Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout17 - Morning Canyon RestorationCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. v March 22, 2005 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Public Works Department Robert Stein, P.E. 949 - 644 -3311 rstein @city. newport- bea ch. ca. us SUBJECT: MORNING CANYON RESTORATION — CONTRACT NO. 3517 — AUTHORIZE USE OF APPROVED FUNDS FOR PREPARATION OF FINAL CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Approve the Morning Canyon Stream Stability and Channel Restoration Study prepared by RBF Consulting (RBF). 2. Approve a Budget Amendment transferring $148,870 from the Unappropriated General Fund reserves to the Upper Morning Canyon account, 7012- C5100750. 3. Approve Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with RBF of Irvine, California to prepare final documents required for constructing a stabilization project in Morning Canyon at a not -to- exceed fee of $148,870, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement. DISCUSSION: The City has reviewed RBF's final report for Morning Canyon stream stability along with its recommendations. The study recommends a stabilization project composed of the following key components: • Clearing non - native vegetation from the canyon bottom; • Importing soil to fill scour areas of the canyon; • Installing seven gabions at strategic locations along the streambed designed to protect the canyon from dangerous erosion from storms up to the 100 -year storm event; and • Planting drought tolerant, Fire Department approved landscaping in the canyon bottom. The preliminary cost estimate prepared by RBF estimates construction costs at $825,000 which includes a 25% contingency. Maintenance of the stabilization and erosion control structures and the native landscaping is estimated at $5,000 per annum. SUBJECT: MORNING CANYON RESTORATION — CONTRACT NO. 3517 — AUTHORIZE USE OF APPROVED FUNDS FOR PREPARATION OF FINAL CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS Date: March 22, 2005 Page 2 These maintenance funds will be budgeted in the General Services operating and maintenance budget beginning in Fiscal Year 2007. On March 9, 2004, Council considered a budget amendment for $250,650 for the preparation of a stream stabilization report, and final design and related documents needed to advertise this project for construction in the Fall 2005. At that time, Council appropriated just the amount needed to prepare the stabilization report ($103,280). This budget amendment above will appropriate the remaining $147,370 that was discussed last March and an additional $1,500 needed for additional jurisdictional agency site visits to review damage to the canyon during this winter's heavy storms. With Council approval to move ahead, final construction documents, environmental documents, permits and easements can be completed by July 2005 such that construction can proceed in the fall of 2005. Environmental Review: In consultation with the California Coastal Commission, RWQCB, USACOE and State Fish and Game, this project will prepare a MDN. Funding Availability: Upon approval of the recommended budget amendment, sufficient funds will be available in the following account for the project: Account Description Account Number General Fund 7012- C5100750 Total: Prepared by: i Robert 9tein, P.E. Principal Civil Engineer Submitted by: Attachments: Council Memo dated March 9, 2004' Amendment No. 1 with RBF Morning Canyon Stream Stability Study Budget Amendment Amount $148,870 $148,870 gin G. Badum c Works Director CITY OF NEWPORT BEAC CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT APPROVED By City Councir`/ /Z City of Newport Beach Agenda Item No. 18 March 9, 204-_1 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE C COUNC�/E FROM: Public Works Department r! Robert Stein, P.E. 6ni 949 - 644 -3311 rstein @city. newport- beach.ca. us SUBJECT: UPPER MORNING CANYON CHANNEL - APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH RBF CONSULTING FOR PREPARATION OF CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve a Professional Services Agreement with RBF Consulting (RBF), of Irvine, California, for preparing construction documents and obtaining permits by jurisdictional agencies, for the stabilization of the Upper Morning Canyon Channel at a contract price of $250,650.00 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement. 2. Approve a Budget Amendment of $250,650.00 from the unappropriated General Fund reserves. DISCUSSION: At the June 24, 2003 Study Session, Council was briefed on certain issues related to Morning Canyon including stream bed erosion, slope failures on private property and the invasion of exotic species. The City retained a consultant (Rivertech) to evaluate the causes of, and develop a conceptual plan to address the streambed erosion. The City Council directed staff to develop a scope of work, based on Rivertech's conceptual design, that identifies the tasks necessary to complete drawings and specifications for a project that would comply with requirements of all regulatory agencies and address the streambed erosion and habitat issues. The City Council confirmed that its intention to proceed in this manner, to develop the construction documents, and ultimately construct the improvements, is contingent upon the residents providing the City with the easements necessary to construct and maintain the project. In a subsequent show of support for the project, owners from twenty of twenty -two properties along the canyon have recently signed non - binding 'Memoranda of Intent' (see attachment for sample) to grant the City construction and maintenance easements for the proposed project. City staff continues to pursue signatures from the remaining two property owners and hopes to have 100% support within the next two weeks. If the SUBJECT: UPPER MORNING L !ON CHANNEL - APPROVAL OF PROFESSION~. SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH RBF CONSULTING FOR P..EPARATION OF CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS March 9, 2004 Page 2 City proceeds with the design of this project, City staff has agreed to report to the property owners on the design evolution at project milestones. At the conclusion of the design, completed construction documents will be provided to property owners for review. It the project meets their approval, formal easement documents will be prepared and executed with each property owner. Public Works staff discussed consultant qualifications that would be needed to prepare construction documents for this unique project that could be permitted by jurisdictional agencies in a timely manner. Two important criteria were identified. 1. Because of the deterioration in the channel and the potential for slope failures, the consultant must be able to provide a full spectrum of services that would allow rapid preparation of construction documents for review and approval by the City as well as the California Coastal Commission, Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and State Department of Fish and Game. 2. The consultant must have demonstrated ability to perform complex hydraulic, sediment transport and scour analyses in order to properly locate and design hydraulic control structures, including two- dimensional hydraulic analysis at critical channel locations to accurately calculate shear forces, which in turn will be used to determine channel armoring. Of critical importance is the need for the consultant to demonstrate that there will be no adverse downstream impacts due to any proposed improvements in the streambed. Based on the complexity of the project, staff reviewed the qualifications of the larger, full - service engineering consultants and is recommending the City Council select RBF Consulting based on its hydraulic analysis expertise, overall drainage design and permitting experience, and successful track record for successfully completing difficult projects on schedule for the City. RBF Consulting was invited to submit a proposal and has provided a well- conceived and comprehensive scope of work for the fieldwork, streambed stability analyses, final design and permitting. At the request of many property owners, the consultant has added a task to define measures to secure the canyon from unwarranted entry. Staff has reviewed the proposed fee and thinks it is reasonable and realistic. RBF's design schedule anticipates that the City will have permitted construction documents by the fall of 2004. Fundino Availabilit The preliminary estimated total cost for the project including engineering design, permitting and construction is approximately $2 million. Staff recommends approval of the attached RBF Consulting professional services agreement, along with a Budget Amendment of $250,650, and that RBF immediately proceed with preparation of the engineering design documents for this important project. Upon approval of the recommended budget amendment, sufficient funds for the project will be available in the following account: SUBJECT: UPPER MORNING CAI` J CHANNEL - APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL ;VICES AGREEMENT WITH RBF CONSULTING FOR PREPARATION OF CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS March 9. 2004 Page 3 Account Description Account Number Amount General Fund 7012- C5100750 $250,650.00 Total: $250,650.00 Environmental Review: City Staff would prepare CEQA documents for an anticipated Mitigated Negative Declaration with assistance from RBF. The final construction drawings will include an ecological restoration plan including an exotic pest plant eradication plan. Prepared by: Robert Stein, P.E. Principal Civil Engineer Attachment: Professional Services Agreement Memorandum of Intent Budget Amendment Submitted by: �iepn baoum Pubkb Works Director PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH RBF CONSULTING FOR MORNING CANYON CHANNEL STABILIZATION PROJECT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of this day of , 20 by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a Municipal Corporation and RBF CONSULTING a corporation whose address is 14725 Alton Parkway, Irvine, California, 92618 -2027 ( "Consultant "), and is made with reference to the following: RECITALS A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of City. B. City is planning to implement Morning canyon Channel Stabilization Project. C. City desires to engage Consultant to prepare construction documents and process these documents for permits from the jurisdictional agencies as outlined in the Scope of Services attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and upon the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement ( "Project'). D. Consultant possesses the skill, experience, ability, background, certification and knowledge to provide the services described in this Agreement. E. The principal member of Consultant for purposes of Project shall be Steve Huff, P.E.. F. City has solicited and received a proposal from Consultant, has reviewed the previous experience and evaluated the expertise of Consultant, and desires to retain Consultant to render professional services under the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: The term of this Agreement shall commence on the above written date and shall terminate on the 31st day of March, 2005, unless terminated earlier as set forth herein. 2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED Consultant shall diligently perform all the services described in the Scope of Services attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. The City may elect to delete certain tasks of the Scope of Services at its sole discretion. 3. TIME OF PERFORMANCE Time is of the essence in the performance of services under this Agreement and Consultant shall perform the services in accordance with the schedule included in Exhibit B. The failure by Consultant to strictly adhere to the schedule may result in termination of this Agreement by City. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Consultant shall not be responsible for delays due to causes beyond Consultant's reasonable control. However, in the case of any such delay in the services to be provided for the Project, each party hereby agrees to provide notice to the other party so that all delays can be addressed. 3.1 Consultant shall submit all requests for extensions of time for performance in writing to the Project Administrator not later than ten (10) calendar days after the start of the condition that purportedly causes a delay. The Project Administrator shall review all such requests and may grant reasonable time extensions for unforeseeable delays that are beyond Consultant's control. 3.2 For all time periods not specifically set forth herein, Consultant shall respond in the most expedient and appropriate manner under the circumstances, by either telephone, fax, hand - delivery or mail. 4. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT City shall pay Consultant for the services on a time and expense not -to- exceed basis in accordance with the provisions of this Section and the Schedule of Billing Rates attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference. In no event shall Consultant's compensation exceed Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Dollars and no /100 ($250,650.00) without additional authorization from City. No billing rate changes shall be made during the term of this Agreement without the prior written approval of City. 4.1 Consultant shall submit monthly invoices to City describing the work performed the preceding month. Consultant's bills shall include the name of the person who performed the work, a brief description of the services performed and /or the specific task in the Scope of Services to which it relates, the date the services were performed, the number of hours spent on all work billed on an hourly basis, and a description of any reimbursable expenditures. City shall pay Consultant no later than thirty (30) days after approval of the monthly invoice by City staff. 4.2 City shall reimburse Consultant only for those costs or expenses specifically approved in this Agreement, or specifically approved in advance by City. Unless otherwise approved, such costs shall be limited and include nothing more than the following costs incurred by Consultant: A. The actual costs of subconsultants for performance of any of the services that Consultant agrees to render pursuant to this Agreement, which have been approved in advance by City and awarded in accordance with this Agreement. B. Approved reproduction charges. C. Actual costs and /or other costs and /or payments specifically authorized in advance in writing and incurred by Consultant in the performance of this Agreement. 4.3 Consultant shall not receive any compensation for Extra Work without the prior written authorization of City. As used herein, "Extra Work" means any work that is determined by City to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services and which the parties did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the execution of this Agreement. Compensation for any authorized Extra Work shall be paid in accordance with the Schedule of Billing Rates as set forth in Exhibit B. 5. PROJECT MANAGER Consultant shall designate a Project Manager, who shall coordinate all phases of the Project. This Project Manager shall be available to City at all reasonable times during the Agreement term. Consultant has designated John McCarthy to be its Project Manager. Consultant shall not remove or reassign the Project Manager or any personnel listed in Exhibit A or assign any new or replacement personnel to the Project without the prior written consent of City. City's approval shall not be unreasonably withheld with respect to the removal or assignment of non -key personnel. Consultant, at the sole discretion of City, shall remove from the Project any of its personnel assigned to the performance of services upon written request of City. Consultant warrants that it will continuously furnish the necessary personnel to complete the Project on a timely basis as contemplated by this Agreement. 6. ADMINISTRATION This Agreement will be administered by the Public Works Department. Robert Stein, P.E. shall be the Project Administrator and shall have the authority to act for City under this Agreement. The Project Administrator or his /her authorized representative shall represent City in all matters pertaining to the services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement. 7. CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES In order to assist Consultant in the execution of its responsibilities under this Agreement, City agrees to, where applicable: A. Provide access to, and upon request of Consultant, one copy of all existing relevant information on file at City. City will provide all such materials in a timely manner so as not to cause delays in Consultant's work schedule. B. Provide blueprinting and other services through City's reproduction company for bid documents. Consultant will be required to coordinate the required bid documents with City's reproduction company. All other reproduction will be the responsibility of Consultant and as defined above. C. Provide usable life of facilities criteria and information with regards to new facilities or facilities to be rehabilitated. 8. STANDARD OF CARE 8.1 All of the services shall be performed by Consultant or under Consultant's supervision. Consultant represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel required to perform the services required by this Agreement, and that it will perform all services in a manner commensurate with community professional standards. All services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not employed by City, nor have any contractual relationship with City. 8.2 Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has or shall obtain all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatsoever nature that are legally required of Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant further represents and warrants to City that Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, keep in effect or obtain at all times during the term of this Agreement, any and all licenses, permits, insurance and other approvals that are legally required of Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant shall maintain a City of Newport Beach business license during the term of this Agreement. 8.3 Consultant shall not be responsible for delay, nor shall Consultant be responsible for damages or be in default or deemed to be in default by reason of strikes, lockouts, accidents, or acts of God, or the failure of City to fumish timely information or to approve or disapprove Consultant's work promptly, or delay or faulty performance by City, contractors, or governmental agencies. 