 0 4.5 / 2 Yes / Yes n/a
Table 5: Abutment Scour – Adjusted Depth
422
Item 7 C.

Page 7 of 8 ends

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture

CONCLUSION
Stockton Avenue Bridge was analyzed for bridge scour in four flow scenarios, low flow (Q=1,200 cfs) with and without debris, and high flow (Q=17,500 cfs) with and without debris. As seen in Table 2, debris doesn’t impact the low flow bridge scour results. See Table 6 below.

Location Flow Scenario Scour Depth FHWA Item 113 Code & Recommendation
Bridge Piers
(north &
south)
Low Flow with
and without
Debris
(Q=1,200 cfs)
3 or 5:
• additional structural
analysis is needed to
determine bridge
foundation stability
High Flow no
Debris
(Q=17,500 cfs)
3:
• bridge is scour
critical
• additional foundation
structural analysis is
needed to determine
foundation stability
High Flow with
Debris
(Q=17,500 cfs)
3:
• bridge is scour
critical
• additional foundation
structural analysis is
needed to determine
foundation stability
Bridge
Abutment
(north/right) High Flow with
Debris
(Q=17,500 cfs)
3 or 5:
• additional structural
analysis is needed to
determine bridge
foundation stability
Table 6: Results Summary
423
Item 7 C.

Page 8 of 8 ends

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: HEC-RAS Model Bridge Scour Results Table
Attachment 2: HEC-RAS Model Bridge Scour Section Plots
Attachment 3: Stockton Avenue Bridge As-Built Drawings
Attachment 4: Hydraulic Assessment of Debris Countermeasure Alternatives Preliminary Results 424
Item 7 C.

CSWST2.com
CSWST2 | 303 Twin Dolphin Drive Redwood Shores, 6th Floor, Redwood City, CA 94065 | t. 415.883.9850 ATTACHMENT 1:

HEC-RAS Model Bridge Scour Results Table
425
Item 7 C.

Contraction Scour
Left Channel Right
Input Data
Average Depth (ft): 6.38
Approach Velocity (ft/s): 1.56
Br Average Depth (ft): 6.43
BR Opening Flow (cfs): 1200.00
BR Top WD (ft): 110.30
Grain Size D50 (mm): 1
Approach Flow (cfs): 1200.00
Approach Top WD (ft): 120.65
K1 Coefficient: 0.590
Results
Scour Depth Ys (ft): 0.00
Critical Velocity (ft/s): 2.27
Equation: Clear
Pier Scour
All piers have the same scour depth
Input Data
Pier Shape: Square nose
Pier Width (ft): 5.50
Grain Size D50 (mm): 1.00000
Depth Upstream (ft): 7.34
Velocity Upstream (ft/s): 1.68
K1 Nose Shape: 1.10
Pier Angle: 0.00
Pier Length (ft): 44.17
K2 Angle Coef: 1.00
K3 Bed Cond Coef: 1.10
Grain Size D90 (mm): 10.00000
K4 Armouring Coef: 1.00
Results
Scour Depth Ys (ft): 5.68
Froude #: 0.11
Equation: CSU equation
426
Item 7 C.

Contraction Scour
Left Channel Right
Input Data
Average Depth (ft): 6.40
Approach Velocity (ft/s): 1.55
Br Average Depth (ft): 7.05
BR Opening Flow (cfs): 1200.00
BR Top WD (ft): 71.29
Grain Size D50 (mm): 1.00 1.00
Approach Flow (cfs): 1200.00
Approach Top WD (ft): 120.66
K1 Coefficient: 0.590
Results
Scour Depth Ys (ft): 0.00
Critical Velocity (ft/s): 2.27
Equation: Clear
Pier Scour
All piers have the same scour depth
Input Data
Pier Shape: Square nose
Pier Width (ft): 5.50
Grain Size D50 (mm): 1.00000
Depth Upstream (ft): 7.36
Velocity Upstream (ft/s): 1.67
K1 Nose Shape: 1.10
Pier Angle: 0.00
Pier Length (ft): 44.17
K2 Angle Coef: 1.00
K3 Bed Cond Coef: 1.10
Grain Size D90 (mm): 10.00000
K4 Armouring Coef: 1.00
Results
Scour Depth Ys (ft): 5.68
Froude #: 0.11
Equation: CSU equation
427
Item 7 C.

Contraction Scour
Left Channel Right
Input Data
Average Depth (ft): 14.29 2.49
Approach Velocity (ft/s): 9.99 2.35
Br Average Depth (ft): 16.46
BR Opening Flow (cfs): 17500.00
BR Top WD (ft): 94.74
Grain Size D50 (mm): 1.00 1
Approach Flow (cfs): 17385.30 114.70
Approach Top WD (ft): 121.86 19.60
K1 Coefficient: 0.640 0.640
Results
Scour Depth Ys (ft): 0.42
Critical Velocity (ft/s): 2.59
Equation: Live
Pier Scour
All piers have the same scour depth
Input Data
Pier Shape: Square nose
Pier Width (ft): 5.50
Grain Size D50 (mm): 1.00000
Depth Upstream (ft): 15.37
Velocity Upstream (ft/s): 10.79
K1 Nose Shape: 1.10
Pier Angle: 0.00
Pier Length (ft): 44.17
K2 Angle Coef: 1.00
K3 Bed Cond Coef: 1.10
Grain Size D90 (mm): 10.00000
K4 Armouring Coef: 1.00
Results
Scour Depth Ys (ft): 13.97
Froude #: 0.48
Equation: CSU equation
Combined Scour Depths
Pier Scour + Contraction Scour (ft):

Channel: 14.39
428
Item 7 C.

Contraction Scour
Left Channel Right
Input Data
Average Depth (ft): 0.21 14.89 1.47
Approach Velocity (ft/s): 0.29 9.56 2.15
Br Average Depth (ft): 15.79
BR Opening Flow (cfs): 17500.00
BR Top WD (ft): 80.59
Grain Size D50 (mm): 1.00 1.00
Approach Flow (cfs): 0.04 17350.87 149.10
Approach Top WD (ft): 0.58 121.87 47.14
K1 Coefficient: 0.590
Results
Scour Depth Ys (ft): 3.35
Critical Velocity (ft/s): 2.61
Equation: Live
Pier Scour
All piers have the same scour depth
Input Data
Pier Shape: Square nose
Pier Width (ft): 5.50
Grain Size D50 (mm): 1.00000
Depth Upstream (ft): 15.97
Velocity Upstream (ft/s): 10.35
K1 Nose Shape: 1.10
Pier Angle: 0.00
Pier Length (ft): 44.17
K2 Angle Coef: 1.00
K3 Bed Cond Coef: 1.10
Grain Size D90 (mm): 10.00000
K4 Armouring Coef: 1.00
Results
Scour Depth Ys (ft): 13.79
Froude #: 0.46
Equation: CSU equation
Abutment Scour
Left Right
Input Data
Station at Toe (ft): 182.41 313.87
Toe Sta at appr (ft): 181.09 312.85
Abutment Length (ft): 0.61 50.29
Depth at Toe (ft): -1.98 0.59
K1 Shape Coef: 1.00 - Vertical abutment
Degree of Skew (degrees): 90.00 90.00
K2 Skew Coef: 1.00 1.00
Projected Length L' (ft): 0.61 50.29
Avg Depth Obstructed Ya (ft): 0.86 1.42
Flow Obstructed Qe (cfs): 2.71 164.78
Area Obstructed Ae (sq ft): 0.53 71.34
Results
Scour Depth Ys (ft): 2.60
Froude #: 0.22
429
Item 7 C.

Equation: Default HIRE
Combined Scour Depths
Pier Scour + Contraction Scour (ft):

Channel: 17.15
Right abutment scour + contraction scour (ft): 5.95
430
Item 7 C.

CSWST2.com
CSWST2 | 303 Twin Dolphin Drive Redwood Shores, 6th Floor, Redwood City, CA 94065 | t. 415.883.9850 ATTACHMENT 2:

HEC-RAS Model Bridge Scour Section Plots
431
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
-10
-5
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
Bridge Scour RS = 170.36
Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
WS PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
Abutment Toe
Contr Scour
Total Scour
432
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
-10
-5
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
Bridge Scour RS = 170.36
Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
WS PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
Pier Debris
Abutment Toe
Contr Scour
Total Scour
433
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
-20
-10
0 10
20 30
40 Bridge Scour RS = 170.36
Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
WS PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
Abutment Toe
Contr Scour
Total Scour
434
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
-20
-10
0 10
20 30
40 Bridge Scour RS = 170.36
Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
WS PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
Pier Debris
Abutment Toe
Contr Scour
Total Scour
435
Item 7 C.

CSWST2.com
CSWST2 | 303 Twin Dolphin Drive Redwood Shores, 6th Floor, Redwood City, CA 94065 | t. 415.883.9850 ATTACHMENT 3:

Stockton Avenue Bridge As-Built Drawings
436
Item 7 C.

California Department of Transportation
Division of Maintenance
Structure Maintenance and Investigations
BRIDGE

INSPECTION

RECORDS

INFORMATION
SYSTEM
The requested documents have been generated by BIRIS.

These documents are the property of the California Department of Transportation and should be handled in accordance with Deputy Directive 55 and the State Administrative Manual.

Records for “Confidential” bridges may only be released outside the Department of Transportation upon execution of a confidentiality agreement. 437
Item 7 C.
438
Item 7 C.
439
Item 7 C.
440
Item 7 C.
441
Item 7 C.