8.4 The term Construction Management or Construction Manager does not imply that Consultant is engaged in any aspect of the physical work of construction contracting. Consultant shall not have control over or be in F1 N charge of and shall not be responsible for the project's design, City's project contractor ( "Contractor'), construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, or for any health or safety precautions and programs in connection with the work. These duties are and shall remain the sole responsibility of the Contractor. Consultant shall not be responsible for the Contractors' schedules or failure to carry out the work in accordance with the contract documents. Consultant shall not have control over or be responsible for acts or omissions of City, Design Engineer, Contractor, Subcontractors, or their Agents or employees, or of any other persons performing portions of the work. 9. HOLD HARMLESS To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents and employees (collectively, the "Indemnified Parties) from and against any and all claims (including, without limitation, claims for bodily injury, death or damage to property), demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including, without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever (individually, a Claim; collectively, "Claims "), which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to any work negligently performed or services provided under this Agreement (including, without limitation, defects in workmanship or materials and /or design defects [if the design originated with Consultant]) or Consultant's presence or activities conducted on the Project (including the negligent and /or willful acts, errors and /or omissions of Consultant, its principals, officers, agents, employees, vendors, suppliers, consultants, subcontractors, anyone employed directly or indirectly by any of them or for whose acts they may be liable or any or all of them). Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing herein shall be construed to require Consultant to indemnify the Indemnified Parties from any Claim arising from the active negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnified Parties. Nothing in this indemnity shall be construed as authorizing any award of attorney's fees in any action on or to enforce the terms of this Agreement. This indemnity shall apply to all claims and liability regardless of whether any insurance policies are applicable. The policy limits do not act as a limitation upon the amount of indemnification to be provided by the Consultant. 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR It is understood that City retains Consultant on an independent contractor basis and Consultant is not an agent or employee of City. The manner and means of conducting the work are under the control of Consultant, except to the extent they are limited by statute, rule or regulation and the expressed terms of this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to constitute approval for Consultant or any of Consultant's employees or agents, to be the agents or employees of City. Consultant shall have the responsibility for and control over the means of I performing the work, provided that Consultant is in compliance with the terms of this Agreement. Anything in this Agreement that may appear to give City the right to direct Consultant as to the details of the performance or to exercise a measure of control over Consultant shall mean only that Consultant shall follow the desires of City with respect to the results of the services. 11. COOPERATION Consultant agrees to work closely and cooperate fully with City's designated Project Administrator and any other agencies that may have jurisdiction or interest in the work to be performed. City agrees to cooperate with the Consultant on the Project. 12. CITY POLICY Consultant shall discuss and review all matters relating to policy and Project direction with City's Project Administrator in advance of all critical decision points in order to ensure the Project proceeds in a manner consistent with City goals and policies. 13. PROGRESS Consultant is responsible for keeping the Project Administrator and /or his /her duly authorized designee informed on a regular basis regarding the status and progress of the Project, activities performed and planned, and any meetings that have been scheduled or are desired. 14. INSURANCE Without limiting Consultant's indemnification of City, and prior to commencement of work, Consultant shall obtain, provide and maintain at its own expense during the term of this Agreement, a policy or policies of liability insurance of the type and amounts described below and in a form satisfactory to City. A. Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall provide certificates of insurance with original endorsements to City as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein. Insurance certificates must be approved by City's Risk Manager prior to commencement of performance or issuance of any permit. Current certification of insurance shall be kept on file with City at all times during the term of this Agreement. B. Signature. A person authorized by the insurer to bind coverage on its behalf shall sign certification of all required policies. C. Acceptable Insurers. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance in the State of California, with an assigned policyholders' Rating of A (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VII (or larger) in accordance with the latest edition of G Best's Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise approved by the City's Risk Manager. D. Coverage Requirements. Workers' Compensation Coverage. Consultant shall maintain Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance for his or her employees in accordance with the laws of the State of California. In addition, Consultant shall require each subcontractor to similarly maintain Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance in accordance with the laws of the State of California for all of the subcontractor's employees. Any notice of cancellation or non - renewal of all Workers' Compensation policies must be received by City at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to such change. The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against City, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers for losses arising from work performed by Consultant for City. ii. General Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain commercial general liability insurance in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage, including without limitation, contractual liability. If commercial general liability insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to the work to be performed under this Agreement, or the general aggregate limit shall be at least twice the required occurrence limit. iii. Automobile Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain automobile insurance covering bodily injury and property damage for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with work to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for any owned, hired, non -owned or rented vehicles, in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit for each occurrence. iv. Professional Errors and Omissions Insurance. Consultant shall maintain professional errors and omissions insurance, which covers the services to be performed in connection with this Agreement in the minimum amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000). E. Endorsements. Each general liability and automobile liability insurance policy shall be endorsed with the following specific language: The City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds with 7 respect to liability arising out of work performed by or on behalf of the Consultant. ii. This policy shall be considered primary insurance as respects to City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers as respects to all claims, losses, or liability arising directly or indirectly from the Consultant's operations or services provided to City. Any insurance maintained by City, including any self- insured retention City may have, shall be considered excess insurance only and not contributory with the insurance provided hereunder. iii. This insurance shall act for each insured and additional insured as though a separate policy had been written for each, except with respect to the limits of liability of the insuring company. iv. The insurer waives all rights of subrogation against City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. V. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers. vi. The insurance provided by this policy shall not be suspended, voided, canceled, or reduced in coverage or in limits, by either party except after thirty (30) calendar days written notice has been received by City. F. Timely Notice of Claims. Consultant shall give City prompt and timely notice of claim made or suit instituted arising out of or resulting from Consultant's performance under this Agreement. G. Additional Insurance. Consultant shall also procure and maintain, at its own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the work. 15. PROHIBITION AGAINST ASSIGNMENTS AND TRANSFERS Except as specifically authorized under this Agreement, the services to be provided under this Agreement shall not be assigned, transferred contracted or subcontracted out without the prior written approval of City. Any of the following shall be construed as an assignment: The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Consultant, or of the interest of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member or cotenant if Consultant is a partnership or joint- venture or syndicate or cotenancy, which shall result in changing the control of Consultant. Control means fifty I percent (50 %) or more of the voting power, or twenty -five percent (25 %) or more of the assets of the corporation, partnership or joint- venture. 16. SUBCONTRACTING The parties recognize that a substantial inducement to City for entering into this Agreement is the professional reputation, experience and competence of Consultant. Assignments of any or all rights, duties or obligations of the Consultant under this Agreement will be permitted only with the express written consent of City. Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the work to be performed under this Agreement without the prior written authorization of City. 17. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS Each and every report, draft, map, record, plan, document and other writing produced (hereinafter "Documents "), prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant, its officers, employees, agents and subcontractors, in the course of implementing this Agreement, shall become the exclusive property of City, and City shall have the sole right to use such materials in its discretion without further compensation to Consultant or any other party. Consultant shall, at Consultant's expense, provide such Documents to City upon prior written request. Documents, including drawings and specifications, prepared by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement are not intended or represented to be suitable for reuse by City or others on any other project. Any use of completed Documents for other projects and any use of incomplete Documents without specific written authorization from Consultant will be at City's sole risk and without liability to Consultant. Further, any and all liability arising out of changes made to Consultant's deliverables under this Agreement by City or persons other than Consultant is waived against Consultant and City assumes full responsibility for such changes unless City has given Consultant prior notice and has received from Consultant written consent for such changes. All improvement and /or construction plans shall be prepared with indelible waterproof ink or electrostaticly plotted on standard 24 -inch by 36 -inch Mylar with a minimum thickness of three mils. Consultant shall provide to City 'As- Built' drawings, and a copy of digital ACAD and tiff image files of all final sheets within ninety (90) days after finalization of the Project. For more detailed requirements, a copy of the City of Newport Beach Standard Design Requirements is available from the City's Public Works Department. 18. COMPUTER DELIVERABLES CADD data delivered to City shall include the professional stamp of the engineer or architect in charge of or responsible for the work. City agrees that Consultant shall not be liable for claims, liabilities or losses arising out of, or connected with (a) the modification or misuse by City, or anyone authorized by City, of CADD data; (b) the decline of accuracy or readability of CADD data due to inappropriate storage O conditions or duration; or (c) any use by City, or anyone authorized by City, of CADD data for additions to this Project, for the completion of this Project by others, or for any other Project, excepting only such use as is authorized, in writing, by Consultant. By acceptance of CADD data, City agrees to indemnify Consultant for damages and liability resulting from the modification or misuse of such CADD data. All original drawings shall be submitted to City in the version of AutoCAD used by City in ".dwg" file format on a CD, and should comply with the City's digital submission requirements for Improvement Plans. The City will provide AutoCAD file of City Title Sheets. All written documents shall be transmitted to City in the City's latest adopted version of Microsoft Word and Excel. 19. CONFIDENTIALITY All Documents, including drafts, preliminary drawings or plans, notes and communications that result from the services in this Agreement, shall be kept confidential unless City authorizes in writing the release of information. 20. OPINION OF COST Any opinion of the construction cost prepared by Consultant represents his /her judgment as a design professional and is supplied for the general guidance of City. Since Consultant has no control over the cost of labor and material, or over competitive bidding or market conditions,. Consultant does not guarantee the accuracy of such opinions as compared to contractor bids or actual cost to City. 21. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDEMNITY The Consultant shall defend and indemnify City, its agents, officers, representatives and employees against any and all liability, including costs, for infringement of any United States' letters patent, trademark, or copyright infringement, including costs, contained in Consultant's drawings and specifications provided under this Agreement. 22. RECORDS Consultant shall keep records and invoices in connection with the work to be performed under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to the costs incurred under this Agreement and any services, expenditures and disbursements charged to City, for a minimum period of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of final payment to Consultant under this Agreement. All such records and invoices shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of City to examine, audit and make transcripts or copies of such records and invoices during regular business hours. Consultant shall allow inspection of all work, data, Documents, proceedings and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment to Consultant under this Agreement. 10 23. WITHHOLDINGS City may withhold payment to Consultant of any disputed sums until satisfaction of the dispute with respect to such payment. Such withholding shall not be deemed to constitute a failure to pay according to the terms of this Agreement. Consultant shall not discontinue work as a result of such withholding. Consultant shall have an immediate right to appeal to the City Manager or his /her designee with respect to such disputed sums. Consultant shall be entitled to receive interest on any withheld sums at the rate of return that City earned on its investments during the time period, from the date of withholding of any amounts found to have been improperly withheld. 24. ERRORS AND OMISSIONS In the event of errors or omissions that are due to the negligence or professional inexperience of Consultant which result in expense to City greater than what would have resulted if there were not errors or omissions in the work accomplished by Consultant, the additional design, construction and /or restoration expense shall be borne by Consultant. Nothing in this paragraph is intended to limit City's rights under any other sections of this Agreement. 25. CITY'S RIGHT TO EMPLOY OTHER CONSULTANTS City reserves the right to employ other Consultants in connection with the Project. 26. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST The Consultant or its employees may be subject to the provisions of the California Political Reform Act of 1974 (the "Act "), which (1) requires such persons to disclose any financial interest that may foreseeably be materially affected by the work performed under this Agreement, and (2) prohibits such persons from making, or participating in making, decisions that will foreseeably financially affect such interest. If subject to the Act, Consultant shall conform to all requirements of the Act. Failure to do so constitutes a material breach and is grounds for immediate termination of this Agreement by City. Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless City for any and all claims for damages resulting from Consultant's violation of this Section. 27. NOTICES All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under the terms of this Agreement shall be given in writing, to City by Consultant and conclusively shall be deemed served when delivered personally, or on the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid, first -class mail, 11 addressed as hereinafter provided. All notices, demands, requests or approvals from Consultant to City shall be addressed to City at: Attn: Robert Stein Public Works Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Phone: 949 - 644 -3322 Fax: 949 - 644 -3308 All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Consultant shall be addressed to Consultant at: Attn: John McCarthy RBF Consulting 14725 Alton Parkway Irvine, CA 92618 -2027 Phone: 949 - 855 -5759 Fax: 949 - 586 -6531 28. TERMINATION In the event that either party fails or refuses to perform any of the provisions of this Agreement at the time and in the manner required, that party shall be deemed in default in the performance of this Agreement. If such default is not cured within a period of two (2) calendar days, or if more than two (2) calendar days are reasonably required to cure the default and the defaulting party fails to give adequate assurance of due performance within two (2) calendar days after receipt of written notice of default, specifying the nature of such default and the steps necessary to cure such default, the non - defaulting party may terminate the Agreement forthwith by giving to the defaulting party written notice thereof. Notwithstanding the above provisions, City shall have the right, at its sole discretion and without cause, of terminating this Agreement at any time by giving seven (7) calendar days prior written notice to Consultant. In the event of termination under this Section, City shall pay Consultant for services satisfactorily performed and costs incurred up to the effective date of termination for which Consultant has not been previously paid. On the effective date of termination, Consultant shall deliver to City all reports, Documents and other information developed or accumulated in the performance of this Agreement, whether in draft or final form. 29. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LAWS Consultant shall at its own cost and expense comply with all statutes, ordinances, regulations and requirements of all governmental entities, including federal, state, county or municipal, whether now in force or hereinafter enacted. 12 In addition, all work prepared by Consultant shall conform to applicable City, county, state and federal laws, rules, regulations and permit requirements and be subject to approval of the Project Administrator and City. 30. WAIVER A waiver by either party of any breach, of any term, covenant or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant or condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character. 31. INTEGRATED CONTRACT This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the parties hereto, and all preliminary negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions herein. 