Page 12 of 8 ends

Adaptive Solutions. Resilient Designs. Engineering ∙ Urban Planning ∙ Land Surveying ∙ Landscape Architecture ATTACHMENT 4:

Hydraulic Assessment of Debris Countermeasure Alternatives Preliminary Results CSWST2.com
442
Item 7 C.

P:\Shared\Projects\2023\2300338 Capitola Stockton Bridge Replacement\DOC\300 Analysis and Reports\Hydrology Hydraulic Memo\2024-06-28 Capitola Stockton Bridge Replacement H&H Memo 2300338.docx
Adaptive Solutions for Resilient Designs
303 Twin Dolphin Drive
Redwood City, CA 94065
415.883.9850
www.cswst2.com
Berkeley | Novato | Petaluma | Pleasanton | Redwood City | Richmond

MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 28, 2024 FILE: 2300338
TO: Julia Harberson
FROM: Kristine Pillsbury and Brianna Bright
RE: STOCKTON AVENUE BRIDGE DEBRIS MITIGATION FEASIBILITY

HYDRAULIC ASSESSMENT OF DEBRIS COUNTERMEASURE ALTERNATIVES

PRELIMINARY RESULTS
This memorandum is prepared to provide a summary of the findings of the hydraulic assessment of the debris countermeasure alternatives proposed for the Stockton Avenue Bridge in Capitola, California.

This memorandum includes the following Attachments:

Attachment 1 – HEC-RAS Model Results Tables
Attachment 2 – HEC-RAS Model Cross Section Plots
Introduction
Stockton Avenue Bridge is located in the lower reaches of the Soquel Creek Watershed, which is situated between the cities of Santa Cruz and Watsonville. The Soquel Creek watershed drains an area of approximately 42 square miles. The watershed is comprised of urban development, rural residential development, agriculture, parks and recreation, and mining and timber harvesting.

The University of California Berkeley study “Large Woody Debris in Urban Stream Channels:

Redefining the Problem” identified large woody debris (LWD) as an important ecological element in Soquel Creek. LWD is defined as a dead piece of wood that is at least 10 cm in diameter and at least one-meter long. The Soquel Creek watershed includes rural, agricultural and timber harvesting areas, which generate LWD. LWD of this size and larger can remain in the river channels for years and play an important role in shaping channel form and influencing function. However, when LWD accumulates around obstructions in the channel, capacity for conveyance is be reduced, leading to flooding of areas adjacent to the stream. As well, critical infrastructure can be damaged.
443
Item 7 C.

Page 2 ends

The average tree length in the Soquel Creek watershed was identified as being between 15 and 30 feet long. The narrowest clear span of the Stockton Avenue Bridge is 10 feet. This appears to cause buildup of debris that can span the whole creek width, cause damage to the bridge, and cause significant flooding to adjacent areas.

The 2016 Due Diligence memorandum, prepared
by Kimley Horn, identified four potential debris
control countermeasures: debris sweeper, debris
fins, debris deflectors (cage and pier variants)
and bridge replacement. The purpose of this
report is to analyze each debris diversion
countermeasure and potential flood risk along
Soquel Creek.

Existing Conditions
The Stockton Avenue Bridge is furthest downstream bridge in the Soquel Creek watershed, which is known to have LWD that has historically caused flooding by damming up bridges, specifically in 1955 and 1982 storm seasons. Bridges upstream from the site, at Soquel Drive and Highway 1, have larger spans than the Stockton Avenue Bridge. The span of the Soquel Drive Bridge, which was replaced in 1890, 1927, 1956 and most recently in 2003 with the added intent to facilitate the passage of LWD, now has a span of 140 feet compared to the Stockton Avenue Bridge center clear span of 80 feet.

This increase in bridge clear span at Soquel Drive Bridge creates a higher potential than historically existed for debris to accumulate upstream of Stockton Avenue Bridge and cause flooding risk to low laying areas. During a March 18th, 2024 site visit, LWD was observed in the eastern bridge span. Sediment accumulated around the LWD reducing the hydraulic capacity of the bridge.

Figure: Debris Accumulation in
Eastern Span of Stockton
Avenue Bridge
Figure: 1982 Debris Accumulation upstream of
Soquel Drive Bridge.
444
Item 7 C.

Page 3 ends

Alternative 2: Debris Diversion Cage
Debris diversion cages are meant to
orient large debris to flow under the
bridge. The debris diversion cages are
comprised of a prefabricated steel
triangular cage upstream of a bridge
that are designed to orient debris such
as trees or logs so that they pass under
the bridge longitudinally. The cage may
also be located directly in front of a pier.

For bridge deflectors to work, the flow
direction needs to be fairly stable.

Installation of a debris diversion cages at
the Stockton Avenue Bridge would be
comprised of cages at each bridge pier, placed on three reinforced concrete piers within the Soquel Creek channel.

Figure: Debris Diversion Fin
Figure: Debris Diversion Cage
445
Item 7 C.

Page 4 ends

Implementation of a debris diversion piers at the Stockton Avenue Bridge would be comprised of eleven (11) piers at each bridge pier, placed on reinforced concrete piers with in the Soquel Creek channel.

Alternative 4: Debris Sweeper
Debris sweepers are a vaned cylinder
located in front of a pier that rotates with
the flow and “sweeps” the debris away
from the pier and into the flow between
bridge piers. Sweepers are usually
polyethylene and float up and down so
they can move with the water surface.

Implementation at the Stockton Avenue
Bridge would include the installation of two
manufactured floating debris sweepers
adjacent to the existing piers within the
channel of Soquel Creek. The sweepers
would be installed on reinforced concrete
piers, and the sweepers would rise and fall
with the water level of the creek.

Figure: Debris Diversion Piers
Figure: Debris Sweeper
446
Item 7 C.

Page 5 ends

Figure: Preliminary Longitudinal Section of Bridge Replacement 447
Item 7 C.

Page 6 ends

Topography
The source for topographic information in the area of the project is the County of Santa Cruz Geographic Information Systems Department.

Bridge
The source for dimensions of the Stockton Avenue Bridge is the As Built Plans Set from Caltrans, Document No. 40008995 for Capitola Bridge, dated October 1933.

Peak Flow
The peak flow used for the 100-year storm event is 17,500 cfs in accordance with the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for Santa Cruz County, CA and Incorporated Areas, FIS No. 06087CV001C.

The peak flow for the lower flow event of 1,200 cfs is pulled from the United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) website, “USGS Water Data for the Nation” (waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis). USGS provides data retrieved from a flow monitoring location in Soquel Creek. Between January 2024 and March 2024 four storms produced flows of 1000 cfs or more in Soquel Creek. Large woody debris was observed to be caught below the Stockton Avenue Bridge in February 2024 and in March 2024.

Hydrograph for Unsteady Flow Analysis
A simplified hydrograph was developed based upon the flow data for the lower peak flow storm of January 2024. The hydrograph assumes a storm flow duration of 24 hours with peak flow occurring at 9 hours and 15 minutes after the start of the flow event.

Starting Hydraulic Grade Line
In this preliminary analysis, to evaluate the response of hydraulic grade line upstream of the Stockton Avenue Bridge to each of the Countermeasure Alternatives, it is assumed that the tide is low and Soquel Creek flows freely at normal depth conditions toward the Pacific Ocean.

Channel Roughness
448
Item 7 C.

Page 7 ends

Table 1. “Base values of Manning’s n”
Sand Channel
n = 0.026
Floodplains:

Utilize a base value of 0.026 and add an adjustment factor from:

Table 2. “Adjustment values for factors that affect the roughness of a channel” Amount of vegetation – medium – adjustment factor 0.010 n = 0.036
Debris Piers
HEC-RAS includes the ability to identify the width and depth of floating debris caught on bridge piers, which affect the channel cross section geometry. Data is not available for the amount of LWD that could be caught on a structure for any given storm event. Assumptions were made for the amount of floating debris caught on the Stockton Avenue Bridge and the counter measure alternatives. These assumptions are provided below.

Additional Assumptions for Existing Condition and Countermeasure Alternatives Existing Condition
• Assumes that debris is caught on the bridge piers.
• Debris capture is represented by debris piers in the HEC-RAS model • Debris piers extend 15 feet on either side of the centerline of the eastern bridge pier. • Debris piers extend 10 feet on either side of the centerline of the western bridge pier. • The debris pier floats below the water surface at 6’ deep.

Alternative 1: Debris Diversion Fin
• Fins are represented by a blockage in the channel.
• Because the fin is angled toward the creek wall, it is assumed that LWD for the most part, continues to flow past and under the bridge to the ocean. However, it is assumed that some amount of debris will be caught on “v” that the fin forms with the creek wall. The 449
Item 7 C.

Page 8 ends

Goal of analysis: See whether there is a reduction in capacity of the channel and resulting increase in water surface elevation, assuming that the fins are mostly functioning but some debris is caught on them.

Alternative 2: Debris Diversion Cage
• Both cages are represented as the piers of a false bridge inserted upstream of the Stockton Avenue Bridge
• The center of the false bridge is at the midpoint of the triangle made by the cage. • The diversion cages are represented as piers of the false bridge. It is assumed that some amount of debris will be caught on the cages, rendering the space inside the cage an area of ineffective flow.
• The width of the false bridge is the same as the length of the triangle made by the cage in the stream.
• The piers of the false bridge vary in width from upstream to downstream. Pier widths up and downstream match the width of the cage in the stream. • The floating pier debris option is turned on to account for some amount of debris caught on the debris diversion cage.
• The width of the debris is assumed to extend 4.75 feet on either side of the nose of the cage.
• The depth of debris is assumed to extend 9.5 feet below the water surface.

Goal of analysis: See the reduction in capacity of the channel and resulting increase in water surface elevation assuming that the diversion cages are mostly functioning but some debris is caught on them.