32. CONFLICTS OR INCONSISTENCIES In the event there are any conflicts or inconsistencies between this Agreement and the Scope of Services or any other attachments attached hereto, the terms of this Agreement shall govem. 33. AMENDMENTS This Agreement may be modified or amended only by a written document executed by both Consultant and City and approved as to form by the City Attorney. 34. SEVERABILITY If any term or portion of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. 35. CONTROLLING LAW AND VENUE The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement and all matters relating to it and any action brought relating to this Agreement shall be adjudicated in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Orange. 36. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYMENT Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any subcontractor, employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, handicap, ancestry, sex or age. 1191 of Newport Beach EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MORING CANYON CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS RBF Job No. 10- 103181 SCOPE OF WORK February 25, 2004 GENERAL DESCRIPTION The Scope of Work provided is for the review of conceptual design studies; and the development of a final PS &E package for the stabilization of Morning Canyon from Pacific Coast Highway to the Pelican Hill Golf Course in the City of Newport Beach. This reach of the Morning Canyon Channel is intended to be designed in accordance with City of Newport Beach, and the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) standards and criteria, and will be in compliance with regulatory and Coastal Commission requirements. A conceptual design report has been previously prepared for this portion of the Morning Canyon Channel titled, "Morning Canyon, Stabilization, Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses," by Rivertech Inc, dated August 2002. The conceptual design study identified recommended improvements to stabilize the channel reach and maintain the riparian and alluvial characteristics of the existing stream corridor. The proposed work effort will include a review and evaluation of the previous studies and reports that have been completed on the project reach, refinement of the conceptual stabilization design, coordination with the jurisdictional agencies, and development of final drawings, specifications, and estimates forthe installation of the proposed improvements. The project coordination and approval process will include; processing and obtaining a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission; application and permit processing with the Army Corps of Engineers, Fish & Game, and Regional Water Quality Control Board; and processing the drawings, specifications, and estimates with the City of Newport Beach. PHASE 1A - PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING The goal of Phase 1 is to produce documents, exhibits, backup calculations and cost estimates so that: • Staff can confirm the validity of the preliminary plan, • Project costs can be reliably relayed to the City Council and the Irvine Company. Once the City has approved the preliminary documents, the Consultant submit an application to the Coastal Commission to gain concept approval for the project. TASK 1.0 RESEARCH /INVESTIGATION /BASE DATA REVIEW Upon notice to proceed, Consultant will review existing improvement drawings, studies, record data, utilities, CONB GIS maps and other information relevantto the projectand within and adjacent to the project area. Consultant will conduct review at the City, Caltrans, and County. Consultant will conduct field reconnaissance study and photo log of the existing conditions including encroachments. TASK 2.0 FIELD SURVEY / TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING Consultant shall collect field survey data for the design of the proposed improvements that shall include the preparation of limited topographic base mapping through field survey PROPOSAL SCOPE AND FEE Revision Date:2/25 /2004 MORNING CANYON CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS CWy Documen tslProposai4Samples4morning CanyonWoming Canyon Proposal- Final.doc Page 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on the day and year first written above. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney for the City of Newport Beach ATTEST: LaVonne Harkless, City Clerk CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, A Municipal Corporation in Mayor for the City of Newport Beach RBF CONSULTING: 0 Attachments: Exhibit A — Scope of Services Exhibit B — Schedule of Billing Rates f: \users \pbw\shared \agreements\fy 03- 04\rbf- morning canyon channel- revised- 030204.doc 14 of NeWDOrt Beach methods. In addition, stream cross - sections will be obtained at critical locations. The field survey data will be compiled to develop a topographic base map of the project area. Field survey information will also include surface ground culture. The existing overgrowth of vegetation severely limits the ability to efficiently survey the area; therefore, this task is a budget item based on 60 -hours of field survey time (2- person crew), should additional field survey /topographic mapping be required, a separate addendum will be provided. All topography shall be electronically field data collected and detailed on a hardcopy back up and field notes. Data Processing and Deliverables: Consultant shall process all data and prepare all drawings per City standards. TASK 3.0 CONSTRAINT MAP Based on CONB maps, an electronic version of a Constraint Map showing property lines, ownership, relevant easements of record and other significant property rights that could affect this project will be prepared for use by the design team. TASK 4.0 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION The objective of this investigation will be to assess streambed characteristics of the creek in order to determine the potential armoring characteristics, and provide representative soil samples for the scour analysis. The necessary personnel, equipment and materials to perform subsurface exploration, laboratory testing and data analyses will be provided. Depending on environmental concerns, either grab samples or hand auger samples maybe required. Soil samples will be taken at critical areas on the subject channel reach. A report of the findings and geotechnical recommendations for design of the project will be prepared. Should additional geotechnical investigation be required for structure design or adjacent development slope stability analyses, a separate addendum will be provided. The report shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. TASK 5.0 PRELIMINARY HYDRAULIC AND SCOUR ANALYSIS Consultant shall provide engineering services to perform the Preliminary Hydraulic Analysis for the Morning Canyon and the proposed drop structure improvements. The Preliminary Hydraulic Analysis will include verification of existing floodplain hydraulics for this portion of the creek starting with the model already developed by River-tech and modified as necessary. with information obtained from the research and field survey. The existing and proposed floodplain hydraulics conditions will be modeled utilizing the Army Corps of Engineers HEC- RAS analysis. Channel geometric characteristics, such as conveyance cross - sections, roughness coefficients, and encroachments, will be analyzed based on field cross - section information and site inspections. Potential hydraulic constraints will be investigated prior to analyzing proposed alternative designs. The hydraulics of multi- frequency design flows shall be investigated and the associated hydraulic impacts assessed to determine the level of flood protection associated with the proposed improvements. The hydraulic analysis shall extend adequate distance upstream and downstream from the proposed project to fully evaluate the impacts to the existing flooding. Average hydraulic parameters generated shall be utilized for the scour and sediment transport analysis to determine additional facility protection requirements. The scour analysis shall incorporate aggradation and degradation tendencies associated with this portion of the creek to be determined as part of Task 6.0. The scour analysis will determine PROPOSAL SCOPE AND FEE Revision MORNING CANYON CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS CAMy Documents \Proposal\Samples \Moming Canyon \Morning Canyon Proposal - Final.doc Page 2 of Newport Beach the scour parameters used in designing and locating the proposed drainage facilities. In addition, the limits and extent of the required protection downstream of each grade control structure shall be determined. Modifications to the conceptual design shall be recommended. The hydraulic and scour analysis shall be prepared using hydrology previously developed for the project area. TASK 6.0 STREAMBED STABILITY AND SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS Based on the channel baseline engineering analysis for the watershed hydrology and hydraulic conditions developed in Task 5, the Consultant shall develop alternatives for streambed and streambank stabilization for the Morning Canyon to be maintained in a "natural" condition. These measures will provide control for in- stream degradation or lateral bank migration. The analysis will be based upon the preliminary stabilization measures developed in the Rivertech, Inc. study. Stabilization measures will focus maintaining the natural channel response in the canyon, and identifying control measures that will achieve these conditions. Grade control structures will focus on incorporating typical resource agency requirements and re- establishing a stabilized natural stream system. The analysis will provide recommendations forfinal design of structural streambank protection measures. The analysis will Identify the potential long -term and short-term modifications to the channel streambed, potential stream impacts, and identify the areas of potential lateral bank migration. The Consultant shall: • Evaluate the anticipated long -term aggradation /degradation from the river hydraulic effects utilizing standard sediment transport relationships. • Estimate the event -based and average annual trends expected along the canyon considering the current sediment sources in the watershed. • Analyze the sediment balance for the stream by characteristic channel reaches, and evaluating trends. • Identify the areas and magnitudes of expected aggradation and degradation fora full range of analyzed flood events. • Evaluate the relative channel stability by evaluating incipient motion parameters and the potential armoring. A pseudo sediment routing model, such as the Department of the Army's SAM Hydraulic Design Package for Channels program will be used to develop the long -term equilibrium slope for the channel. The SAM computer model is a fixed bed model which is used to estimate sediment transport trends along the subject channel. This analysis will be used to determine the need for grade control structures and other channel stabilizing measures. The sediment inflow hydrograph will be applied to the various sediment categories based upon the grain size distribution. The estimated degradation and aggradation depths along the channel profile will be plotted in profile. Sediment transport quantities as a result of the model will be summarized. Perform a qualitative assessment of the potential impacts to the downstream reach of Morning Canyon below Pacific Coast Highway as a result of the proposed channel stabilization project. Identify potential impacts and recommend additional studies, as necessary, based on the results of the assessment. Results, findings and recommendations for Tasks 5 and 6 shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. This report shall include the background for the hydraulics, hydrology, design criteria, constraints, assumptions, references, and technical calculations that will be prepared in a suitable format acceptable for review by the jurisdictional agencies. PROPOSAL SCOPE AND FEE Revision Date:2/2512004 MORNING CANYON CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS C:\My Documents \Proposa[ SampleslMorning CanyonWorning Canyon Proposal- Final.doc Page 3 C ity of Newport Beach TASK 7.0 CONCEPTUAL ACCESS ROAD ALIGNMENTAND GRADING STUDY Consultant shall complete a conceptual access road alignment study to evaluate and recommend a preferred roadway for the maintenance of the proposed grade control structures. A maximum of 2 different alignments will be analyzed. The study will evaluate the required alignment based on the physical, environmental, construction, and engineering requirements. Preliminary grading requirements for the roadway embankment will also be evaluated for the alternatives. A conceptual grading plan exhibit will be prepared which illustrates the recommended design and submitted to the City for review and comment. TASK 7.OA CREEK SECURITY STUDY Consultant shall complete a conceptual creek security study to evaluate and recommend a preferred method to provide fencing or othermethods to prevent unauthorized access tothe creek and access roadway improvements. A conceptual security plan exhibit will be prepared which illustrates the recommended design and submitted to the City for review and comment. TASK 8.0 RESTORATION /LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN Consultant shall prepare one presentation quality landscape concept plan for the project restoration. The plan shall be prepared based on site opportunities and constraints, the requirements of the City of Newport Beach and input on the planting palette from the project biologist. The goals of the plan will be to incorporate the regulatory mitigation requirements in- stream, and include the drawings within the final construction documents. The plan shall be prepared at an appropriate scale in Autocadd on a base map of the project site prepared by RBF.. The plan shall depict areas of exotic plant removal, areas to be re- vegetated and planting concepts. The plan and a preliminary estimate of construction costs will be submitted to the City for review, comment and approval. It is assumed that re- vegetation can be achieved without the use of an automatic irrigation system and the design of a system is excluded from this scope of work. TASK 9.0 PRELIMINARY EXHIBITS AND SUBMITTAL TO COASTAL COMMSISON FOR APPROVAL IN CONCEPT Consultant shall prepare plan and profile exhibits which will consist of a Preliminary Plan for the general layout of the proposed grade control structures, specifically focusing on the (1) control structure layout, (2) access road alignment, and (3) and temporary and permanent grading requirements. Conceptual layout plans will be produced at an appropriate scale utilizing existing available topography. Additional information to be indicated on these exhibits will include the base map data from research, facility sizes, roadway dimensions, easements & right -of -way, and encroachments. This task shall include preliminary cost estimates, a constructability, review of the preliminary design to assess the potential construction impacts, and prepare a value- engineering studyto determine potential modifications to the design to reduce construction impacts or project cost. Recommended modifications will be discussed with the City, and incorporated into the final plans as necessary. Prepare a permit package for submittal to the CCC. Process the package for Concept Approval. List all the elements you expect to be needed for the submittal. Adjustyou budget accordingly. PROPOSAL SCOPE AND FEE Revision Date2/25/2004 MORNING CANYON CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS C:\My Documents \Proposal\Samples \Morning CanyonWlorning Canyon Proposal- Final.doc Page 4 of Newport Beach TASK 10.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT /PROJECT COORDINATION Consultant shall supervise, coordinate, m on itor and review design for conformance with City policies and procedures and with City of Newport Beach plan standards. Consultant shall coordinate with City and other Agencies to facilitate project delivery. Management support shall be provided to support resolution of project design scope and scheduling. Consultant shall prepare an action item matrix, document all project decisions, and distribute correspondence copies to all Project Team members as appropriate. This task shall include the preparation of exhibits and handouts, and attendance atone public meeting to be set up by the City. PHASE 1B — ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PERMIT PROCESSING TASK 11.0 JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION AND REPORT PREPARATION Consultant will perform a jurisdictional delineation to determine jurisdictional "waters of the United States," including wetlands (if present), located within the boundaries of the proposed project. This task also includes a biologic constraints survey (prepared by LSA Associates), to aid in the limits of the jurisdictional delineation. The delineation will result in a determination of the ordinary high water mark(s) (OH W M) within the projectsite and indicate the existence of any adjacent wetlands not within the jurisdictional ordinary high water mark. The actual presence or absence of wetlands on -site will be verified through the determination of the presence of hydrologic conditions, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydric soils pursuant to the 1987 Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) Wetland Delineation Manual. Using detailed mapping of the project area, Consultant shall prepare a jurisdiction delineation map and technical letter report detailing the results of the field delineation. Consultant will provide an assessment of acreage considered by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) to bejurisdictional "waters of the United States." TASK 12.0 PRE - APPLICATION FIELD MEETING Consultant shall coordinate an on -site meeting with the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RW QCB) at the appropriate time to discussion potential permitting strategies available for the proposed project, including mitigation expectations. It is crucial to obtain feedback from the regulatory agencies prior to any vegetation removal on -site. RBF has found these Pre - Application Field Meetings to be extremely beneficial with regards to streamlining the permitting process. TASK 13.0 COASTAL COMMISSION PRE- APPLICATION FIELD MEETING Consultant shall coordinate an on -site meeting with representatives from the Coastal Commission - South Coast District Office to discuss potential permitting needs for the Morning Canyon streambed within the Coastal Zone. Prior to setting up the field meeting, RBF will provide a conceptual plan showing access to the canyon, an estimate for the quantity of vegetation that will be removed, and the method of removal. At the field meeting, RBF and the Coastal Commission will discuss the following key elements to move forward with the design aspects of the project: 1) the permitting approach to formally identify the Coastal Commission's application requirements, 2) alternatives for disposing the removed PROPOSAL SCOPE AND FEE Revision Date:2i25i2CO4 MORNING CANYON CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS CAMy Documents \ProposahSampleslMoming Canyon \Morning Canyon Proposal- Final.doc Page 5 Beach vegetation, 3) mitigation requirements (i.e. on -site or off -site habitat restoration, interim erosion control, orparticipation in other Coastal Commission restoration activities, etc.) and 4) a formal request that mitigation associated with survey activities (if required) be tied to the construction mitigation that will be conditioned under the final CDP. PHASE 2 — FINAL DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES Phase 2 includes the final design of the recommended improvements developed in Phase 1, and will not proceed without prior City approval. TASK 14.0 FINAL HORIZONTAL & VERTICAL ALIGNMENT Provide engineering services to perform calculations for the final horizontal and vertical alignment of the proposed grade control structures and channel improvements. This shall include the development of construction centerline for the finalized access road and channel facilities. Construction stationing developed from the horizontal and vertical alignment calculations. Precise coordinates shall be determined for the location of the proposed facilities. A horizontal control plan shall be produced which provides the survey control data for critical points on the proposed improvements. TASK 15.0 MORNING CANYON IMPROVEMENT DRAWINGS The consultant shall prepare improvement drawings forthe stabilization of Morning Canyon Channel from north of Pacific Coast Highway to the Pelican Hills Golf Course. The proposed improvements will be based on the approved Preliminary Design Study completed in Phase 1A. This task is based on the construction of 4 gabion drop structures and 2 groins located along an approximately 800 foot reach of channel. If during the course of design review it is determined that modifications are required to the original concepts, then this redesign will be accomplished through a separate addendum to the Client. This work item is based on the preparation of one set of Morning Canyon Channel improvement drawings. The construction drawings will include cover and general note sheets, channel plan and profile, grade control structure sections and details, grading, lateral profiles, and quantities on standard City of Newport Beach format prepared at a scale of 1"=40' or V=20'. TASK 16.0 ACCESS ROAD DESIGN DRAWINGS Provide final engineering services for the preparation of construction drawings for the Morning Canyon access roadway. The roadway alignment and configuration will be based on the preferred alternative developed as part of the "Conceptual Access Road Alignment and Grading Study' completed in Phase 1A. The roadway drawings will be processed for approval through the agencies as part of the Morning Canyon Improvement Drawings. This work item includes the preparation of plan and profiles, grading, and associated details necessary for the construction of the access roadway at a scale of 1 "=40' or 1 " =20' on standard City of Newport Beach format. It is assumed for this task that retaining walls will not be required for the construction of the access road. TASK 17.0 RESTORATIONLANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENT DRAWINGS Consultant shall prepare one set of final landscape construction drawings, specifications and cost estimates in sufficient form and detail to obtain approval from the Coastal Commission, the US Army corps of Engineers and the City. The drawings shall be prepared based on the PROPOSAL SCOPE AND FEE Revision Date2/25 /2004 MORNING CANYON CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS C:Wy Documents \Proposal\SampleslMoming CanyonWorning Canyon Proposal- Final.doc Page 6 City of Newport Beach approved landscape concept plan prepared under Task 8. The drawings will be prepared at an appropriate scale on base maps of the project site prepared by RBF. The drawings will include plant removal drawings, a planting drawing, one planting detail sheet and specifications for planting. TASK 18.0 FINAL HYDRAULICS AND SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS Consultant shall prepare a final hydraulic and sediment transport analysis of the proposed channel improvements indicated on the construction drawings. The final design water surface generated shall also be indicated on the drawings. All hydraulics studies shall be completed in conformance with the latest available design, drafting, and policyand procedure manuals of the City of Newport Beach, and the County of Orange. This task includes the preparation of a "Final Channel Hydraulics " which will serve as documentation of the final engineering design and associated technical analysis to support the Morning Canyon channel des ign. The report shall update the preliminary report including the backup data regarding final hydraulics, hydrology, existing facility data, design criteria, specific design requirements, design constraints, assumptions, quantity and cost estimate support, and all engineering calculations or analysis. TASK 19.0 FINAL COST ESTIMATE Prepare a final estimate of construction quantities and costs based upon the channel, roadway, and landscape drawings utilizing current City cost data and the latest edition of Caltrans Contract Cost Data book, and compare to established project budget. TASK 20.0 SPECIAL PROVISIONS Consultant shall develop technical specifications as special provisions in conformance with City's format and provide required permits and reference materials to be included in the City's standard contract documents. City will prepare the upfront "boiler plate" portions of the contract documents (e.g. general provisions, contract requirements, notice to contractors, etc.). As needed, specifications shall include specific NPDES stormwater provisions the contractor will need to implement. There should also be discussion on nuisance flow diversion during construction. TASK 21.0 ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 404 PERMIT APPLICATION Assuming the Proiect will Require a Nationwide Permit: Consultant will prepare a submittal package for a Army Corps of Engineers Permit to satisfy the requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. It is assumed under this task that authorization to proceed from the Corps can be achieved by using a Nationwide Permit (NWP). Nationwide Permit refers to a type of general permit which authorizes typical activities on a nationwide basis. Based on our preliminary assessment of the site conditions, including our current understanding of the project's funding constraints, RBF believes that the project can be authorized under NWP 3, Maintenance Activities. Critical elements for this NWP are paraphrased below: `The repair, rehabilitation, orreplacement of anypreviously authorized, currently serviceable, structure, or fill, or any currently serviceable structure or fill, provided that the structures or fill is not to be put to uses differing from those uses specified or contemplated for it in the original permit or the most recently authorized modification. This NWP authorizes the repair, PROPOSAL SCOPE AND FEE Revision Date:225 /2004 MORNING CANYON CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS CSMy Documents \ProposailSamples \Moming CanyonWoming Canyon Proposal - Final.doc Page 7 City of Newport Beach rehabilitation, or replacement of those structures or fills destroyed or damaged by storms, floods, fire or other discrete events, provided the repair, rehabilitation, or replacement is commenced, or is under contract to commence, within two years of the date of their destruction ordamage. In cases of catastrophic events, such as hurricanes ortornadoes, this two year limit may be waived by the District Engineer, provided the permittee can demonstrate funding, contract, or other similar delays." Consultant will initially consult with the ACOE and request that the two year limitation for NW P 3 be waived due to previous project funding delays. Should it be determined by the Corps that an Individual Permit (IP) would be required for the proposed activities instead of a NW P, the Client shall be notified and work shall continue based on a separate addendum or on a time and materials basis, subject to Client approval. The submittal package will include: a) 404 permit application standard form, b) vicinity map, c) project description, d) jurisdictional delineation report, e) biology report, f) cultural resources report, g) geology report, and h) site photos. Should this amount be exceeded, the Client shall be notified and work shall continue based on a separate addendum or on a time and materials basis, subject to Client approval. TASK 22.0 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 1600 PERMIT APPLICATION Consultant will prepare an application submittal package for the CDFG 1600 Agreement for Streambed Alteration (also known as a Streambed Alteration Agreement). The submittal package will include: (a) Standard Forms, (b) vicinity map, (c) project description, (d) jurisdictional delineation map, and (e) site photos. This task does not include the permit filing fee, which can range up to $1,390.50 depending on the construction cost of the proposed project. TASK 23.0 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD SECTION 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION Consultant will prepare a submittal to secure a Water Quality Certification from the State pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. This certification is necessary prior to the Corps concurring with discharges of fill material under the Corps permit process. This task does not include the permit filing fee, typically $2,250. TASK 24.0 RESOURCE AGENCY PERMIT PROCESSING Provide regulatory services for the processing of the permits through the Army Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The processing shall include required correspondence or telephone calls between the reviewing staff related to the permit or points of clarification and coordination with the biological consultant, if necessary. This item includes any meetings with the reviewing staff of the resource agencies during the review process. The fee associated with this work is a budget amount since it is difficult to anticipate the processing requirements. A budget amount of 35 hours has been allocated for this work item. Should this amount be exceeded, especially due to the Corps' or CDFG's requirement for mitigation, then the Client shall be notified and work shall continue based on a separate addendum or a time and materials basis, subject to Client approval. TASK 25.0 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES RBF shall prepare the CDP application based on input from the Coastal Commission and City PROPOSAL SCOPE AND FEE Revision Date2125,'2004 MORNING CANYON CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS C:\My Documents \Proposal\Samples \Moming Canyon \Morning Canyon Proposal- Finardoc Page 8 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH of Newport Beach. At a minimum, the following items will be included with the CDP application: • Proof of applicant's interest in the property • Assessor's Parcel Map(s) showing the proposed development site and all adjacent properties within 100' of the property boundary • Stamped envelopes addressed to neighboring property owners and occupants and other interested parties and a list of the same • Vicinity Map • Two sets of project drawings, site plans, and other applicable drawings. • Copy of environmental documents if prepared for the project and any comments and responses • Verification of all other permits, permissions or approvals applied for or granted by public agencies • Copy of Geology or soils report • Local approval of the project • Notice of Pending Permit to be posted in a conspicuous place • Filing Fee This task includes the application of one coastal development permit for the project construction. Should additional permits be necessary for the completion of design services, then this work can be accomplished through a separate addendum for an additional fee. TASK 26.0 COORDINATION FOR PROCESSING OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITS RBF will coordinate the processing of the CDP application with the Coastal Commission, City of Newport Beach and other consultants. Interagency coordination should be initiated with the other regulatory agencies (Army Corps of Engineers, California Dept. of Fish and Game, Regional Water Quality Control Board, etc.) as soon as possible to ensure that the CDP applications address the jurisdictional needs of the Coastal Commission. This item includes any meetings (excluding the pre - application field meeting) with the Coastal Commission staff, Client or consultants to review the CDP applications, respond to comments and discuss the proposed conditions of approval. Projects considered by the staff to be consistent with the California Coastal Act will be placed on the consent calendar for the next available Coastal Commission hearing for approval. Two representatives from RBF will attend one public hearing with the Coastal Commission. A budget amount of 80 hours has been allocated for this task. If a second hearing is required (i.e. if the design survey activities are separated from the construction activities and two separate CDP applications are required), the Client shall be notified and the second hearing will be authorized under a separate work request. TASK 27.0 CONTROL SURVEY AND PROPERTY LINE RESEARCH AND INVESTIGATION Consultant will review the preliminary title reports for each of the subject lots as furnished by the City and conduct research with the County of Orange, City of Newport Beach and local agencies to obtain recorded maps and documents pertaining to the land boundaries and survey monumentation. Prior to performing the field survey, the Consultant shall confer with the City Surveyor to ascertain performance guidelines and requirements. Field surveying will be performed to tie and adjust the existing local project control system to the published horizontal and vertical control. Field investigation will include verification of the sufficiency of existing survey monumentation to Support the final boundary determination survey. PROPOSAL SCOPE AND FEE Revision Date:2/25 /2004 MORNING CANYON CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS C:\My Documen ts\Proposa6Samples \Moming Canyon \Morning Canyon Proposal- Final.doc Page 9 OF NEWPORT BEACH Additional survey measurements and analysis will be performed to test the accuracy of the existing topographic mapping, and to tie pertinent improvements as needed to define the new facility locations. TASK 28.0 MONUMENT PRESERVATION Consultant shall locate, tie out and prepare pre- construction Corner Records forthe existing monumentation that will be destroyed during the construction phase. Upon completion of construction and acceptance of improvements bythe city, consultantwill re- setthe destroyed monumentation and file post- construction Corner Records. TASK 29.0 LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS AND EXHIBITS Legal descriptions and exhibit maps will be prepared for use in property rights acquisitions between the City and homeowners. The type of property rights to be acquired will range from temporary construction easements to drainage easements, access easement, the vacation of existing easement no longer necessary and others items as may be needed to complete subject project. A total of 35 legal descriptions and exhibits are anticipated and included in this task. Additional legal descriptions and exhibits will be prepared under a separate addendum. TASK 30.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT /PROJECT COORDINATION Consultant shall supervise, coordinate, monitor and review des ign for conformance with City policies and procedures and with City of Newport Beach plan standards. Consultant shall coordinate with City and other Agencies to facilitate project delivery. Management support shall be provided to support resolution of project design scope and scheduling. Consultant shall prepare an action item matrix, document all project decisions, and distribute correspondence copies to all Project Team members as appropriate. This task shall also include a budget amount of 20 hours to assist the City with the preparation of CEQA documents. SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS: GENERAL 1. Structural BMP facilities are not anticipated for the project. If facilities are necessary to satisfy environmental mitigation measures, an additional scope and fee will be determined. 2. NPDES permit requirements and stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) will be included as a requirement of the construction contract in the project Special Provisions. 3. Phase II hazardous waste assessments are not included in this scope of work. 4. Required signatures for Coastal Development Permit to be obtained by the City 5. This scope of work does not include any specialty environmental mitigation measures such as soundwalls or off -site landscape modifications. Any specialty PROPOSAL SCOPE AND FEE Revision Date:22512004 MORNING CANYON CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS C:1My DocumentskProposa4Samples lMoming CanyonlMorning Canyon Proposal- Final.doc Page 10 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH mitigation measures requiring implementation as a result of the approved environmental document will be negotiated separately with the Client. 6. One Public Meeting /presentation is included in the Phase 1A, Task 10 scope of work. 7. All permit application /processing fees to be paid by the City. 8. Authorization for access to private properties for Consultant to complete field reviews /surveys to be obtained by the City. 9. CEQA document to be completed by the City. A budget amount of 20 hours is included in Phase 2, Task 30 to assist the City in the preparation of CEQA documents. GEOTECHNICAL 10. Remedial mitigation drawings for landslides, development slope stability, or the removal of hazardous waste are not included in this scope of work. Drumming and testing of soil cuttings will not be required. 