Alternative 3: Debris Deflector Piers
• Both sets of piers are represented as the piers of a false bridge inserted upstream of the Stockton Avenue Bridge
• The center of the false bridge is at the midpoint of the pier triangle. • It is assumed that some amount of debris will be caught on the piers, rendering the space inside the pier configuration, behind the debris, an area of ineffective flow. • The width of the false bridge is the same as the length of the triangle in the stream. • The piers of the false bridge vary in width from upstream to downstream. Pier widths up and downstream match the width of the debris piers in the stream. • The floating pier debris option is turned on to account for some amount of debris caught on the piers.
450
Item 7 C.

Page 9 ends

Goal of analysis: See the whether there is a reduction in capacity of the channel and resulting increase in water surface elevation assuming that the deflector piers are mostly functioning but some debris is caught on them. The amount of debris is less than for the Debris Diversion Cages.

Alternative 4: Debris Sweeper
• Both sweepers are represented as the piers of a false bridge inserted upstream of the Stockton Avenue Bridge
• The center of the false bridge is at the centerline of the sweeper and its supporting pole. • It is assumed that some amount of debris will be caught on the sweeper. • The floating pier debris option is turned on to account for some amount of debris caught on the sweeper.
• The width of the debris is assumed to extend 2.75 feet on either side of the sweeper. • The depth of debris is assumed to be 4 feet below the water surface.

Goal of the analysis: See the whether there is a reduction in capacity of the channel and resulting increase in water surface elevation assuming that the debris sweepers are mostly functioning but some debris is caught on them.

Alternative 5: Bridge Replacement
Goal of the analysis: See the change in capacity of the channel, over existing conditions, with the construction of a clear span bridge and removal of existing bridge and bridge piers in the channel.

451
Item 7 C.

Page 10 ends

Hydraulic Assessment of Debris Countermeasure Alternatives June 28, 2024
P:\Shared\Projects\2023\2300338 Capitola Stockton Bridge Replacement\DOC\300 Analysis and Reports\Hydrology Hydraulic Memo\2024-06-28 Capitola Stockton Bridge Replacement H&H Memo 2300338.docx
Results
Table 1: Depth at Upstream Side of Stockton Avenue Bridge All Alternatives with Debris Capture
Model
Station
170.36
Existing
Conditions
(with debris)
(feet)
Alternative 1
Debris Fin
(feet)
Alternative 2
Debris Cage
(feet)
Alternative 3
Debris Piers
(feet)
Alternative 4
Debris
Sweeper
(feet)
Q100
17,500 cfs 11.29 12.82 11.72 11.72 11.66
QJan2024
1,200 cfs 3.96 5.50 4.02 4.02 4.01
Table 2: Depth 50 feet upstream of Stockton Avenue Bridge All Alternatives with Debris Capture
Model
Station
218.85
Existing
Conditions
(with debris)
(feet)
Alternative 1
Debris Fin
(feet)
Alternative 2
Debris Cage
(feet)
Alternative 3
Debris Piers
(feet)
Alternative 4
Debris
Sweeper
(feet)
Q100
17,500 cfs 15.61 18.11 14.20 13.90 14.17
QJan2024
1,200 cfs 4.18 6.53 4.18 4.17 4.18
Table 3: Depth at Upstream Side of Stockton Avenue Bridge Existing Conditions and Alternative 5 (Clear Span Bridge) Model
Station
170.36
Existing
Conditions
(feet)
Alternative 5
Clear Span
Bridge
(feet)
Q100
17,500 cfs 11.71 11.91
QJan2024
1,200 cfs 4.02 4.03
452
Item 7 C.

Page 11 ends

Hydraulic Assessment of Debris Countermeasure Alternatives June 28, 2024
P:\Shared\Projects\2023\2300338 Capitola Stockton Bridge Replacement\DOC\300 Analysis and Reports\Hydrology Hydraulic Memo\2024-06-28 Capitola Stockton Bridge Replacement H&H Memo 2300338.docx
Table 4: Depth 50 feet upstream of Stockton Avenue Bridge Existing Conditions and Alternative 5 (Clear Span Bridge) Model
Station
218.85
Existing
Conditions
(feet)
Alternative 5
Clear Span
Bridge
(feet)
Q100
17,500 cfs 13.06 12.20
QJan2024
1,200 cfs 4.05 4.02
Conclusions
As seen in Tables 1 and 2, above, with the exception of Alternative 1, the debris fin, water surface elevations on the upstream side of the Stockton Avenue Bridge for Alternatives 2 through 4, are within 6” of the existing condition water surface elevations. The debris diversion fin alternative shows an increase in water surface elevation by 1.5’ at the bridge. This increase is due to a partial blockage of the channel by the eastern fin. The blockage is caused by angling the fin toward the creek wall to deflect LWD away from the narrow span underneath the bridge on its east side.

Further upstream, however, water surface elevations associated with debris countermeasure Alternatives 2 through 4 are lower by 1.4 to 1.7 feet than existing conditions for the 100-year event, indicating a relief in backwater conditions due to the change in LWD capture at the bridge. For the lower flow event, there is negligible difference in water surface elevation upstream due to the installation of Alternatives 2 through 4. Backwater effects upstream are exacerbated by the blockage of the channel caused by the eastern fin for both the 100-year and lower flow event.

Tables 3 and 4 provide a comparison of water surface elevations, for the 100-year and lower flow events, between the bridge in Existing Condition, and the Alternative 5 Clear Span Bridge.

Both scenarios were modeled assuming no debris accumulation in order to compare channel capacity. At the upstream side of the bridge, the water surface elevation increases by 0.2’ for the 100-year event and 0.1’ for the lower flow event. While there is a loss of the existing bridge piers in the middle of the channel for the clear span bridge, the clear span bridge has a deeper deck section which becomes submerged on the eastern side during the 100-year event, causing 453
Item 7 C.

Page 12 ends

It is noted that at the bridge for the existing condition, the 100-year water surface elevation is slightly less (approximately 5”) for the model which includes debris. This is due to a velocity difference in the channel under the bridge. The model with the debris included indicates that water velocity under the bridge is higher under the debris condition, 13.7 +/- feet per second vs.

10.9 +/- feet per second for the no-debris condition. But while water surface is elevated by 0.2’ at the bridge, further upstream, water surface elevation for the 100-year event is decreased. For the lower flow event, changes in water surface elevation between existing condition and Alternative 5, the clear span bridge, are negligible.

When upstream conditions are compared for the Existing Conditions with Debris (the existing bridge with no diversion measures and capturing debris on the existing bridge piers) and Alternative 5 (clear span bridge), the models show an approximately 2.6 feet decrease in water surface elevation.
454
Item 7 C.

Attachment 1
HEC-RAS Model Results Tables

455
Item 7 C.

HEC-RAS Plan: ExCondStead1200 River: SoquelCreek Reach: SoquelCreekUP Profile: PF 1 Reach River Sta Profile E.G. Elev W.S. Elev Crit W.S. Frctn Loss C & E Loss Top Width Q Left Q Channel Q Right Vel Chnl (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (ft/s)
SoquelCreekUP 203.28 PF 1 4.16 4.07 0.00 0.00 120.81 1200.00 2.44 SoquelCreekUP 195.4 PF 1 4.16 4.07 1.45 0.00 0.01 121.47 1200.00 2.44 SoquelCreekUP 170.36 BR U PF 1 4.15 4.01 1.63 0.02 0.01 101.95 1200.00 2.93 SoquelCreekUP 170.36 BR D PF 1 4.11 4.00 1.50 0.00 0.01 115.03 1200.00 2.61 SoquelCreekUP 145.32 PF 1 4.10 4.01 0.00 0.00 126.03 1200.00 2.38 SoquelCreekUP 140.31 PF 1 4.10 4.01 0.00 0.00 124.07 1200.00 2.42 Existing Condition
Q1200
With Debris
456
Item 7 C.

HEC-RAS Plan: ExCondStead1 River: SoquelCreek Reach: SoquelCreekUP Profile: PF 1 Reach River Sta Profile E.G. Elev W.S. Elev Crit W.S. Frctn Loss C & E Loss Top Width Q Left Q Channel Q Right Vel Chnl (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (ft/s)
SoquelCreekUP 203.28 PF 1 14.96 13.25 0.01 0.02 149.14 17500.00 10.47 SoquelCreekUP 195.4 PF 1 14.93 13.16 8.71 0.01 0.34 148.55 17500.00 10.67 SoquelCreekUP 170.36 BR U PF 1 14.58 11.67 9.65 0.20 0.18 115.52 17500.00 13.68 SoquelCreekUP 170.36 BR D PF 1 14.19 11.64 9.13 0.01 0.26 121.12 17500.00 12.80 SoquelCreekUP 145.32 PF 1 13.93 11.89 0.01 0.00 148.64 17500.00 11.45 SoquelCreekUP 140.31 PF 1 13.92 11.87 0.02 0.09 143.71 17500.00 11.47 Existing Condition
Q17500
With Debris
457
Item 7 C.

HEC-RAS Plan: QS 17500 No Debris River: SoquelCreek Reach: SoquelCreekUP Profile: PF 1 Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft)
SoquelCreekUP 457.43 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 13.82 15.37 0.001307 10.45 2033.18 289.28 0.51 SoquelCreekUP 447.43 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 13.79 15.36 0.001337 10.50 2018.04 288.34 0.52 SoquelCreekUP 433.47 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 13.81 15.33 0.001355 10.28 2033.95 293.08 0.52 SoquelCreekUP 423.47 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 13.79 15.31 0.001363 10.26 2024.38 290.99 0.52 SoquelCreekUP 413.47 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 13.65 15.29 0.001368 10.69 1996.93 293.06 0.52 SoquelCreekUP 393.46 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 13.72 15.22 0.001374 10.10 2017.60 297.27 0.51 SoquelCreekUP 373.46 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 13.56 15.18 0.001446 10.49 1949.61 302.70 0.53 SoquelCreekUP 353.46 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 13.43 15.14 0.001473 10.74 1890.19 297.99 0.54 SoquelCreekUP 333.46 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 13.41 15.10 0.001469 10.65 1888.57 297.93 0.54 SoquelCreekUP 313.46 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 13.24 15.06 0.001492 10.98 1799.80 294.97 0.55 SoquelCreekUP 293.46 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 13.19 15.03 0.001501 10.95 1737.53 296.86 0.55 SoquelCreekUP 273.46 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 13.17 15.00 0.001486 10.93 1698.64 214.35 0.55 SoquelCreekUP 253.46 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 13.29 14.90 0.001922 10.17 1721.48 194.88 0.60 SoquelCreekUP 245.93 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 13.28 14.88 0.001893 10.13 1727.34 193.41 0.60 SoquelCreekUP 228.95 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 13.20 14.84 0.001874 10.26 1705.25 185.14 0.60 SoquelCreekUP 218.85 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 13.06 14.81 0.001641 10.63 1661.97 171.40 0.57 SoquelCreekUP 211.97 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 13.05 14.80 0.001725 10.60 1651.43 158.21 0.58 SoquelCreekUP 203.28 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 12.97 14.77 0.001666 10.74 1629.34 147.62 0.57 SoquelCreekUP 195.4 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 12.89 8.71 14.74 0.001455 10.91 1603.46 147.53 0.56 SoquelCreekUP 170.36 Bridge
SoquelCreekUP 145.32 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 11.89 13.93 0.001851 11.45 1528.91 148.64 0.60 SoquelCreekUP 140.31 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 11.87 13.92 0.002036 11.47 1525.11 143.71 0.62 SoquelCreekUP 130.3 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 11.45 13.80 0.002425 12.31 1421.37 137.80 0.68 SoquelCreekUP 120.28 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 10.98 13.67 0.002923 13.16 1331.51 137.93 0.74 SoquelCreekUP 110.27 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 10.88 9.27 13.64 0.003633 13.34 1312.21 156.21 0.81 SoquelCreekUP 103.87 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 9.62 9.62 13.50 0.005676 15.80 1111.51 147.73 1.00 SoquelCreekUP 86.16 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 8.15 8.15 12.16 0.005653 16.06 1090.40 139.30 1.00 SoquelCreekUP 76.02 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 7.37 7.37 11.05 0.005689 15.38 1137.69 154.86 1.00 SoquelCreekUP 65.88 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 6.92 6.92 10.38 0.005723 14.92 1173.01 169.85 1.00 SoquelCreekUP 59.74 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 6.73 6.73 10.09 0.005734 14.70 1190.18 177.25 1.00 SoquelCreekUP 49.6 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 6.97 6.49 9.78 0.004561 13.44 1302.23 187.14 0.90 SoquelCreekUP 38.98 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 7.30 9.57 0.003460 12.08 1448.60 198.82 0.79 SoquelCreekUP 28.98 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 7.44 9.46 0.003134 11.41 1533.92 206.96 0.74 SoquelCreekUP 18.98 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 7.23 9.41 0.003478 11.86 1475.24 211.82 0.79 SoquelCreekUP 10 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 7.16 6.26 9.38 0.003730 11.96 1462.96 219.52 0.82 SoquelCreekUP 0 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 6.41 6.41 9.27 0.005792 13.56 1290.64 226.00 1.00 Existing Condition
Q17500
No Debris
458
Item 7 C.

HEC-RAS Plan: PCOpt117500 River: SoquelCreek Reach: SoquelCreekUP Profile: PF 1 Reach River Sta Profile E.G. Elev W.S. Elev Crit W.S. Frctn Loss C & E Loss Top Width Q Left Q Channel Q Right Vel Chnl (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (ft/s)
SoquelCreekUP 203.28 PF 1 18.71 17.95 0.05 0.31 327.16 335.08 17164.93 7.05 SoquelCreekUP 195.4 PF 1 18.35 16.55 12.58 0.01 0.86 235.59 9.77 17490.23 10.77 SoquelCreekUP 170.36 BR U PF 1 17.48 12.82 12.82 0.24 1.06 108.41 17500.00 17.32 SoquelCreekUP 170.36 BR D PF 1 14.19 11.64 9.13 0.01 0.26 121.12 17500.00 12.80 SoquelCreekUP 145.32 PF 1 13.93 11.89 0.01 0.00 148.64 17500.00 11.45 SoquelCreekUP 140.31 PF 1 13.92 11.87 0.02 0.09 143.71 17500.00 11.47 Alternative 1
Q17500
459
Item 7 C.

HEC-RAS Plan: Opt2QS1200 River: SoquelCreek Reach: SoquelCreekUP Profile: PF 1 Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft)
SoquelCreekUP 457.43 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.24 4.35 0.000356 2.68 447.13 105.78 0.23 SoquelCreekUP 447.43 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.24 4.35 0.000352 2.67 449.28 106.26 0.23 SoquelCreekUP 433.47 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.23 4.34 0.000348 2.65 452.30 107.07 0.23 SoquelCreekUP 423.47 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.23 4.34 0.000345 2.64 454.47 107.65 0.23 SoquelCreekUP 413.47 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.23 4.34 0.000341 2.63 456.63 108.23 0.23 SoquelCreekUP 393.46 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.22 4.33 0.000335 2.60 460.98 109.40 0.22 SoquelCreekUP 373.46 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.22 4.32 0.000329 2.58 465.31 110.56 0.22 SoquelCreekUP 353.46 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.21 4.31 0.000323 2.56 469.61 111.73 0.22 SoquelCreekUP 333.46 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.21 4.31 0.000318 2.53 473.94 112.89 0.22 SoquelCreekUP 313.46 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.20 4.30 0.000312 2.51 478.26 114.06 0.22 SoquelCreekUP 293.46 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.20 4.29 0.000307 2.49 482.59 115.23 0.21 SoquelCreekUP 273.46 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.19 4.29 0.000302 2.46 486.90 116.39 0.21 SoquelCreekUP 253.46 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.19 4.28 0.000296 2.44 491.19 117.55 0.21 SoquelCreekUP 245.93 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.19 4.28 0.000295 2.43 492.85 117.99 0.21 SoquelCreekUP 228.95 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.18 4.27 0.000290 2.42 496.48 118.98 0.21 SoquelCreekUP 218.85 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.18 4.27 0.000288 2.41 498.60 119.55 0.21 SoquelCreekUP 216 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.18 1.46 4.27 0.000286 2.40 500.05 119.95 0.21 SoquelCreekUP 204.45 Bridge
SoquelCreekUP 193.2 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.08 4.17 0.000291 2.43 492.98 121.47 0.21 SoquelCreekUP 193.1 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.06 4.16 0.000294 2.44 491.10 121.47 0.21 SoquelCreekUP 193 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.05 1.45 4.14 0.000298 2.45 489.17 121.47 0.22 SoquelCreekUP 170.36 Bridge
SoquelCreekUP 145.32 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.01 4.10 0.000294 2.38 505.04 126.03 0.21 SoquelCreekUP 140.31 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.01 4.10 0.000305 2.42 496.53 124.07 0.21 SoquelCreekUP 130.3 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.00 4.09 0.000324 2.48 483.37 121.08 0.22 SoquelCreekUP 120.28 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 3.99 4.09 0.000344 2.55 470.22 118.09 0.23 SoquelCreekUP 110.27 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 3.98 4.08 0.000366 2.62 457.24 115.10 0.23 SoquelCreekUP 103.87 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 3.97 4.08 0.000387 2.69 445.35 112.37 0.24 SoquelCreekUP 86.16 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 3.99 4.07 0.000266 2.26 531.51 133.52 0.20 SoquelCreekUP 76.02 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.00 4.06 0.000196 1.95 616.19 154.32 0.17 SoquelCreekUP 65.88 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.00 4.05 0.000161 1.77 677.47 169.42 0.16 SoquelCreekUP 59.74 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.00 4.05 0.000147 1.70 707.58 176.85 0.15 SoquelCreekUP 49.6 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.01 4.05 0.000131 1.61 747.58 186.74 0.14 SoquelCreekUP 38.98 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.01 4.04 0.000116 1.51 794.27 198.32 0.13 SoquelCreekUP 28.98 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.01 4.04 0.000107 1.46 824.57 206.33 0.13 SoquelCreekUP 18.98 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.01 4.04 0.000117 1.49 804.02 206.12 0.13 SoquelCreekUP 10 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.00 4.04 0.000123 1.52 791.15 206.16 0.14 SoquelCreekUP 0 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.00 1.32 4.04 0.000138 1.57 766.39 209.47 0.14 Alternative 2
Q1200
460
Item 7 C.