12. Hazardous materials or waste handling during geotechnical explorations is not included in the geotechnical fees. The Client will be notified immediately if hazardous materials or waste are encountered during the field investigation. RIGHT-OF-WAY 13. Right -of -way appraisal and acquisition services including temporary construction easements are assumed to be provided by the City, and are not included as a part of this scope of work. ESCALATION 14. An annual escalation factor of a maximum five percent may be assessed for all design or construction support work performed after March 31, 2005. Consultant shall provide the City written justification for any proposed increase. PROPOSAL SCOPE AND FEE Revision Date:7J292JW MORNING CANYON CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS CAMy Documents \Proposal\SampleslMorning CanyonWorning Canyon Proposal- Final.doc Page 11 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH EXHIBIT "B" CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MORING CANYON CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 7 ]on-ammristom ui I COMPENSATION Client agrees to compensate Consultant for the work outlined in Exhibit "A" in accordance with the schedule identified below: PHASE 1A 1.0 Research /Investigation /Base Data Review $ 3,500.00 2.0 Field Survey/ Topographic Mapping 16,100.00 3.0 Constraint Map 2,300.00 4.0 Geotechnical Investigation 8,100.00 5.0 Preliminary Hydraulic and Scour Analysis 10,530.00 6.0 Streambed Stability and Sediment Transport Analysis 12,000.00 7.0 Conceptual Access Road Alignment and Grading Study 6,300.00 7. OA Creek Security Study 5,000.00 8.0 Restoration /Landscape Concept Plan 3,500.00 9.0 Preliminary Plan Exhibits and Design Study 12,660.00 10.0 Project Management/Project Coordination 10,450.00 Phase 1A Professional Fee $ 90,440.00 Reimbursable Budget 3,000.00 Phase 1A Subtotal $93,440.00 PHASE 1B 11.0 Jurisdictional Delineation and Report Preparation $ 5,300.00 12.0 Pre - Application Field Meeting 1,240.00 13.0 Coastal Commission Pre - Application Meeting 2,300.00 Phase 1B Subtotal $ 8,840.00 Reimbursable Budget 2,000.00 Phase 113 Subtotal $9,840.00 PHASE 2 14.0 Final Horizontal and Vertical Alignment $ 1,800.00 15.0 Morning Canyon Improvement Drawings 27,800.00 16.0 Access Road Design Drawings 8,340.00 17.0 Restoration /Landscape Improvement Drawings 3,400.00 18.0 Final Hydraulics and Sediment Transport Analysis 6,840.00 19.0 Final Cost Estimate 3,340.00 20.0 Special Provisions 6,900.00 21.0 Army Corps of Engineers 404 Permit Application 2,280.00 22.0 California Department of Fish and Game 1600 Permit Application 1,600.00 23.0 RWQCB Section 401 Water Quality Certification 1,550.00 24.0 Resource Agency Permit Processing 3,600.00 PROPOSAL SCOPE AND FEE Revision Date:212512004 MORNING CANYON CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS C1My Documents lProposal',Samples4Morning CanyonWoming Canyon Proposal - Final.doc Page 12 CITY OF NEWPORT 25.0 Coastal Development Permit Application for Construction Activities 26.0 Coordination for Processing of Coastal Development Permit 27.0 Control Survey and Property Line Research and Investigation 28.0 Monument Preservation 29.0 Legal Descriptions and Exhibits 30.0 Project Management/Project Coordination Phase 2 Subtotal Reimbursable Budget Phase 2 Subtotal Total 3,840.00 10,290.00 9,000.00 4,000.00 37,500.00 10.290.00 $ 142,370.00 5.000.00 $147,370.00 $ 250,650.00 Progress billings will be forwarded to the Client and will include the fees earned for the billing period plus all direct costs advanced by Consultant such as blueprints, reproductions, Governmental fees, permit fees and additional insurance riders requested by Client. The Client shall make every reasonable effort to review invoices within fifteen (15) working days from the date of receipt of the invoices and notify Consultant in writing of any particular item that is alleged to be incorrect. Term of Contract March 1, 2004 to March 31, 2005 PROPOSAL SCOPE AND FEE Revision Date:Z25 /20D4 MORNING CANYON CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS CAMy Documents lProposallSampleslMoming CanyorWoming Canyon Proposal - Final.doc Page 13 MEMORANDUM OF INTENT This non - binding Memorandum of Intent (MOI), dated the day of between the City of Newport Beach (City) and the owner(s) of property located at (the Property) is based on the following: A. The Property is improved with a single family residence and the rear yard slopes to the bottom of a stream bed and associated riparian area commonly known as Morning Canyon (the term "Morning Canyon" as used in this MOI refers to the streambed and slopes that are depicted in Exhibit A). B. Morning Canyon has been subject to erosion which has the potential to cause slope failures due to scouring at the toe of the slope. C. The Morning Canyon streambed and adjacent riparian area is dominated by non - native species and has been the subject of numerous private improvements that have altered the natural character of the area. D. The City and the Owner agree that the cause of the erosion, and the legal responsibility for maintaining the streambed, would be difficult to ascertain and any determination of responsibility would involve considerable time and expense on the part of both the Owner and the City. E. The City is, subject to an expression of support from the Owner through the execution of this MOI, willing to expend approximately $250,000 to retain consultants for the purpose of preparing biological and geotechnical assessments, designs, drawings, specifications and permit applications for a Morning Canyon Restoration Program that is more thoroughly described in Exhibit B (Program). F. The key components of the Program - which have been the subject of consultant analysis performed prior to this MOI - are: (1) The installation of natural rock stabilizers in the streambed that are designed to protect the canyon from dangerous erosion from storms up to the "100 year" event ; (2) The installation of other surface or subsurface erosion control devices; (3) The removal of non - native vegetation; (4) The planting of native species; (5) The perpetual maintenance of the stabilization and erosion control structures and the native landscaping. G. The City would, to implement the Program, be required to obtain from the every owner of property adjacent to Morning Canyon an easement to construct an access road for construction equipment, grading, stockpiling materials and grading spoils and planting native vegetation. H. The City would, to maintain Program improvements, be required to obtain from every owner of property adjacent to Morning Canyon an access easement across a portion to maintain the structures and landscaping. I. The City would, to maximize the benefits of the Morning Canyon Restoration Program, be required to enforce irrigation and planting guidelines that would minimize the amount of irrigation water that drained from the Property into the streambed and to prevent exotic species from interfering with the native species. J. The City presently intends, subject to receipt, at no cost to the City, of all easements necessary to implement and maintain the Program, to seek and obtain all permits and prepare all environmental documents that are prerequisites to the implementation of the Program. K. The City presently intends, again subject to receipt, at no cost to the City, of all easements necessary to implement and maintain the Program, to construct the Program at its sole cost and expense and to maintain all Program improvements in perpetuity at its sole cost and expense. IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING Owner expresses his /her /their present intent to grant to the City, without consideration other than the City's construction and maintenance of the Program at its sole cost and expense, easements across, over and under the Property to the extent necessary to allow City to construct and maintain Program improvements. City, subject to execution of this MOI by all owners of Property along Morning Canyon, will retain consultants to prepare plans and specifications for the Program in sufficient detail to allow the submittal of applications for all necessary permits and the preparation of all necessary environmental documents. Assuming that all permits are issued, the City presently intends to seek easements from all owners of Property along Morning Canyon that provide the City with all rights necessary to construct and maintain Program improvements in perpetuity. Assuming City receives all necessary easements and permits, the City presently intends to proceed to budget funds to construct Program improvements, initiate the public contract bidding process, award a construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder and proceed with construction of Program improvements. The City acknowledges that Owners execution of this MOI does not constitute a binding commitment to grant City any easement relative to Morning Canyon or the Program. City also acknowledges that, while City is expending funds in reliance on the execution of this MOI by all owners of property along Morning Canyon, City has no right to recover all or a portion of the funds expended from any owner of property along Morning Canyon. Address Owner Date Owner Date City Manager 'fly of Newport Bear. . BUDGET AMENDMENT 2003 -04 EFFECT ON BUDGETARY FUND BALANCE: Increase Revenue Estimates X Increase Expenditure Appropriations AND Transfer Budget Appropriations SOURCE: from existing budget appropriations from additional estimated revenues X from unappropriated fund balance EXPLANATION: This budget amendment is requested to provide for the following: NO. BA- 038 AMOUNT: $250,650.00 Increase in Budgetary Fund Balance X Decrease in Budgetary Fund Balance No effect on Budgetary Fund Balance To increase expenditure appropriations related to the Upper Morning Canyon Channel Project. ACCOUNTING ENTRY: BUDGETARY FUND BALANCE Fund Account Description 010 3605 General Fund Fund Balance REVENUE ESTIMATES (3601) Fund /Division Account Description EXPENDITURE APPROPRIATIONS (3603) Signed: Approval: Signed: 77r` , "A- Signed: Services Director City Manager Amount Debit Credit $250,650.00 $250,650.00 Date Date City Council Approval: City Clerk Date Description Division Number 7012 General Fund - Drainage Account Number C5100750 Upper Morning Canyon Channel Division Number Account Number Division Number Account Number Division Number Account Number Signed: Approval: Signed: 77r` , "A- Signed: Services Director City Manager Amount Debit Credit $250,650.00 $250,650.00 Date Date City Council Approval: City Clerk Date AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH RBF CONSULTING FOR MORNING CANYON STABILIZATION PROJECT THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, entered into this day of , 2005, by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a municipal corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "City ") and RBF CONSULTING, whose address is 14725 Alton Parkway, Irvine, Calfiornia, 92618- 2027, (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant'), is made with reference to the following: RECITALS A. On March 9, 2004, CITY and CONSULTANT entered into a Professional Services Agreement, hereinafter referred to as "Agreement', to prepare a stream stability study of Morning Canyon (Task 1) and to prepare construction and environmental documents, permits and easement docuements (Task 2), hereinafter referred to as "Project'. Only Task 1 services were authorized to be performed under the original agreement. This Agreement is scheduled to expire on March 31, 2005. B. City desires to enter into this Amendment No. 1 to perform Phase 2 services and to extend the term of the Agreement to June 30, 2007. C. City desires to compensate Consultant for additional professional services needed for Project. D. City and Consultant mutually desire to amend Agreement, hereinafter referred to as "Amendment No. 1 ", as provided here below. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows 1. Consultant shall be compensated for services performed pursuant to this Amendment No. 1 according to "Exhibit A" dated February 17, 2005 attached hereto. 2. Total additional compensation to Consultant for services performed pursuant to this Amendment No. 1 for all work performed in accordance with this Amendment, including all reimburseable items and subconsultant fees, shall not exceed One Hundred Forty -Eight Eight Hundred Seventy Thousand Dollars ($148,870). 3. The term of the Agreement shall be extended to June 30, 2007. 4. Except as expressly modified herein, all other provisions, terms, and covenants set forth in Agreement shall remain unchanged and shall be in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment No. 1 on the date first above written. APPROVED AS TO FORM: 0 Robin Clauson, City Attorney for the City of Newport Beach ATTEST: 0 LaVonne Harkless, City Clerk Attachment: Exhibits A and B f: \users \pbw \shared \agreements \fy 04- 05 \rbf morning canyon - amend -1.doc CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, A Municipal Corporation Mayor for the City of Newport Beach RBF CONSULTING John McCarthy Vice President City of Newport Beach EXHIBIT AAA Exhibit A CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MORNING CANYON CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS RBF Job No. 10- 103181 SCOPE OF WORK March 16, 2005 GENERAL DESCRIPTION The Scope of Work provided is for the review of conceptual design studies, and the development of a final PS &E package for the stabilization of Morning Canyon from Pacific Coast Highway to the Pelican Hill Golf Course in the City of Newport Beach. This reach of the Morning Canyon Channel is intended to be designed in accordance with City of Newport Beach, and the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) standards and criteria, and will be in compliance with regulatory and Coastal Commission requirements. A conceptual design report has been previously prepared for this portion of the Morning Canyon Channel titled, "Morning Canyon, Stabilization, Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses," by Rivertech Inc, dated August 2002. The conceptual design study identified recommended improvements to stabilize the channel reach and maintain the riparian and alluvial characteristics of the existing stream corridor. The proposed work effort will include a review and evaluation of the previous studies and reports that have been completed on the project reach, refinement of the conceptual stabilization design, coordination with the jurisdictional agencies, and development of final drawings, specifications, and estimates for the installation of the proposed improvements. The project coordination and approval process will include; processing and obtaining a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission; application and permit processing with the Army Corps of Engineers, Fish & Game, and Regional Water Quality Control Board; and processing the drawings, specifications, and estimates with the City of Newport Beach. PHASE 2 — FINAL DRAWINGS SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES Phase 2 includes the final design of the recommended improvements developed in Phase 1, and will not proceed without prior City approval. TASK 14.0 FINAL HORIZONTAL & VERTICAL ALIGNMENT Provide engineering services to perform calculations for the final horizontal and vertical alignment of the proposed grade control structures and channel improvements. This shall include the development of construction centerline for the finalized access road and channel facilities. Construction stationing developed from the horizontal and vertical alignment calculations. Precise coordinates shall be determined for the location of the proposed facilities. A horizontal control plan shall be produced which provides the survey control data for critical points on the proposed improvements. TASK 15.0 MORNING CANYON IMPROVEMENT DRAWINGS The consultant shall prepare improvement drawings forthe stabilization of Morning Canyon Channel from north of Pacific Coast Highway to the Pelican Hills Golf Course. The proposed improvements will be based on the approved Preliminary Design Study completed in Phase 1A. This task is based on the construction of 4 gabion drop structures and 2 groins located along an approximately 800 foot reach of channel. If during the course of design review it is determined that modifications are required to the original concepts, then this redesign will be PROPOSAL SCOPE AND FEE Revision Date: 3/t 62005 MORNING CANYON CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS C:1Docunnents and Settings4soyphl _ ocal Seflings4Temporary Internet Files4OLKQWorning Canyon Proposal -Final Phase Il.doc Page 1 City of Newport Beach accomplished through a separate addendum to the Client. This work item is based on the preparation of one set of Morning Canyon Channel improvement drawings. The construction drawings will include cover and general note sheets, channel plan and profile, grade control structure sections and details, grading, lateral profiles, and quantities on standard City of Newport Beach format prepared at a scale of 1 " =40' or 1 " =20'. TASK 16.0 ACCESS ROAD DESIGN DRAWINGS Provide final engineering services for the preparation of construction drawings for the Morning Canyon access roadway. The roadway alignment and configuration will be based on the preferred alternative developed as part of the "Conceptual Access Road Alignment and Grading Study" completed in Phase 1A. The roadway drawings will be processed for approval through the agencies as part of the Morning Canyon Improvement Drawings. This work item includes the preparation of plan and profiles, grading, and associated details necessary for the construction of the access roadway at a scale of 1 " =40' or 1 " =20' on standard City of Newport Beach format. It is assumed for th is task that retaining walls will not be required for the construction of the access road. TASK 17.0 RESTORATIONLANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENT DRAWINGS Consultant shall prepare one set of final landscape construction drawings, specifications and cost estimates in sufficient form and detail to obtain approval from the Coastal Commission, the US Army corps of Engineers and the City. The drawings shall be prepared based on the approved landscape concept plan prepared under Task 8. The drawings will be prepared at an appropriate scale on base maps of the project site prepared by RBF. The drawings will include plant removal drawings, a planting drawing, one planting detail sheet and specifications for planting. TASK 18.0 FINAL HYDRAULICS AND SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS Consultant shall prepare a final hydraulic and sediment transport analysis of the proposed channel improvements indicated on the construction drawings. The final design water surface generated shall also be indicated on the drawings. All hydraulics studies shall be completed in conformance with the latest available design, drafting, and policy and procedure manuals of the City of Newport Beach, and the County of Orange. This task includes the preparation of a "Final Channel Hydraulics " which will serve as documentation of the final engineering design and associated technical analysis to support the Morning Canyon channel design. The report shall update the preliminary report including the backup data regarding final hydraulics, hydrology, existing facility data, design criteria, specific design requirements, design constraints, assumptions, quantity and cost estimate support, and all engineering calculations or analysis. TASK 19.0 FINAL COST ESTIMATE Prepare a final estimate of construction quantities and costs based upon the channel, roadway, and landscape drawings utilizing current City cost data and the latest edition of Caltrans Contract Cost Data book, and compare to established project budget. TASK 20.0 SPECIAL PROVISIONS PROPOSAL SCOPE AND FEE Rewsion Date: 3 /16/2005 MORNING CANYON CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS CADocuments and Settings4soyler4Local SettingsJemporary Internet Files401-K43Worning Canyon Proposal -Final Phase Il.doc Page 2 City of Newport Beach Consultant shall develop technical specifications as special provisions in conformance with City's format and provide required permits and reference materials to be included in the City's standard contract documents. City will prepare the upfront "boiler plate' portions of the contract documents (e.g. general provisions, contract requirements, notice to contractors, etc.). As needed, specifications shall include specific NPDES stormwater provisions the contractor will need to implement. There should also be discussion on nuisance flow diversion during construction. TASK 21.0 ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 404 PERMIT APPLICATION Assuming the Project will Require a Nationwide Permit: Consultant will prepare a submittal package for a Army Corps of Engineers Permit to satisfy the requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. It is assumed under this task that authorization to proceed from the Corps can be achieved by using a Nationwide Permit (NWP). Nationwide Permit refers to a type of general permit which authorizes typical activities on a nationwide basis. Based on our preliminary assessment of the site conditions, including our current understanding of the project's funding constraints, RBF believes that the project can be authorized under NWP 3, Maintenance Activities. Critical elements for this NWP are paraphrased below: "The repair, rehabilitation, orreplacement of anypreviously authorized, currently serviceable, structure, or fill, or any currently serviceable structure or fill, provided that the structures or fill is not to be put to uses differing from those uses specified or contemplated for it in the original permit or the most recently authorized modification. This NWP authorizes the repair, rehabilitation, or replacement of those structures or fills destroyed or damaged by storms, Floods, fire or other discrete events, provided the repair, rehabilitation, or replacement is commenced, or is under contract to commence, within two years of the date of their destruction or damage. In cases of catastrophic events, such as hurricanes or tornadoes, this two year limit may be waived by the District Engineer, provided the permittee can demonstrate funding, contract, or other similar de lays." Consultant will initially consult with the ACOE and request that the two year limitation for NWP 3 be waived due to previous project funding delays. Should it be determined by the Corps that an Individual Permit (IP) would be required for the proposed activities instead of a NWP, the Client shall be notified and work shall continue based on a separate addendum or on a time and materials basis, subject to Client approval. The submittal package will include: a) 404 permit application standard form, b) vicinity map, c) project description, d) jurisdictional delineation report, e) biology report, f) cultural resources report, g) geology report, and h) site photos. Should this amount be exceeded, the Client shall be notified and work shall continue based on a separate addendum or on a time and materials basis, subject to Client approval. TASK 22.0 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 1600 PERMIT APPLICATION Consultant will prepare an application submittal package for the CDFG 1600 Agreement for Streambed Alteration (also known as a Streambed Alteration Agreement). The submittal package will include: (a) Standard Forms, (b) vicinity map, (c) project description, (d) jurisdictional delineation map, and (e) site photos. This task does not include the permit filing fee, which can range up to $1,390.50 depending on the construction cost of the proposed project. TASK 23.0 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD SECTION 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION PROPOSAL SCOPE AND FEE Revision Date: 31162DO5 MORNING CANYON CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS C: \Documents and Settings \soyler \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files\OLK43\Morning Canyon Proposal -Final Phase Il.doc Page 3 tyre- �•».