HEC-RAS Plan: Opt2QS17500 River: SoquelCreek Reach: SoquelCreekUP Profile: PF 1 Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft)
SoquelCreekUP 457.43 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.85 16.05 0.000950 9.31 2336.19 297.43 0.44 SoquelCreekUP 447.43 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.83 16.04 0.000967 9.34 2323.40 296.52 0.44 SoquelCreekUP 433.47 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.85 16.01 0.000974 9.13 2343.73 301.52 0.44 SoquelCreekUP 423.47 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.84 16.00 0.000985 9.12 2333.31 300.12 0.44 SoquelCreekUP 413.47 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.76 15.99 0.000978 9.45 2324.77 301.99 0.44 SoquelCreekUP 393.46 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.80 15.94 0.000971 8.95 2341.85 304.84 0.44 SoquelCreekUP 373.46 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.71 15.92 0.001003 9.20 2304.51 313.17 0.45 SoquelCreekUP 353.46 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.62 15.89 0.001013 9.40 2252.35 308.12 0.45 SoquelCreekUP 333.46 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.62 15.86 0.001008 9.30 2253.42 308.92 0.45 SoquelCreekUP 313.46 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.49 15.83 0.001006 9.61 2175.55 306.77 0.46 SoquelCreekUP 293.46 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.43 15.81 0.001022 9.63 2112.24 308.75 0.46 SoquelCreekUP 273.46 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.33 15.78 0.001063 9.81 2025.39 309.02 0.47 SoquelCreekUP 253.46 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.46 15.69 0.001364 8.90 2014.82 305.21 0.51 SoquelCreekUP 245.93 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.45 15.68 0.001338 8.88 2015.14 301.75 0.51 SoquelCreekUP 228.95 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.39 15.65 0.001360 9.02 1967.84 298.82 0.51 SoquelCreekUP 218.85 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.20 15.62 0.001192 9.58 1876.80 227.45 0.49 SoquelCreekUP 216 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.21 8.78 15.60 0.001349 9.47 1855.09 210.80 0.51 SoquelCreekUP 204.45 Bridge
SoquelCreekUP 193.2 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 13.11 14.89 0.001367 10.71 1633.96 148.35 0.54 SoquelCreekUP 193.1 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 13.00 14.81 0.001411 10.81 1618.60 147.94 0.55 SoquelCreekUP 193 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 12.88 8.71 14.73 0.001457 10.92 1602.85 147.52 0.56 SoquelCreekUP 170.36 Bridge
SoquelCreekUP 145.32 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 11.89 13.93 0.001851 11.45 1528.91 148.64 0.60 SoquelCreekUP 140.31 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 11.87 13.92 0.002036 11.47 1525.11 143.71 0.62 SoquelCreekUP 130.3 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 11.45 13.80 0.002425 12.31 1421.37 137.80 0.68 SoquelCreekUP 120.28 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 10.98 13.67 0.002923 13.16 1331.51 137.93 0.74 SoquelCreekUP 110.27 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 10.88 9.27 13.64 0.003633 13.34 1312.21 156.21 0.81 SoquelCreekUP 103.87 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 9.62 9.62 13.50 0.005676 15.80 1111.51 147.73 1.00 SoquelCreekUP 86.16 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 8.15 8.15 12.16 0.005653 16.06 1090.40 139.30 1.00 SoquelCreekUP 76.02 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 7.37 7.37 11.05 0.005689 15.38 1137.69 154.86 1.00 SoquelCreekUP 65.88 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 6.92 6.92 10.38 0.005723 14.92 1173.01 169.85 1.00 SoquelCreekUP 59.74 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 6.73 6.73 10.09 0.005734 14.70 1190.18 177.25 1.00 SoquelCreekUP 49.6 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 6.97 6.49 9.78 0.004561 13.44 1302.23 187.14 0.90 SoquelCreekUP 38.98 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 7.30 9.57 0.003460 12.08 1448.60 198.82 0.79 SoquelCreekUP 28.98 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 7.44 9.46 0.003134 11.41 1533.92 206.96 0.74 SoquelCreekUP 18.98 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 7.23 9.41 0.003478 11.86 1475.24 211.82 0.79 SoquelCreekUP 10 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 7.16 6.26 9.38 0.003730 11.96 1462.96 219.52 0.82 SoquelCreekUP 0 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 6.41 6.41 9.27 0.005792 13.56 1290.64 226.00 1.00 Alternative 2
Q17500
461
Item 7 C.

HEC-RAS Plan: Opt3QS1200 River: SoquelCreek Reach: SoquelCreekUP Profile: PF 1 Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft)
SoquelCreekUP 457.43 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.23 4.34 0.000359 2.69 445.98 105.77 0.23 SoquelCreekUP 447.43 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.23 4.34 0.000355 2.68 448.13 106.26 0.23 SoquelCreekUP 433.47 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.22 4.33 0.000351 2.66 451.14 107.07 0.23 SoquelCreekUP 423.47 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.22 4.33 0.000348 2.65 453.29 107.65 0.23 SoquelCreekUP 413.47 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.22 4.32 0.000344 2.63 455.45 108.23 0.23 SoquelCreekUP 393.46 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.21 4.32 0.000338 2.61 459.78 109.39 0.22 SoquelCreekUP 373.46 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.21 4.31 0.000332 2.59 464.08 110.56 0.22 SoquelCreekUP 353.46 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.20 4.30 0.000326 2.56 468.37 111.72 0.22 SoquelCreekUP 333.46 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.20 4.30 0.000320 2.54 472.68 112.89 0.22 SoquelCreekUP 313.46 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.19 4.29 0.000315 2.52 476.98 114.05 0.22 SoquelCreekUP 293.46 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.19 4.28 0.000309 2.49 481.29 115.23 0.22 SoquelCreekUP 273.46 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.18 4.28 0.000304 2.47 485.58 116.38 0.21 SoquelCreekUP 253.46 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.18 4.27 0.000299 2.45 489.86 117.55 0.21 SoquelCreekUP 245.93 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.17 4.27 0.000297 2.44 491.51 117.99 0.21 SoquelCreekUP 228.95 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.17 4.26 0.000293 2.42 495.12 118.98 0.21 SoquelCreekUP 218.85 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.17 1.46 4.26 0.000291 2.41 497.23 119.55 0.21 SoquelCreekUP 205.45 Bridge
SoquelCreekUP 193.2 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.08 4.17 0.000291 2.43 492.98 121.47 0.21 SoquelCreekUP 193.1 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.06 4.16 0.000294 2.44 491.10 121.47 0.21 SoquelCreekUP 193 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.05 1.45 4.14 0.000298 2.45 489.17 121.47 0.22 SoquelCreekUP 170.36 Bridge
SoquelCreekUP 145.32 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.01 4.10 0.000294 2.38 505.04 126.03 0.21 SoquelCreekUP 140.31 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.01 4.10 0.000305 2.42 496.53 124.07 0.21 SoquelCreekUP 130.3 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.00 4.09 0.000324 2.48 483.37 121.08 0.22 SoquelCreekUP 120.28 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 3.99 4.09 0.000344 2.55 470.22 118.09 0.23 SoquelCreekUP 110.27 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 3.98 4.08 0.000366 2.62 457.24 115.10 0.23 SoquelCreekUP 103.87 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 3.97 4.08 0.000387 2.69 445.35 112.37 0.24 SoquelCreekUP 86.16 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 3.99 4.07 0.000266 2.26 531.51 133.52 0.20 SoquelCreekUP 76.02 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.00 4.06 0.000196 1.95 616.19 154.32 0.17 SoquelCreekUP 65.88 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.00 4.05 0.000161 1.77 677.47 169.42 0.16 SoquelCreekUP 59.74 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.00 4.05 0.000147 1.70 707.58 176.85 0.15 SoquelCreekUP 49.6 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.01 4.05 0.000131 1.61 747.58 186.74 0.14 SoquelCreekUP 38.98 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.01 4.04 0.000116 1.51 794.27 198.32 0.13 SoquelCreekUP 28.98 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.01 4.04 0.000107 1.46 824.57 206.33 0.13 SoquelCreekUP 18.98 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.01 4.04 0.000117 1.49 804.02 206.12 0.13 SoquelCreekUP 10 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.00 4.04 0.000123 1.52 791.15 206.16 0.14 SoquelCreekUP 0 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.00 1.32 4.04 0.000138 1.57 766.39 209.47 0.14 Alternative 3
Q1200
462
Item 7 C.

HEC-RAS Plan: Opt3QS17500 River: SoquelCreek Reach: SoquelCreekUP Profile: PF 1 Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft)
SoquelCreekUP 457.43 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.58 15.87 0.001029 9.59 2257.76 295.35 0.46 SoquelCreekUP 447.43 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.57 15.86 0.001048 9.62 2244.73 294.44 0.46 SoquelCreekUP 433.47 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.58 15.83 0.001057 9.41 2263.94 299.38 0.46 SoquelCreekUP 423.47 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.57 15.82 0.001068 9.39 2253.59 297.72 0.46 SoquelCreekUP 413.47 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.48 15.80 0.001062 9.74 2241.30 299.66 0.46 SoquelCreekUP 393.46 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.53 15.75 0.001058 9.22 2259.18 302.91 0.45 SoquelCreekUP 373.46 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.43 15.72 0.001096 9.50 2215.17 310.58 0.47 SoquelCreekUP 353.46 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.33 15.69 0.001108 9.71 2161.81 305.54 0.47 SoquelCreekUP 333.46 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.32 15.66 0.001104 9.61 2162.26 306.20 0.47 SoquelCreekUP 313.46 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.18 15.63 0.001106 9.93 2081.84 304.14 0.48 SoquelCreekUP 293.46 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.13 15.61 0.001122 9.94 2018.54 306.06 0.48 SoquelCreekUP 273.46 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.02 15.57 0.001167 10.13 1929.74 306.18 0.49 SoquelCreekUP 253.46 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.16 15.48 0.001518 9.22 1922.52 301.62 0.54 SoquelCreekUP 245.93 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.15 15.46 0.001492 9.19 1923.76 298.84 0.53 SoquelCreekUP 228.95 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.08 15.43 0.001511 9.33 1881.73 253.06 0.54 SoquelCreekUP 218.85 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 13.90 8.78 15.40 0.001292 9.84 1813.46 191.79 0.51 SoquelCreekUP 205.45 Bridge
SoquelCreekUP 193.2 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 13.11 14.89 0.001367 10.71 1633.96 148.35 0.54 SoquelCreekUP 193.1 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 13.00 14.81 0.001411 10.81 1618.60 147.94 0.55 SoquelCreekUP 193 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 12.88 8.71 14.73 0.001457 10.92 1602.85 147.52 0.56 SoquelCreekUP 170.36 Bridge
SoquelCreekUP 145.32 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 11.89 13.93 0.001851 11.45 1528.91 148.64 0.60 SoquelCreekUP 140.31 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 11.87 13.92 0.002036 11.47 1525.11 143.71 0.62 SoquelCreekUP 130.3 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 11.45 13.80 0.002425 12.31 1421.37 137.80 0.68 SoquelCreekUP 120.28 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 10.98 13.67 0.002923 13.16 1331.51 137.93 0.74 SoquelCreekUP 110.27 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 10.88 9.27 13.64 0.003633 13.34 1312.21 156.21 0.81 SoquelCreekUP 103.87 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 9.62 9.62 13.50 0.005676 15.80 1111.51 147.73 1.00 SoquelCreekUP 86.16 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 8.15 8.15 12.16 0.005653 16.06 1090.40 139.30 1.00 SoquelCreekUP 76.02 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 7.37 7.37 11.05 0.005689 15.38 1137.69 154.86 1.00 SoquelCreekUP 65.88 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 6.92 6.92 10.38 0.005723 14.92 1173.01 169.85 1.00 SoquelCreekUP 59.74 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 6.73 6.73 10.09 0.005734 14.70 1190.18 177.25 1.00 SoquelCreekUP 49.6 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 6.97 6.49 9.78 0.004561 13.44 1302.23 187.14 0.90 SoquelCreekUP 38.98 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 7.30 9.57 0.003460 12.08 1448.60 198.82 0.79 SoquelCreekUP 28.98 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 7.44 9.46 0.003134 11.41 1533.92 206.96 0.74 SoquelCreekUP 18.98 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 7.23 9.41 0.003478 11.86 1475.24 211.82 0.79 SoquelCreekUP 10 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 7.16 6.26 9.38 0.003730 11.96 1462.96 219.52 0.82 SoquelCreekUP 0 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 6.41 6.41 9.27 0.005792 13.56 1290.64 226.00 1.00 Alternative 3
Q17500
463
Item 7 C.

HEC-RAS Plan: Opt4QS1200 River: SoquelCreek Reach: SoquelCreekUP Profile: PF 1 Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft)
SoquelCreekUP 457.43 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.24 4.35 0.000357 2.69 446.84 105.78 0.23 SoquelCreekUP 447.43 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.23 4.35 0.000353 2.67 448.99 106.26 0.23 SoquelCreekUP 433.47 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.23 4.34 0.000349 2.65 452.00 107.07 0.23 SoquelCreekUP 423.47 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.23 4.34 0.000345 2.64 454.17 107.65 0.23 SoquelCreekUP 413.47 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.23 4.33 0.000342 2.63 456.33 108.23 0.23 SoquelCreekUP 393.46 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.22 4.33 0.000336 2.60 460.67 109.39 0.22 SoquelCreekUP 373.46 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.21 4.32 0.000330 2.58 464.99 110.56 0.22 SoquelCreekUP 353.46 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.21 4.31 0.000324 2.56 469.29 111.73 0.22 SoquelCreekUP 333.46 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.20 4.30 0.000318 2.53 473.62 112.89 0.22 SoquelCreekUP 313.46 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.20 4.30 0.000313 2.51 477.93 114.06 0.22 SoquelCreekUP 293.46 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.19 4.29 0.000307 2.49 482.25 115.23 0.21 SoquelCreekUP 273.46 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.19 4.28 0.000302 2.47 486.56 116.39 0.21 SoquelCreekUP 253.46 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.18 4.28 0.000297 2.44 490.85 117.55 0.21 SoquelCreekUP 245.93 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.18 4.27 0.000295 2.44 492.50 117.99 0.21 SoquelCreekUP 228.95 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.18 4.27 0.000291 2.42 496.13 118.98 0.21 SoquelCreekUP 218.85 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.18 4.27 0.000289 2.41 498.25 119.55 0.21 SoquelCreekUP 216 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.17 4.26 0.000289 2.41 498.01 119.55 0.21 SoquelCreekUP 211.97 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.17 4.26 0.000287 2.40 499.45 119.95 0.21 SoquelCreekUP 206 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.17 4.26 0.000284 2.39 502.91 120.83 0.21 SoquelCreekUP 203.28 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.17 4.26 0.000284 2.39 502.62 120.83 0.21 SoquelCreekUP 199 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.17 1.45 4.25 0.000271 2.38 503.49 121.48 0.21 SoquelCreekUP 196.94 Bridge
SoquelCreekUP 193.2 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.10 4.19 0.000286 2.42 495.52 121.47 0.21 SoquelCreekUP 193.1 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.08 4.18 0.000289 2.43 493.68 121.47 0.21 SoquelCreekUP 193 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.07 1.45 4.16 0.000293 2.44 491.76 121.47 0.21 SoquelCreekUP 170.36 Bridge
SoquelCreekUP 145.32 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.01 4.10 0.000294 2.38 505.04 126.03 0.21 SoquelCreekUP 140.31 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.01 4.10 0.000305 2.42 496.53 124.07 0.21 SoquelCreekUP 130.3 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.00 4.09 0.000324 2.48 483.37 121.08 0.22 SoquelCreekUP 120.28 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 3.99 4.09 0.000344 2.55 470.22 118.09 0.23 SoquelCreekUP 110.27 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 3.98 4.08 0.000366 2.62 457.24 115.10 0.23 SoquelCreekUP 103.87 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 3.97 4.08 0.000387 2.69 445.35 112.37 0.24 SoquelCreekUP 86.16 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 3.99 4.07 0.000266 2.26 531.51 133.52 0.20 SoquelCreekUP 76.02 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.00 4.06 0.000196 1.95 616.19 154.32 0.17 SoquelCreekUP 65.88 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.00 4.05 0.000161 1.77 677.47 169.42 0.16 SoquelCreekUP 59.74 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.00 4.05 0.000147 1.70 707.58 176.85 0.15 SoquelCreekUP 49.6 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.01 4.05 0.000131 1.61 747.58 186.74 0.14 SoquelCreekUP 38.98 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.01 4.04 0.000116 1.51 794.27 198.32 0.13 SoquelCreekUP 28.98 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.01 4.04 0.000107 1.46 824.57 206.33 0.13 SoquelCreekUP 18.98 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.01 4.04 0.000117 1.49 804.02 206.12 0.13 SoquelCreekUP 10 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.00 4.04 0.000123 1.52 791.15 206.16 0.14 SoquelCreekUP 0 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.00 1.32 4.04 0.000138 1.57 766.39 209.47 0.14 Alternative 4
Q1200
464
Item 7 C.

HEC-RAS Plan: Opt4QS17500 River: SoquelCreek Reach: SoquelCreekUP Profile: PF 1 Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft)
SoquelCreekUP 457.43 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.82 16.03 0.000957 9.34 2328.16 297.23 0.44 SoquelCreekUP 447.43 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.80 16.02 0.000975 9.37 2315.35 296.31 0.45 SoquelCreekUP 433.47 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.82 15.99 0.000982 9.16 2335.57 301.30 0.45 SoquelCreekUP 423.47 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.81 15.99 0.000993 9.15 2325.16 299.87 0.45 SoquelCreekUP 413.47 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.73 15.97 0.000986 9.47 2316.26 301.75 0.44 SoquelCreekUP 393.46 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.77 15.92 0.000979 8.98 2333.41 304.64 0.44 SoquelCreekUP 373.46 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.68 15.89 0.001012 9.23 2295.41 312.91 0.45 SoquelCreekUP 353.46 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.59 15.87 0.001022 9.43 2243.15 307.86 0.45 SoquelCreekUP 333.46 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.59 15.84 0.001017 9.34 2244.16 308.64 0.45 SoquelCreekUP 313.46 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.46 15.81 0.001016 9.64 2166.05 306.51 0.46 SoquelCreekUP 293.46 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.40 15.79 0.001032 9.66 2102.58 308.47 0.46 SoquelCreekUP 273.46 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.30 15.76 0.001073 9.84 2015.51 308.73 0.47 SoquelCreekUP 253.46 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.43 15.67 0.001379 8.93 2005.27 304.83 0.52 SoquelCreekUP 245.93 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.42 15.65 0.001353 8.91 2005.69 301.45 0.51 SoquelCreekUP 228.95 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.35 15.63 0.001375 9.06 1958.40 298.51 0.52 SoquelCreekUP 218.85 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.17 15.60 0.001203 9.61 1869.82 225.95 0.49 SoquelCreekUP 216 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.16 15.59 0.001206 9.62 1867.36 225.42 0.49 SoquelCreekUP 211.97 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.17 15.57 0.001366 9.50 1846.33 209.10 0.52 SoquelCreekUP 206 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.06 15.54 0.001281 9.76 1792.39 175.32 0.50 SoquelCreekUP 203.28 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 14.04 15.53 0.001285 9.77 1790.35 174.81 0.51 SoquelCreekUP 199 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 13.93 8.71 15.49 0.001099 10.03 1744.56 151.65 0.49 SoquelCreekUP 196.94 Bridge
SoquelCreekUP 193.2 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 13.36 15.07 0.001278 10.50 1667.22 149.36 0.53 SoquelCreekUP 193.1 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 13.26 15.00 0.001314 10.58 1653.42 148.95 0.53 SoquelCreekUP 193 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 13.14 8.71 14.92 0.001355 10.68 1638.31 148.49 0.54 SoquelCreekUP 170.36 Bridge
SoquelCreekUP 145.32 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 11.89 13.93 0.001851 11.45 1528.91 148.64 0.60 SoquelCreekUP 140.31 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 11.87 13.92 0.002036 11.47 1525.11 143.71 0.62 SoquelCreekUP 130.3 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 11.45 13.80 0.002425 12.31 1421.37 137.80 0.68 SoquelCreekUP 120.28 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 10.98 13.67 0.002923 13.16 1331.51 137.93 0.74 SoquelCreekUP 110.27 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 10.88 9.27 13.64 0.003633 13.34 1312.21 156.21 0.81 SoquelCreekUP 103.87 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 9.62 9.62 13.50 0.005676 15.80 1111.51 147.73 1.00 SoquelCreekUP 86.16 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 8.15 8.15 12.16 0.005653 16.06 1090.40 139.30 1.00 SoquelCreekUP 76.02 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 7.37 7.37 11.05 0.005689 15.38 1137.69 154.86 1.00 SoquelCreekUP 65.88 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 6.92 6.92 10.38 0.005723 14.92 1173.01 169.85 1.00 SoquelCreekUP 59.74 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 6.73 6.73 10.09 0.005734 14.70 1190.18 177.25 1.00 SoquelCreekUP 49.6 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 6.97 6.49 9.78 0.004561 13.44 1302.23 187.14 0.90 SoquelCreekUP 38.98 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 7.30 9.57 0.003460 12.08 1448.60 198.82 0.79 SoquelCreekUP 28.98 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 7.44 9.46 0.003134 11.41 1533.92 206.96 0.74 Alternative 4
Q17500
465
Item 7 C.