�i�� il.�:ir �xl Consultant will prepare a submittal to secure a Water Quality Certification from the State pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. This certification is necessary prior to the Corps concurring with discharges of fill material under the Corps permit process. This task does not include the permit filing fee, typically $2,250. TASK 24.0 RESOURCE AGENCY PERMIT PROCESSING Provide regulatory services for the processing of the permits through the Army Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The processing shall include required correspondence or telephone calls between the reviewing staff related to the permit or points of clarification and coordination with the biological consultant, if necessary. This item includes any meetings with the reviewing staff of the resource agencies during the review process. The fee associated with this work is a budget amount since it is difficult to anticipate the processing requirements. A budget amount of 35 hours has been allocated for this work item. Should this amount be exceeded, especially due to the Corps' or CDFG's requirement for mitigation, then the Client shall be notified and work shall continue based on a separate addendum or a time and materials basis, subject to Client approval. TASK 25.0 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES RBF shall prepare the CDP application based on input from the Coastal Commission and City of Newport Beach. At a minimum, the following items will be included with the CDP application: • Proof of applicant's interest in the property • Assessor's Parcel Map(s) showing the proposed development site and all adjacent properties within 100' of the property boundary • Stamped envelopes addressed to neighboring property owners and occupants and other interested parties and a list of the same • Vicinity Map • Two sets of project drawings, site plans, and other applicable drawings. • Copy of environmental documents if prepared forthe project and any comments and responses • Verification of all other permits, permissions or approvals applied for or granted by public agencies • Copy of Geology or soils report • Local approval of the project • Notice of Pending Permit to be posted in a conspicuous place • Filing Fee This task includes the application of one coastal development permit for the project construction. Should additional permits be necessary forthe completion of design services, then this work can be accomplished through a separate addendum for an additional fee. TASK 26.0 COORDINATION FOR PROCESSING OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITS RBF will coordinate the processing of the CDP application with the Coastal Commission, City of Newport Beach and other consultants. Interagency coordination should be initiated with the other regulatory agencies (Army Corps of Engineers, California Dept. of Fish and Game, Regional Water Quality Control Board, etc.) as soon as possible to ensure that the CDP PROPOSAL SCOPE AND FEE Revision Date: 3/1612005 MORNING CANYON CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS C:1Documents and Settingslsoyler1ocal Settings \Temporary Internet RoMOLK431Morning Canyon Proposal -Final Phase IL A= Page 4 CITY OF applications address the jurisdictional needs of the Coastal Commission. This item includes any meetings (excluding the pre - application field meeting) with the Coastal Commission staff, Client or consultants to review the CDP applications, respond to comments and discuss the proposed conditions of approval. Projects considered by the staff to be consistent with the California Coastal Act will be placed on the consent calendar for the next available Coastal Commission hearing for approval. Two representatives from RBF will attend one public hearing with the Coastal Commission. A budget amount of 80 hours has been allocated for this task. If a second hearing is required (i.e. if the design survey activities are separated from the construction activities and two separate CDP applications are required), the Client shall be notified and the second hearing will be authorized under a separate work request. TASK 27.0 CONTROL SURVEY AND PROPERTY LINE RESEARCH AND INVESTIGATION Consultant will review the preliminary title reports for each of the subject lots as furnished by the City and conduct research with the County of Orange, City of Newport Beach and local agencies to obtain recorded maps and documents pertaining to the land boundaries and survey monumentation. Priorto performing the field survey, the Consultant shall confer with the City Surveyorto ascertain performance guidelines and requirements. Field surveying will be performed to tie and adjust the existing local project control system to the published horizontal and vertical control. Field investigation will include verification of the sufficiency of existing survey monumentation to support the final boundary determination survey. Additional survey measurements and analysis will be performed to test the accuracy of the existing topographic mapping, and to tie pertinent improvements as needed to define the new facility locations. TASK 28.0 MONUMENT PRESERVATION Consultant shall locate, tie outand prepare pre- construction Corner Records forthe existing monumentation that will be destroyed during the construction phase. Upon completion of construction and acceptance of improvements by the city, consultant will re -set the destroyed monumentation and file post- construction Corner Records. TASK 29.0 LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS AND EXHIBITS Legal descriptions and exhibit maps will be prepared for use in property rights acquisitions between the City and homeowners. The type of property rights to be acquired will range from temporary construction easements to drainage easements, access easement, the vacation of existing easement no longer necessary and others items as may be needed to complete subject project. A total of 35 legal descriptions and exhibits are anticipated and included in this task. Additional legal descriptions and exhibits will be prepared under a separate addendum. TASK 30.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT /PROJECT COORDINATION Consultant shall supervise, coordinate, monitor and review design for conformance with City policies and procedures and with City of Newport Beach plan standards. Consultant shall coordinate with City and other Agencies to facilitate project delivery. Management support shall be provided to support resolution of project design scope and PROPOSAL SCOPE AND FEE Revision Date: 3 11612005 MORNING CANYON CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS C:1Documents and SettingslsoyleAl -ocal SettingsWemporary Internet Files101-K431Morning Canyon Proposal -Final Phase Il.doc Page 5 CITY OF NEWPORT scheduling. Consultant shall prepare an action item matrix, document all project decisions, and distribute correspondence copies to all Project Team members as appropriate. This task shall also include a budget amount of 20 hours to assist the City with the preparation of CEQA documents. SCOPE ASSUMPTIONS: GENERAL 1. Structural BMP facilities are not anticipated for the project. If facilities are necessary to satisfy environmental mitigation measures, an additional scope and fee will be determined. 2. NPDES permit requirements and stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) will be included as a requirement of the construction contract in the project Special Provisions. 3. Phase II hazardous waste assessments are not included in this scope of work. 4. Required signatures for Coastal Development Permit to be obtained by the City 5. This scope of work does not include any specialty environmental mitigation measures such as soundwalls or off -site landscape modifications. Any specialty mitigation measures requiring implementation as a result of the approved environmental document will be negotiated separately with the Client. 6. One Public Meeting /presentation is included in the Phase 1A, Task 10 scope of work. 7. All permit application /processing fees to be paid by the City. 8. Authorization for access to private properties for Consultant to complete field reviews /surveys to be obtained by the City. 9. CEQA document to be completed by the City. A budget amount of 20 hours is included in Phase 2, Task 30 to assist the City in the preparation of CEQA documents. GEOTECHNICAL 10. Remedial mitigation drawings for landslides, development slope stability, or the removal of hazardous waste are not included in this scope of work. 11. Drumming and testing of soil cuttings will not be required. 12. Hazardous materials or waste handling during geotechnical explorations is not included in the geotechnical fees. The Client will be notified immediately if hazardous materials or waste are encountered during the field investigation. RIGHT -OF -WAY 13. Right -of -way appraisal and acquisition services including temporary construction easements are assumed to be provided by the City, and are not included as a part of this scope of work. PROPOSAL SCOPE AND FEE Revision Date: 3/16 /2005 MORNING CANYON CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS C:1Docunnents and Settingslsoyler\Local SettingslTemporary Internet Files101_K431Morning Canyon Proposal -Final Phase Il.doc Page 6 CITY OF NEWPORT ESCALATION 14. An annual escalation factor of a maximum five percent may be assessed for all design or construction support work performed after March 31, 2006. Consultant shall provide the City written justification for any proposed increase. PROPOSAL SCOPE AND FEE Revision Date: 3/16!2005 MORNING CANYON CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS C:\Documents and Settingslsoyler\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \OLK43\Morning Canyon Proposal -Final Phase II.doc Page 7 CITY OF NEWPORT Exhibit B EXHIBIT AB@ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MORING CANYON CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS RBF Job No. 10- 103181 COMPENSATION Client agrees to compensate Consultant for the work outlined in Exhibit "A" in accordance with the schedule identified below: PHASE 2 14.0 Final Horizontal and Vertical Alignment $ 1,800.00 15.0 Morning Canyon Improvement Drawings 27,800.00 16.0 Access Road Design Drawings 8,340.00 17.0 Restoration /Landscape Improvement Drawings 3,400.00 18.0 Final Hydraulics and Sediment Transport Analysis 6,840.00 19.0 Final Cost Estimate 3,340.00 20.0 Special Provisions 6,900.00 21.0 Army Corps of Engineers 404 Permit Application 3,780.00 22.0 California Department of Fish and Game 1600 Permit Application 1,600.00 23.0 RWQCB Section 401 Water Quality Certification 1,550.00 24.0 Resource Agency Permit Processing 3,600.00 25.0 Coastal Development Permit Application for Construction Activities 3,840.00 26.0 Coordination for Processing of Coastal Development Permit 10,290.00 27.0 Control Survey and Property Line Research and Investigation 9,000.00 28.0 Monument Preservation 4,000.00 29.0 Legal Descriptions and Exhibits 37,500.00 30.0 Project Management/Project Coordination 10.290.00 Phase 2 Subtotal $ 143,870.00 Reimbursable Budget 5,000.00 Phase 2 Total $148,870.00 Progress billings will be forwarded to the Client and will include the fees earned forth e billing period plus all direct costs advanced by Consultant such as blueprints, reproductions, Governmental fees, permit fees and additional insurance riders requested by Client. The Client shall make every reasonable effort to review invoices within fifteen (15) working days from the date of receipt of the invoices and notify Consultant in writing of any particular item that is alleged to be incorrect. Term of Contract March 16, 2005 to March 16, 2006 PROPOSAL SCOPE AND FEE Revision Date: 3/16/2005 MORNING CANYON CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS C:1Documents and Settings\soyler\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files\OLK431Morning Canyon Proposal -Final Phase ILdoc Page 8 CONSULTING PLANNING ■ DESIGN ■ CONSTRUCTION MORNING CANYON CHANNEL Newport Beach, California Morning Canyon Stream Stability and Channel Restoration Study x_137:7 -R�li� Prepared For: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Consultant: RBF CONSULTING 14725 Alton Parkway Irvine, California 92618 Contacts: John McCarthy, P.E. Howard Barndt, P. E. (949) 472 -3505 March 2005 JN 10- 103181 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... ............................... 1 1.1 Study Objectives .......................................................................... ............................... 1 1.2 Site Reconnaissance and Data Collection .................................... ............................... 5 2.0 HYDROLOGY ...................................................................................... ..............................7 2.1 Land Use ...................................................................................... ............................... 7 2.2 Soil Types .................................................................................... ............................... 7 2.3 Watershed Boundary ................................................................... ............................... 7 2.4 Small Area Hydrograph Method (SAHM) .................................. ............................... 7 2.5 Ultimate Conditions Hydrology .................................................. ............................... 8 2.5.1 Existing Facilities ........................................................... ..............................8 3.0 HYDRAULICS .................................................................................. ............................... 10 3.1 HEC -RAS Hydraulic Model ...................................................... ............................... 10 3.2 Hydraulic Model Assumptions .................................................. ............................... 10 3.3 Hydraulic Model Results ........................................................... ............................... 10 4.0 CHANNEL STABILITY ................................................................... ............................... 12 4.1 Sediment Continuity .................................................................. ............................... 12 4.1.1 Equilibrium Concept .................................................... ............................... 12 4.1? Arnioring Potential ........................................................ .............................12 4.1.3 Wash Load .................................................................... ............................... 13 4.1.4 Yertieal and Horizontal Channel Response ................. ............................... 13 4.1.5 Procedure ....................................................................... .............................13 4.1.6 Assumptions and Limitations ....................................... ............................... 14 4.2 Lateral Migration ....................................................................... ............................... 14 4.3 Other Scour Potential ................................................................. ............................... 15 4.3.1 Bend Scour ................................................................... ............................... 15 4.3.2 Bed Forms (Dunes and Antidunes) .............................. ............................... 15 4.3.3 Low flow lncisement .................................................... ............................... 16 4.3.4 Local Scour .................................................................. ............................... 16 4.3.5 Local Scour at Grade Control Structures .................... ............................... 16 4.4 Evaluation of Channel Stability (Application) .......................... ............................... 16 4.4.1 Sediment Gradation Analvsis ....................................... ............................... 16 4.4.2 Average Hvdraulic Parameters .................................... ............................... 18 4.4.3 SAM Hvdraulic Design Package for C hannels ............ ............................... 18 4.4.4 Selection of Sediment Transport Model s ...................... ............................... 20 4.4.5 Sediment Continuity Analysis (General Scour/ Deposition ) ........................ 22 4.4.6 Stable Slope Anal vs is ................................ .... ....... ........ ...... ................. I....... 22 4.5 Sediment Transport Results and Recommendations ................. ............................... 22 5.0 RECOMMENDED FLOOD CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS ...... ............................... 26 5.1 Grade Control Structures ........................................................... ............................... 26 5.2 Stream Restoration and Channel Fill ......................................... ............................... 27 5.3 Additional Studies and Final Design ......................................... ............................... 29 RBF Consulting JN 10- 103181 Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES Table 2 -1: Ultimate Conditions Discharges (Expected Value) ......... ............................... 8 Table 3 -1: Summary of Average Hydraulics, Reach 1 ..................... .............................11 Study Site Map Table 3 -2: Summary of Average Hydraulics, Reach 2 ..................... .............................11 Figure 5: Table 4 -1: Sediment Transport Functions in SAM ........................... .............................19 Channel Invert Comparison Table 4 -2: List of Applicable Brownlie (1981) Data Sets .................. .............................21 Figure 8: Table 4 -3: Data ranges for the Applicable Brownlie (1981) Data Sets ..........................21 Table 4-4: Summary of selected sediment transport models ........... .............................21 Table 4 -5: Sediment Yield (Cubic Yards) ......................................... .............................23 Table 4 -6: Stable Slope Sediment Yield (Cubic Yards) .................... .............................24 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Regional Vicinity Map Figure 2: Site Vicinity Map Figure 3: Study Site Map Figure 4: Ultimate Condition Hydrology Map Figure 5: Particle Size Distributions Figure 6: Channel Invert Comparison Figure 7: Typical Gabion Drop Structure Details Figure 8: Rendering of Project Improvements LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Morning Canyon Flood Plain Map Exhibit 2: Morning Canyon Stabilization Plan and Profile TECHNICAL APPENDICES (Appendices are found in Volume II, Technical Appendix) Appendix A: Hydrology Analysis Appendix B: HEC -RAS Output Appendix C: Soil Particle Size Analysis Appendix D: SAM Hydraulic Design Package Output Appendix E: Gabion Product Information RBF Consulting A 10- 103181 Morning Canyon Channel Stream Stabilization and Channel Restoration Study Issue Date: March 22, 2005 1.0 INTRODUCTION The following study represents the hydrology, hydraulics and sediment transport study for the Morning Canyon Channel upstream of Pacific Coast Highway prepared for the City of Newport Beach. The primary purpose of this study is to develop a comprehensive plan for the stabilization and restoration of the canyon. The project site is bounded by Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) to the south, Pelican Hills Golf Course to the north, Corona Highlands to the west, and Cameo Highlands to the east. The location of the study reach is shown on Figure 1: Regional Vicinity, and Figure 2: Site Vicinity Map. Morning Canyon Channel runs through the study reach in a southwest direction from the northern boundary (outlet from Pelican Hills Golf Course Detention Basin), to an existing reinforced concrete box (RCB) culvert on PCH. The creek itself is a natural drainage system that has an urbanized tributary drainage area of approximately 365 acres at the PCH Culvert. The creek is in a natural condition through the entire reach of the project site, and has been recently experiencing significant erosion and degradation. An aerial view of the study reach is shown on Figure 3: Subject Site. Numerous previous studies have been prepared to address the conditions of the stream and the causes of the current degradation. The purpose of this report is to develop a preliminary design plan for the restoration of the Morning Canyon Channel based on the current conditions of the watershed, including the complete urbanization of the tributary watershed. 1.1 Study Objectives The purpose of this report is to develop a comprehensive and technically based study of Morning Canyon between Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) and the Pelican Hills Golf Course based on the current conditions of the watershed. The report will assess the conditions of the existing natural channel including; hydrology, hydraulics, and stream stability. A preliminary design study for the stabilization of Morning Canyon will be developed. The various tasks in the overall analysis include the following: • Prepare a hydrology analysis for the watershed tributary to Morning Canyon. The analysis shall be prepared for the ultimate condition of the watershed. • Perform a hydraulic analysis of Morning Canyon within the study reach. Delineate 100 -year flood plain through the project site. • Evaluate the long -term stream stability of Morning Canyon using standard sediment transport relationships. • Develop alternatives for streambed and streambank stabilization for Morning Canyon to be maintained in a "natural' condition. • Identify recommended improvements for the restoration of the Morning Canyon Channel. All assessments and technical analyses in this report comply with the local drainage policies and requirements for the City of Newport Beach, and County of Orange. RBF Consulting A 10- 103181 SAN BERNARDIN0 Subject Site MORNING CANYON CHANNEL Q not to scale Regional Vicinity CONSULTING i ]121105JN i0 10]I91 -11990 Figure 1 I I 'N 11"so.000, 16, 4p 1 0 of of g 04 Hill X WF a -elm GON5ULTING Al. : -N ..,7, 1. R"t. Point t, Subject Site MORNING CANYON CHANNEL Site Vicinity Figure 2 / 4 .4 ` ♦ , � • Fes' ` r��•. . .h � .. .. � 4 � fir! • :`�' _ x v Ww I'i .' F Y �� • 1 n � r 1, �yJ �`��' .�4 ^ f•��/ r�•� `� +� ,f NT jr WWI je aB v' y i All �4 r ` Morning Canyon Channel Stream Stabilization and Channel Restoration Study Issue Date: March 22, 2005 1.2 Site Reconnaissance and Data Collection Field investigations were conducted to document the current conditions of the study reach and obtain data for the development of stream restoration alternatives. The field investigations included visual observations and photographic documentation, field surveys, and collection of soil samples. Visual field investigations were conducted to document the current conditions of the canyon. The following details were observed /identified during the investigations: • Channel alignment and irregularities, • Surface roughness, • Flora types and coverage, • Natural and man -made obstructions, • Existing drainage facilities (e.g., pipe outlets, culverts, structures), • Critical areas of scour (e.g., bends, contractions, drops, impingements, incisements), • Deposition zones, and • Indications of flooding limits (e.g., sediment deposits, high -water marks, flood damage) Initial field investigations of the study reach by RBF Consulting were performed in October of 2004, prior to the start of the rainy season. At that time, a detailed field survey of the canyon was performed to develop a topographic map of the study reach. The detailed survey was conducted to provide data for the development of a representative hydraulic model for the analysis of the canyon, and for the development of preliminary design plans for the stream restoration. Representative soils samples from the streambed and banks were also obtained. The results of the soil sampling are included in Appendix C. During the initial field investigation, significant degradation (or lowering of the channel bed) was identified in the canyon. The most significant locations were in the lower reaches of the canyon below the outlet of the 51 -inch storm drain pipe. However, some degradation was also identified in the upper reach of the canyon below the outlet of the detention basin constructed with the Pelican Hill Golf Course and Newport Coast development. Degradation is the long -term change in a streambed elevation due to natural or man - induced causes. Continuing degradation is an indicator that a change in the stream's discharge and sediment load is taking place. The 2004 /2005 -storm season was one of the wettest seasons on record in Southern California, with rainfall totals in Newport Beach exceeding 25- inches in many areas. Numerous visual investigations of the canyon were performed over the course of the storm season. During these investigations, significant continuing degradation and changes in the canyon were identified. The following photographs indicate the magnitude of the changes in the canyon downstream of the 51 -inch pipe outlet. Notice the tree on the left hand side has been completely eroded by the March storm events. These photographs illustrate the importance of the development a comprehensive plan for the stabilization and restoration of the entire canyon. RBF Consulting A 10- 103181 5 Morning Canyon Channel Stream Stabilization and Channel Restoration Study Issue Date: March 22, 2005 Photograph 1. Looking downstream from pipe outlet (Nov 29, 2004) Photograph 2. Looking downstream from pipe outlet (March 9, 2005) RBF Consulting A 10- 103181 Morning Canyon Channel Stream Stabilization and Channel Restoration Study Issue Date: March 22, 2005 2.0 HYDROLOGY Morning Canyon is a natural channel system that has an ubanized tributary drainage area of approximately 365 acres at the PCH Culvert along the southern project boundary. The creek is downstream of the Irvine Coast Planned Community Development area and was included the "Hydraulic Design of Drainage Facilities at the Golf Course, Final Report' dated May 1990. The report identified peak flow rates along the creek, and preliminary facilities sizes along its major upstream tributaries. No improvements to the study reach were identified in that report. New hydrologic analyses were performed as part of this study for a variety of locations, durations, recurrence intervals, and land use assumptions along Morning Canyon within the project limits. Hydrologic parameters used in the analyses are based on the procedures presented in the Orange County Hydrology Manual (OCHM), and using the guidelines /assumptions discussed in the following sections. 2.1 Land Use The project site drains generally to the southeast and outlets to the Pacific Ocean downstream of PCH. The channel watershed tributary area is completely developed and consists of a mixture of residential, golf course, and natural land uses. The land uses for the ultimate condition hydrology analysis were based on a field review of the area, and aerial photographs of the tributary watershed. The current condition of the watershed is assumed to represent the ultimate development. 2.2 Soil Types The OCHM uses the Soils Classification System (SCS), which classifies soils into four (4) types: A through D with D being the least pervious, thus providing the highest runoff potential. The tributary drainage area consists of soil types B, C, and D with B representing the most prevalent soil type. 2.3 Watershed Boundary The tributary drainage area boundaries were delineated utilizing current aerial topography for the project site and adjacent areas. Watershed boundaries were difficult to ascertain within the developed area of Newport Coast. Parts of this area are served by underground stormdrain systems, and complete plans were not available. This area was field inspected to determine the approximate watershed boundaries. The watershed boundary is shown on Figure 4: Ultimate Condition Hydrology Map. 2.4 Small Area Hydrograph Method (SAHM) The Small Area Hydrograph Method outlined in the Orange County Hydrology Manual was used to develop runoff hydrographs for ultimate conditions. Lag times used for the development of the small area hydrographs were generated based on the shape and size of the sub -basin using the Rational Method hydrology. Lag times were set at 0.8 times the Rational Method times of concentration. RBF Consulting A 10- 103181 7 Morning Canyon Channel Stream Stabilization and Channel Restoration Study Issue Date: March 22, 2005 AMC II was used for the expected value analysis, and AMC III was used for the high confidence analysis. The loss rates were calculated in accordance with OCHM requirements. The runoff hydrographs were developed for the 2 -, 5 -, 10 -, 25 -, 50, and 100 -year expected value storm events. Hydrographs were also developed for the 100 -year high confidence storm event to map the 100 -year floodplain limits. 2.5 Ultimate Conditions Hydrology Ultimate conditions hydrologic calculations were carried out in order to assess continuing impacts on the existing canyon, and determine design discharges for development recommended facilities and floodplain mapping. The ultimate conditions discharges were also used in the Sediment Transport analysis. Table 2 -1 shows the results of the analysis. The location of each node is shown on Figure 4. Table 2 -1: Ultimate Conditions Discharges (Expected Value) Location 100 -Year 10 -Year 5 -Year 2 -Year Reach 1 -PCH to SD Outlet 258 cfs 191 cfs 139 cfs 78 cfs Reach 2 -SD Outlet to Pelican Hills GC 83 cfs 53 cfs 40 cfs 23 cfs 2.5.1 Existing Facilities The canyon is a relatively natural stream with existing culverts at the downstream and upstream ends of the study reach. The downstream culvert is a box culvert that carries Morning Canyon flows under PCH. The upstream culvert is a discharge pipeline from a detention basin constructed as part of the Pelican Hills Golf Course and Newport Coast development. Two storm drains discharge to the channel along the study reach. The upper most storm drain is a 51 -inch diameter system that outlets to the channel at approximately station 17 +30 (upstream end of Reach 1). The flow from this pipe is discharged to an existing box culvert which acts as an energy dissipator. The flow turns 90 degrees in the box culvert then outlets to Morning Canyon. A smaller storm drain outlets directly to the canyon downstream at approximately station 15 +00. The locations of the existing storm drain facilities are indicated on Figure 4. RBF Consulting A 10- 103181 8 FOx OP A-A 4T nim PF5 A , Ilk All; L4 JlMk AN W1, FAA Air 13 -Ift�o �7. 7. 4 nvo 111 RAAr Y7, om O O o a Morning Canyon Channel Stream Stabilization and Channel Restoration Study Issue Date: March 22, 2005 3.0 HYDRAULICS 3.1 HEC -RAS Hydraulic Model A hydraulic analysis of Morning Canyon was performed in order to determine the floodplain and hydraulic characteristics of the channel under ultimate conditions. The analysis was conducted utilizing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers HEC -RAS water surface profile program. The model covers 1,200 linear feet of Morning Canyon from PCH to the detention basin outlet. Results of the hydraulic analysis were utilized to delineate the 100 -year floodplain boundaries, evaluate the sediment transport characteristics of the channel, and provide hydraulic parameters used in the bank protection and grade control design calculations. 3.2 Hydraulic Model Assumptions The following assumptions were used to develop the various hydraulic analyses with the HEC -RAS model. The model was based upon ultimate condition hydrology Cross sectional data for the HEC -RAS model was prepared utilizing the most current topographic information taken from the November 2004 field survey performed by RBF. The cross sections were oriented perpendicular to the direction of the main channel flow and developed by looking in a downstream direction. A HEC -RAS cross - section Work Map showing the locations and orientations are shown on Exhibit 1. Channel roughness in the hydraulic computations was varied between the channel and overbank areas. A Manning's roughness coefficient of 0.035 was used to represent the rock drop structure sections, and a value of 0.040 was used in the remaining channel and overbank areas. As part of the 100 -year floodplain determination analysis, the channel Manning's roughness coefficient was increased to 0.080 to produce floodplain limits based on a vegetated stream condition. The mixed flow regime option was used in the model allowing the calculated depths to pass through critical depth. Selection of this option requires input for the upstream and downstream boundary conditions. The normal depth option was used for the upstream boundary control and the critical depth option was used for the downstream boundary control. 3.3 Hydraulic Model Results Results of the hydraulic analysis for Morning Canyon are summarized in Tables 3 -1, and 3 -2. Additional details on the hydraulic analysis as well as the HEC -RAS model output summaries are provided in Appendix B. The 100 -year floodplain was mapped for the project area as a part of this effort. The floodplain limits are illustrated on Exhibit 1. The project area is outside of any detailed RBF Consulting A 10- 103181 10 Morning Canyon Channel Stream Stabilization and Channel Restoration Study Issue Date: March 22, 2005 Flood Insurance Study mapping. A Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) showing the area of the Morning Canyon study is included on panel 06059C0403H. No special flood hazard areas are designated on the FIRM along the canyon. The HEC -RAS study described above shows that the 100 -year discharge is completely contained within the proposed channel improvements. Table 3 -1: Summary of Average Hydraulics, Reach 1 Event ear ) Discharge (cfs) Velocity (f s Hydraulic Depth feet Top Width feet Energy Gradient ft/ft 2 EV 78 5.34 1.49 12.05 0.0227 5 EV 139 6.08 1.83 15.15 0.0215 10 EV 191 6.68 1.85 18.03 0.0243 25 EV 223 6.73 1.88 20.16 0.0237 50 EV 240 6.88 1.89 21.17 0.0238 100 EV 258 6.96 1.93 22.00 0.0236 100 HC 371 7.11 2.30 27.34 0.0221 Table 3 -2: Summary of Average Hydraulics, Reach 2 Event ear Discharge cfs Velocity (fps) Hydraulic Depth feet Top Width (feet) Energy Gradient ft/ft 2 EV 23 3.07 0.88 11.88 0.0152 5 EV 40 3.72 1.04 13.89 0.0172 10 EV 53 4.06 1.13 15.51 0.0187 25 EV 58 4.18 1.16 16.03 0.0192 50 EV 70 4.41 1.21 17.33 0.0201 100 EV 83 4.67 1.27 18.51 0.0213 100 HC 138 5.59 1.45 22.64 0.0243 RBF Consulting A 10- 103181 11 Morning Canyon Channel Stream Stabilization and Channel Restoration Study Issue Date: March 22, 2005 4.0 CHANNEL STABILITY A channel stability analysis was prepared based on the results of the hydrology and hydraulic calculations to assess the long -term trends of Morning Canyon through the study site. 4.1 Sediment Continuity The sediment continuity principle applied to a channel reach is expressed as: ay Qs,, — Qs.our = at Where: Qs,i„ = sediment supply (inflow) Q1 .W = sediment transport capacity (outflow) ab' = rate of change in sediment storage of The continuity principle is reflective of the law conservation of mass and forms the basis for estimating the magnitude of adjustments to a channel reach in response to a given sequence of flows. For a given flood event and duration, the volume of sediment deposited or eroded in a channel reach is simply the difference between the upstream sediment supply rate (Qs i, ) and the channel reach sediment transport capacity (Qs Q, ). A channel reach experiences aggradation (i.e., sediment deposition) when the supply rate exceeds the transport capacity, and is subject to degradation (i.e., general scour) when the supply rate is less than the transport capacity. The sediment continuity principle can be applied to evaluate conditions of a single event (e.g., 5 -year storm). 4.1.1 Equilibrium Concept Natural channels tend to adjust themselves toward a state of dynamic equilibrium such that the ability of a channel to transport water and sediment is in balance with the amount of water and sediment supplied from upstream, including lateral sources. Adjustments to the channel can occur in several ways, including changes in the cross - sectional geometry, changes in the sediment gradation on the bed, and changes to the bed slope. 