HEC-RAS Plan: Opt4QS17500 River: SoquelCreek Reach: SoquelCreekUP Profile: PF 1 (Continued) Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft)
SoquelCreekUP 18.98 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 7.23 9.41 0.003478 11.86 1475.24 211.82 0.79 SoquelCreekUP 10 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 7.16 6.26 9.38 0.003730 11.96 1462.96 219.52 0.82 SoquelCreekUP 0 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 6.41 6.41 9.27 0.005792 13.56 1290.64 226.00 1.00 Alternative 4
Q17500
466
Item 7 C.

HEC-RAS Plan: Opt5QS1200 River: SoquelCreek Reach: SoquelCreekUP Profile: PF 1 Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft)
SoquelCreekUP 457.43 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.10 4.22 0.000397 2.78 432.30 105.69 0.24 SoquelCreekUP 447.43 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.10 4.22 0.000393 2.76 434.34 106.24 0.24 SoquelCreekUP 433.47 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.09 4.21 0.000388 2.74 437.19 107.04 0.24 SoquelCreekUP 423.47 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.09 4.21 0.000385 2.73 439.23 107.63 0.24 SoquelCreekUP 413.47 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.09 4.20 0.000381 2.72 441.27 108.21 0.24 SoquelCreekUP 393.46 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.08 4.19 0.000375 2.69 445.38 109.37 0.24 SoquelCreekUP 373.46 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.07 4.18 0.000368 2.67 449.45 110.53 0.23 SoquelCreekUP 353.46 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.07 4.18 0.000362 2.65 453.51 111.70 0.23 SoquelCreekUP 333.46 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.06 4.17 0.000356 2.62 457.59 112.86 0.23 SoquelCreekUP 313.46 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.06 4.16 0.000350 2.60 461.66 114.03 0.23 SoquelCreekUP 293.46 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.05 4.15 0.000344 2.58 465.74 115.20 0.23 SoquelCreekUP 273.46 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.04 4.15 0.000339 2.55 469.80 116.36 0.22 SoquelCreekUP 253.46 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.04 4.14 0.000333 2.53 473.84 117.53 0.22 SoquelCreekUP 245.93 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.04 4.14 0.000331 2.52 475.40 117.97 0.22 SoquelCreekUP 228.95 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.03 4.13 0.000327 2.51 478.81 118.96 0.22 SoquelCreekUP 218.85 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.03 4.13 0.000324 2.50 480.82 119.53 0.22 SoquelCreekUP 211.97 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.03 4.12 0.000322 2.49 482.18 119.92 0.22 SoquelCreekUP 203.28 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.03 4.12 0.000318 2.47 485.48 120.80 0.22 SoquelCreekUP 195.4 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.02 1.45 4.12 0.000304 2.47 486.29 121.46 0.22 SoquelCreekUP 170.36 Bridge
SoquelCreekUP 145.32 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.01 4.10 0.000294 2.38 505.04 126.03 0.21 SoquelCreekUP 140.31 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.01 4.10 0.000305 2.42 496.53 124.07 0.21 SoquelCreekUP 130.3 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.00 4.09 0.000324 2.48 483.37 121.08 0.22 SoquelCreekUP 120.28 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 3.99 4.09 0.000344 2.55 470.22 118.09 0.23 SoquelCreekUP 110.27 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 3.98 4.08 0.000366 2.62 457.24 115.10 0.23 SoquelCreekUP 103.87 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 3.97 4.08 0.000387 2.69 445.35 112.37 0.24 SoquelCreekUP 86.16 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 3.99 4.07 0.000266 2.26 531.51 133.52 0.20 SoquelCreekUP 76.02 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.00 4.06 0.000196 1.95 616.19 154.32 0.17 SoquelCreekUP 65.88 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.00 4.05 0.000161 1.77 677.47 169.42 0.16 SoquelCreekUP 59.74 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.00 4.05 0.000147 1.70 707.58 176.85 0.15 SoquelCreekUP 49.6 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.01 4.05 0.000131 1.61 747.58 186.74 0.14 SoquelCreekUP 38.98 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.01 4.04 0.000116 1.51 794.27 198.32 0.13 SoquelCreekUP 28.98 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.01 4.04 0.000107 1.46 824.57 206.33 0.13 SoquelCreekUP 18.98 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.01 4.04 0.000117 1.49 804.02 206.12 0.13 SoquelCreekUP 10 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.00 4.04 0.000123 1.52 791.15 206.16 0.14 SoquelCreekUP 0 PF 1 1200.00 0.00 4.00 1.32 4.04 0.000138 1.57 766.39 209.47 0.14 Alternative 5
Q1200
467
Item 7 C.

HEC-RAS Plan: Opt5QS17500 River: SoquelCreek Reach: SoquelCreekUP Profile: PF 1 Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft)
SoquelCreekUP 457.43 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 13.13 15.00 0.001634 11.32 1836.27 283.91 0.57 SoquelCreekUP 447.43 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 13.09 14.98 0.001679 11.39 1817.73 282.83 0.58 SoquelCreekUP 433.47 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 13.11 14.94 0.001713 11.17 1830.46 287.45 0.58 SoquelCreekUP 423.47 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 13.09 14.92 0.001725 11.15 1821.71 285.66 0.58 SoquelCreekUP 413.47 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 12.87 14.89 0.001762 11.71 1769.96 287.16 0.58 SoquelCreekUP 393.46 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 12.97 14.79 0.001780 11.05 1794.74 292.15 0.58 SoquelCreekUP 373.46 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 12.70 14.73 0.001920 11.59 1694.13 294.87 0.60 SoquelCreekUP 353.46 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 12.52 9.23 14.68 0.001986 11.92 1622.94 290.55 0.62 SoquelCreekUP 333.46 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 12.50 9.15 14.63 0.001981 11.82 1619.37 289.58 0.62 SoquelCreekUP 313.46 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 12.33 9.10 14.58 0.001999 12.09 1536.21 254.15 0.62 SoquelCreekUP 293.46 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 12.34 14.52 0.001936 11.86 1532.54 200.49 0.62 SoquelCreekUP 273.46 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 12.31 14.47 0.001912 11.82 1532.60 184.58 0.61 SoquelCreekUP 253.46 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 12.41 14.37 0.002435 11.24 1556.87 179.15 0.67 SoquelCreekUP 245.93 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 12.40 14.34 0.002365 11.19 1563.72 177.11 0.66 SoquelCreekUP 228.95 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 12.32 14.31 0.002315 11.29 1549.77 169.75 0.66 SoquelCreekUP 218.85 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 12.20 14.27 0.002117 11.54 1520.05 161.74 0.64 SoquelCreekUP 211.97 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 12.20 14.26 0.002138 11.52 1519.73 150.45 0.64 SoquelCreekUP 203.28 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 12.14 14.23 0.002074 11.61 1507.90 143.18 0.63 SoquelCreekUP 195.4 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 12.08 8.71 14.21 0.001841 11.71 1494.36 143.82 0.62 SoquelCreekUP 170.36 Bridge
SoquelCreekUP 145.32 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 11.89 13.93 0.001851 11.45 1528.91 148.64 0.60 SoquelCreekUP 140.31 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 11.87 13.92 0.002036 11.47 1525.11 143.71 0.62 SoquelCreekUP 130.3 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 11.45 13.80 0.002425 12.31 1421.37 137.80 0.68 SoquelCreekUP 120.28 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 10.98 13.67 0.002923 13.16 1331.51 137.93 0.74 SoquelCreekUP 110.27 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 10.88 9.27 13.64 0.003633 13.34 1312.21 156.21 0.81 SoquelCreekUP 103.87 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 9.62 9.62 13.50 0.005676 15.80 1111.51 147.73 1.00 SoquelCreekUP 86.16 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 8.15 8.15 12.16 0.005653 16.06 1090.40 139.30 1.00 SoquelCreekUP 76.02 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 7.37 7.37 11.05 0.005689 15.38 1137.69 154.86 1.00 SoquelCreekUP 65.88 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 6.92 6.92 10.38 0.005723 14.92 1173.01 169.85 1.00 SoquelCreekUP 59.74 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 6.73 6.73 10.09 0.005734 14.70 1190.18 177.25 1.00 SoquelCreekUP 49.6 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 6.97 6.49 9.78 0.004561 13.44 1302.23 187.14 0.90 SoquelCreekUP 38.98 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 7.30 9.57 0.003460 12.08 1448.60 198.82 0.79 SoquelCreekUP 28.98 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 7.44 9.46 0.003134 11.41 1533.92 206.96 0.74 SoquelCreekUP 18.98 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 7.23 9.41 0.003478 11.86 1475.24 211.82 0.79 SoquelCreekUP 10 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 7.16 6.26 9.38 0.003730 11.96 1462.96 219.52 0.82 SoquelCreekUP 0 PF 1 17500.00 0.00 6.41 6.41 9.27 0.005792 13.56 1290.64 226.00 1.00 Alternative 5
Q17500
468
Item 7 C.

Attachment 2
HEC-RAS Model Cross Section Plots
469
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ExCond Plan: ExCondSteadFlowQ1200 6/27/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Existing Conditions Q1200
470
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ExCond Plan: ExCondSteadFlowQ1200 6/27/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Existing Conditions Q1200
471
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 ExCond Plan: ExCondSteadFlowQ1200 6/27/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Existing Conditions Q1200
472
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ExCond Plan: ExCondSteadFlow 6/27/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Existing Conditions Q17500
473
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ExCond Plan: ExCondSteadFlow 6/27/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Existing Conditions Q17500
474
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 ExCond Plan: ExCondSteadFlow 6/27/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Existing Conditions Q17500
475
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ExCondNoDebrisPier Plan: ExConQ17500SNoDebris 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Existing Conditions - No Debris
476
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ProCondOp1 Plan: SteadQP17500 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Ground
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 1
477
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ProCondOp1 Plan: SteadQP17500 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Ground
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 1
478
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ProCondOp1 Plan: SteadQP17500 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 1
479
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ProCondOp1 Plan: SteadQP17500 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 1
480
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ProCondOp1 Plan: SteadQP17500 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 1
481
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 ProCondOp1 Plan: SteadQP17500 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 1
482
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ProCondOp1 Plan: Opt1Q1200Stead 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 1
483
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ProCondOp1 Plan: Opt1Q1200Stead 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 1
484
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 ProCondOp1 Plan: Opt1Q1200Stead 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 1
485
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ProCondOp1 Plan: Opt1Q1200Stead 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Ground
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 1
486
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ProCondOp1 Plan: Opt1Q1200Stead 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Ground
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 1
487
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ProCondOp1 Plan: Opt1Q1200Stead 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 1
488
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 ProCondOp2 Plan: Opt2QS17000 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Ground
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 2
489
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ProCondOp2 Plan: Opt2QS17000 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Ground
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 2
490
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ProCondOp2 Plan: Opt2QS17000 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
Ground
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 2
491
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0 20
40 60
80 100
ProCondOp2 Plan: Opt2QS17000 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
Ground
Bank Sta
Pier Debris
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 2
492
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ProCondOp2 Plan: Opt2QS17000 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 2
493
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ProCondOp2 Plan: Opt2QS17000 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 2
494
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ProCondOp2 Plan: Opt2QS17000 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 2
495
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ProCondOp2 Plan: Opt2QS17000 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 2
496
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 ProCondOp2 Plan: Opt2QS17000 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 2
497
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 ProCondOp2 Plan: Opt2QS17000 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 2
498
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ProCondOp2 Plan: Opt2QS1200 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
Ground
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 2
499
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0 20
40 60
80 100
ProCondOp2 Plan: Opt2QS1200 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
Ground
Bank Sta
Pier Debris
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 2
500
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ProCondOp2 Plan: Opt2QS1200 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 2
501
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ProCondOp2 Plan: Opt2QS1200 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 2
502
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ProCondOp2 Plan: Opt2QS1200 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 2
503
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ProCondOp2 Plan: Opt2QS1200 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 2
504
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 ProCondOp2 Plan: Opt2QS1200 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 2
505
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 ProCondOp2 Plan: Opt2QS1200 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 2
506
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 ProCondOp3 Plan: Opt3QS1200 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Ground
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 3
507
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ProCondOp3 Plan: Opt3QS1200 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
Ground
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 3
508
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0 20
40 60
80 100
ProCondOp3 Plan: Opt3QS1200 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
Ground
Bank Sta
Pier Debris
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 3
509
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ProCondOp3 Plan: Opt3QS1200 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 3
510
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ProCondOp3 Plan: Opt3QS1200 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 3
511
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ProCondOp3 Plan: Opt3QS1200 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 3
512
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ProCondOp3 Plan: Opt3QS1200 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 3
513
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 ProCondOp3 Plan: Opt3QS1200 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 3
514
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 ProCondOp3 Plan: Opt3QS1200 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 3
515
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ProCondOpt4 Plan: Opt4QS1200 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 4
516
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ProCondOpt4 Plan: Opt4QS1200 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 4
517
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 20
40 60
80 100
ProCondOpt4 Plan: Opt4QS1200 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
Pier Debris
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 4
518
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ProCondOpt4 Plan: Opt4QS1200 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 4
519
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ProCondOpt4 Plan: Opt4QS1200 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 4
520
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ProCondOpt4 Plan: Opt4QS1200 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 4
521
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ProCondOpt4 Plan: Opt4QS1200 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 4
522
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 ProCondOpt4 Plan: Opt4QS1200 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 4
523
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 ProCondOpt4 Plan: Opt4QS1200 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 4
524
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ProCondOpt4 Plan: Opt4QS17000 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 4
525
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ProCondOpt4 Plan: Opt4QS17000 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 4
526
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 20
40 60
80 100
ProCondOpt4 Plan: Opt4QS17000 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
Pier Debris
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 4
527
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ProCondOpt4 Plan: Opt4QS17000 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 4
528
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ProCondOpt4 Plan: Opt4QS17000 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 4
529
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ProCondOpt4 Plan: Opt4QS17000 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 4
530
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ProCondOpt4 Plan: Opt4QS17000 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 4
531
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 ProCondOpt4 Plan: Opt4QS17000 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 4
532
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 ProCondOpt4 Plan: Opt4QS17000 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 4
533
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ProCondOpt5 Plan: Opt5QS17500 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 5
534
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ProCondOpt5 Plan: Opt5QS1200 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 5
535
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ProCondOpt5 Plan: Opt5QS1200 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 5
536
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ProCondOpt5 Plan: Opt5QS1200 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 5
537
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 ProCondOpt5 Plan: Opt5QS1200 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 5
538
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 ProCondOpt5 Plan: Opt5QS1200 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 5
539
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ProCondOpt5 Plan: Opt5QS17500 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 5
540
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ProCondOpt5 Plan: Opt5QS17500 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 5
541
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ProCondOpt5 Plan: Opt5QS17500 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Crit PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 5
542
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 ProCondOpt5 Plan: Opt5QS17500 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 5
543
Item 7 C.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 ProCondOpt5 Plan: Opt5QS17500 6/28/2024

Station (ft) Elevation (ft)
Legend
EG PF 1
WS PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
.036 .026 .036
Alternative 5
544
Item 7 C.

CSWST2.com
CSWST2 | 303 Twin Dolphin Drive Redwood Shores, 6th Floor, Redwood City, CA 94065 | t. 415.883.9850 Attachment 3
Supplemental Structural Condition Evaluation
545
Item 7 C.

FINAL DRAFT

MEMORANDUM
TO: Julia Harberson, PE, Project Manager
CSWST2
Date: March 31, 2026
Job No: 2024083
FROM: Thomas L. Swayze, SE
Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc.

SUBJECT: Stockton Avenue Bridge at Soquel Creek (Bridge No. 36C0110) Capitola, California
Supplemental Structural Condition Evaluation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Capitola has suffered ongoing seasonal accumulation of storm debris at the Stockton Avenue Bridge (Br. No. 36C0110) and has performed emergency repairs of spalling and reinforcement corrosion at abutments and superstructure. To assess the overall condition of the bridge, the City has requested evaluation of its structural condition.

CSWST2 has been contracted by the City to provide this evaluation based on field observations and existing records. Biggs Cardosa Associates (BCA) has provided structural commentary based on field observations on July 16, 2025, and March 12, 2026.

The following documents were provided for our review:
• Structural Plans Sheets 1-4 Capitola Bridge over Soquel Creek, dated October 23,1933
• Caltrans Bridge Inspection Reports, dated May 8, 2022, September 17, 2021, September 25,2019, September 1, 2015, September 9, 2013, October 5, 2011, October 1, 2009, May 8, 2007, May 25, 2005, May 7, 2003, May 2, 2001, and August 10, 1999
• Caltrans Summary Load Rating Sheet dated September 3, 2019 • Emergency Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission, Emergency CDP G-3-23-0065 (Stockton Avenue Bridge, dated October 2, 2023 • City of Capitola Special Provisions and Plans for Construction of Capitola Bridge over Soquel Creek (Stockton Bridge) Repairs, Federal Project No. ER-15J7(85), dated December 5, 2023
546
Item 7 C.

Stockton Avenue Bridge
Structural Condition Evaluation

Page 2 of 10 ends

Capitola City CouncilAugust 27, 2026

Capitola City Council
August 27, 2026