4.1.2 Armoring Potential If a degrading channel has sufficient coarse material on the bed, winnowing of fines during an event coarsens the bed material, potentially reducing the availability of transport material. The channel can attain a state of static equilibrium when the bed RBF Consulting A 10- 103181 12 Morning Canyon Channel Stream Stabilization and Channel Restoration Study Issue Date: March 22, 2005 coarsens sufficiently to balance the supply and transport of sediment. If the bed material can be transported over an entire range of flows and the channel is capable of carrying more material than is being delivered from upstream, the channel will continue to adjust vertically and /or laterally until the transport capacity is equal to the supply rate. 4.1.3 Wash Load The wash -load component of the total sediment load in an alluvial channel is related to the supply from the watershed. Limited quantities of fine material, transported as wash load, normally do not pose direct problems for development in the riverine environment. It is often assumed the wash load does not come out of suspension as it passes through the system unless there are structures (e.g., sedimentation basins) capable of effectively trapping the wash load. A reduction in wash load can prevent the natural sealing of river banks induced by deposition of fine sediment, causing increased water loss and bank instability. Large concentrations of wash load, however, can influence the capacity of a stream to transport bed material through its influence on fluid viscosity and density, bank stability, growth of aquatic plants, and the biomass of the channel. The wash load is controlled by the availability of material in the watershed and thus, it is not directly related to the hydraulic conditions in the stream at any given time. It is often assumed wash load consists of silt and finer material (i.e., diameter less than 0.0625 mm). The maximum size of sediment that can be considered as wash load can, however, vary depending on the characteristics of the stream being analyzed. In coarse -bed streams, the wash load may consist of material as large as coarse sand. Alternatively, it can be reasonably assumed that sediment finer than 90 percent of the bed - material comprises of the wash load (Einstein 1950). The quantity of wash load a stream may be expected to carry can be estimated from the watershed sediment yield. 4.1.4 Vertical and Horizontal Channel Response Sediment continuity results provide the rate (or volume) of transport (yield) expected in each subreach. More meaningful results are attained when these values are converted to represent vertical and horizontal changes in each subreach to quantify general scour (or deposition) or short-term lateral migration. In the absence of significant controls, the erosion (or sedimentation) amounts can be assumed uniformly distributed in the streamwise direction for any given subreach. If the cross - streamwise distribution is also assumed uniform, then with knowledge of the reach length and by assuming a representative channel width (e.g., top width), the uniform depth of vertical adjustment can be estimated. 4.1.5 Procedure Compute the hydraulic parameters for the study reach using a one - dimensional steady flow hydraulics model such as HEC -RAS (USAGE 2003) for a sequence of discharges (e.g., 2 -, 5 -, 10 -, and 100 -year expected value events). RBF Consulting A 10- 103181 13 Morning Canyon Channel Stream Stabilization and Channel Restoration Study Issue Date: March 22, 2005 Determine the discharge predominantly responsible for the channel characteristics in the study reach. Divide the study reach into subreaches and for each subreach, develop a characteristic rating curve for each of the five (5) hydraulic parameters: water discharge, hydraulic depth, velocity, top width, and energy gradient. Select sediment transport models appropriate for the channel characteristics (e.g., d50, hydraulic depth, velocity, top width, and energy gradient). The hydraulic parameters should be based on the channel- forming discharge. Calculate the sediment transport capacity of each subreach using the selected sediment transport models. Apply the sediment continuity principle by comparing transport capacities on a subreach - by-subreach basis, under the assumption that the sediment supply to any given subreach is equal to the transport capacity of the adjacent upstream subreach. The comparison starts at the upstream limits of the study reach by designating the most upstream subreach as the supply source, including the contribution of bed - material sized sediment from tributaries, sheet flow, or bank erosion within the upstream subreach. 4.1.6 Assumptions and Limitations The sediment continuity procedure computes the net aggradation /degradation for a single flood event. Transient conditions during this event may be under - estimated. The sediment continuity procedure is based on rigid boundary conditions. An erodible - bed model (e.g., HEC -6) may provide a more accurate response. Uniform subreach lengths are important in maintaining the integrity of the sediment continuity principle. The relationship does not account for spatial or temporal factors in order to determine the sediment balance of the system. It is assumed that a sediment balance will be achieved within a reach, regardless of the length distribution between subreaches. However, this is not necessarily correct (e.g., depending on particle settling times, sedimentation may not occur in a very short deposition reach). 4.2 Lateral Migration The two basic mechanisms of lateral migration can be related to erosion and sedimentation trends in a channel reach. The first mechanism, associated with channel reaches of large width -to -depth ratios where significant deposition occurs, promotes bank instability and lateral migration as a result of increased velocities and shear stresses along the banks as the local energy gradient increases. If sedimentation occurs as isolated sand and gravel bars, the local energy gradient increases due to higher flow velocities resulting from a reduction in the effective channel area. Also, relatively stable sand and gravel bar deposits deflect the flow towards the REF Consulting A 10- 103181 14 Morning Canyon Channel Stream Stabilization and Channel Restoration Study Issue Date: March 22, 2005 more erodible banks. Consequently, severe localized bank failures may occur. However, if deposition occurs more uniformly across the channel, the local energy gradient downstream of the deposition increases due to higher velocities resulting from an increase in the channel slope. Bank erosion is less severe when the increase in velocities is more gradual and currents are not deflected, however, erosion occurs over longer distances. The second mechanism, associated with channel reaches of small width -to -depth ratios where degradation typically occurs, promotes increased bank instability from bank failures as a result of the formation of a narrow, deep channel with steep banks. This mechanism was not observed in the field and will not be discussed. In both lateral migration mechanisms, the development of saturated banks above the water line can increase bank erosion through local mass wasting. Saturated banks may develop during the rising stage of a flood, during which flow moves into the bank from the channel, promoting increased bank stability, particularly in the saturated condition. Flow may also occur from the bank to the channel due to a groundwater table that is higher than the channel stage. This condition could develop during a wet period as water draining from the watershed saturates the flood plain to a level higher than normal. 4.3 Other Scour Potential In addition to the scour predicted from the equilibrium analysis, there are other potential sources of scour that need to be considered in order to provide the proper toe -down depths below the channel invert to account for the potential dynamic changes in the bed elevations. The following is a discussion of each type of scour that can occur at various locations along the creek. 4.3.1 Bend Scour The bends associated with meandering channels will induce transverse currents. These currents will scour sediment from the outside of a bend and cause it to be deposited on along the inside of the bend. This phenomena is caused by the spiral pattern of secondary flow, and is not due to a shift of the maximum longitudinal velocity filament against the outer bank. Channel bends will cause a shift in this velocity filament, but through the bend the maximum longitudinal velocity is normally moved nearer to the inside bank, whereas the shift to the outer bank occurs downstream of the bend. It is at these downstream locations that the shift in longitudinal velocity patterns will most likely cause lateral erosion of a channel bank. 4.3.2 Bed Forms (Dunes and Antidunes) It is important to estimate the height of bed forms (i.e., dunes and antidunes) moving through a natural or man -made sand -bed channel, particularly where scour and freeboard requirements are critical. Antidunes can form in either the transition zone or upper flow regime (SLA 1985). Dune formations have been observed for Froude numbers ranging from 0.38 to 0.60 based on data collected from flume experiments (SLA 1985). In these experiments, the ratio of RBF Consulting A 10- 103181 15 Morning Canyon Channel Stream Stabilization and Channel Restoration Study Issue Date: March 22, 2005 flow depth to dune height ranged from 1 to 5. Dune troughs may be depressed below the channel bed a distance equal to half the flow depth when the ratio is equal to one. 4.3.3 Low -flow Incisement An estimate of low -flow incisement depths is best determined by performing field measurements of existing low -flow channel depths. For design purposes, a minimum low -flow incisement depth of two (2) feet is typically assumed. 4.3.4 Local Scour Local scour involves the removal of bed and bank material near a flow obstruction (e.g., piers, abutments, spurs, embankments, and downstream of grade control structures or channel drops). The principal erosion mechanism is the formation of vortices due to the obstruction and resultant acceleration of flows . Local scour is cyclic in nature. The bed and /or bank material is eroded during the rising flood stage and is replaced by sediment deposits on the receding flood stage. Maximum local scour occurs during peak flows, therefore, the maximum design flow (e.g., 100 -year high confidence discharge) is typically used to incorporate the local scour potential into the design of a structure. 4.3.5 Local Scour at Grade Control Structures Accelerating flow over the crest of a grade control structure (e.g., drop structure) induces local scour immediately downstream. This phenomena may eventually lead to undermining and subsequent failure of the structure. Turbulent flow produced downstream of the structure can cause localized channel -bed erosion and subsequent widening of the channel due to bank sloughing. Widening of the channel may expose one or both abutments and thus, allowing flows to flank the grade control structure. 4.4 Evaluation of Channel Stability (Application) 4.4.1 Sediment Gradation Analysis A composite gradation curve was estimated from boring samples taken in the channel bottom within the project area. The locations of these borings are shown in Appendix C. These samples were assumed to be representative of the bed material for the study reach based on field observations. Two samples were taken at each location, one at the surface and the other at between one and three feet of depth. The composite gradation curve can be characterized as predominantly brown, dark brown or gray Sandy Lean Clay (CL), and brown or dark brown Clayey Sand (SC). The Sandy Lean Clay contained between 50 and 67 percent fines (particles passing the No. 200 sieve), and the Clayey Sand contained between 25 and 45 percent fines. The composite median bed - material size, D50, is approximately 0.3 millimeters. The stability of the channel largely depends on the size of the particles on the bed. Figure 5 shows the gradation curves for the boring samples and the composite of those samples. RBF Consulting A 10- 103181 16 Morning Canyon Channel Stream Stabilization and Channel Restoration Study Issue Date: March 22, 2005 4.4.2 Average Hydraulic Parameters The hydraulic analyses were based on existing geomorphology and ultimate hydrologic conditions. One - dimensional steady flow hydraulics were computed for the study reach using HEC -RAS (USAGE 2003). Peak flows for the 2 -, 5 -, 10 -, 25 -, 50- and 100 -year expected value storm events, as well as the 100 -year high confidence storm event. The intent of this analysis is to create a range of values that would encompass the majority of discharges on a representative hydrograph. The 2 -10 -year events were determined to be predominantly responsible for the channel characteristics in the study reach based on qualitative assumptions, and the locations of the subreach. The study reach was divided into sixty -six (66) subreaches. Average hydraulic parameters (i.e., hydraulic depth, velocity, top width, and energy gradient) were calculated for each designated subreach. Individual cross - section hydraulics were disregarded if thought to erroneously skew the representative hydraulics of a subreach. 4.4.3 SAM Hydraulic Design Package for Channels Thomas et al. (2002) developed SAM, a computer program designed to compute the width, depth, slope, and n -value for stable alluvial material. SAM is capable of determining stable channel dimensions, calculating bed - material discharge, and calculating the sediment yield of a stream. SAM provides a simplified approach to preliminary screening of design alternatives, and, in some cases, is suitable for final design or performance monitoring. SAM is an integrated system of programs developed to aid engineers in analyses associated with designing, operating, and maintaining flood control channels and stream restoration projects. The following fundamental sediment processes are considered — erosion, entrainment, transportation, and deposition. Compaction of the deposited bed sediment is not accounted for in the design of stable channels. The three (3) main modules— SAM.hyd, SAM.sed, and SAM.yId, can be used in series or use separately, to assist in various hydraulic design situations. SAM.hyd Module - A single typical cross section, not a reach, of a stream is considered. Geometry of a cross section can be prescribed with station and elevation coordinates for irregular channels, or as simple or compound geometry (e.g., rectangular, trapezoidal). The steady state, normal depth equation is solved in order to transform complex geometry into composite hydraulic parameters. The normal depth equation can be solved for depth, width, slope, discharge, or roughness. Several different roughness equations can be applied within the same cross section. Curvilinear and Cartesian coordinates can be provided for a meander planform based on the sine - generated curve. Stable channel dimensions can be computed for fully alluvial sand -bed or gravel -bed streams. Normal depth calculations are compared to Shield's diagram for particle stability to determine if riprap is required. Riprap is sized based on either a given flow depth and velocity, or a given water discharge and cross - section. RBF Consulting A 10- 103181 18 Morning Canyon Channel Stream Stabilization and Channel Restoration Study Issue Date: March 22, 2005 SAM.sed Module - The SAM.sed module calculates the bed - material sediment discharge rating curve by size class using hydraulic parameters, either calculated using the SAM.hyd module or specified by the user. The sediment transport functions defined in SAM.sed cover a range of riverine conditions, which are listed in Table 4-1. The sediment transport rate is determined by partitioning the sediment composition into size classes and summing the sediment transport rates computed for each size class. Sediment transport functions are applied at a point, thus allowing for no temporal or spatial variability in the size -class distribution. In a natural stream, the size -class distribution of bed material changes with variations in spatial and temporal factors. For this reason, SAM may not produce results representative of the natural stream. The designated bed gradation controls the calculated sediment discharge in a sediment transport function. The rate of transport increases exponentially as the grain size decreases. Therefore, bed - material gradations must be determined carefully. Table 4-1: Sediment Transport Functions in SAM Ackers -White Ackers - White, D50 Brownlie, D50 Colby Einstein Bed -load Einstein Total -load En elund- Hansen Laursen (Copeland) Laursen (Madden), 1985 Meyer-Peter and Muller (MPM), 1948 MPM (1948), D50 Parker ravel only) Profitt (Sutherland) Schoklitsch Toffaleti Toffaleti -MPM Toffaleti - Schoklitsch Yang Yan , D50 van Rijn SAM.yId Module - The SAM.yld module provides hydraulic design engineers with a systematic method for calculating sediment yield. Sediment yield is the total sediment outflow from a watershed or drainage basin, measurable at a reference cross section for a specified period of time. The flow can be specified by either a flow duration curve or a hydrograph. The sediment discharge rating curve can be specified as either sediment discharge or sediment concentration versus water discharge. The flow duration curve is integrated with the sediment discharge rating curve. Sediment yield can be subdivided based on the method of transport. The finer portion of the sediment yield continuously maintained in suspension by flow turbulence is called the wash load. The coarser fraction of the sediment yield actively exchanged with the sediment on the bed is called the bed - material sediment yield. If sediment transport is calculated using sediment transport equations, only the bed - material sediment yield is calculated. If sediment transport is determined from total load measurements, then the total sediment yield (i.e., combined wash load and bed - material load) is calculated. RBF Consulting A 10- 103181 19 Morning Canyon Channel Stream Stabilization and Channel Restoration Study Issue Date: March 22, 2005 4.4.4 Selection of Sediment Transport Models Quantitative analysis of the aggradation, degradation, and lateral migration tendency of a stream requires knowledge of both the sediment transport capacity of the stream and the sediment supply to the stream. Several sediment transport functions are available for estimating either the bed -load or the total bed - material load. The distinction can be critical in sand -bed streams, where the suspended bed - material load may be orders of magnitude greater than the bed -load. Another important difference in sediment transport functions is the application of the grain -size distribution. Most sediment transport functions were developed as single grain -size functions, typically using the median bed - material size to represent the total load. Single grain -size functions are most appropriate in cases where equilibrium sediment transport can be assumed. Changes in the watershed or the occurrence of a flood event may result in non - equilibrium conditions. In such cases, a multiple grain -size sediment transport function should be used. Multiple grain -size functions are very sensitive to the grain -size distribution of the bed material, particularly in the lower 10 percent of the gradation curve (Einstein, 1950). To analyze non - equilibrium conditions, single grain -size functions are converted to multiple grain -size functions by calculating the sediment transport rate using the geometric mean diameter for each size class in the bed (sediment transport potential) and then assume the transport rate of each size class (sediment transport capacity) can be attained by multiplying the sediment transport potential by the bed fraction. This can produce unreliable results since it is assumed each size class of the bed material acts independently of the other size classes (i.e., no interaction between size classes). Sediment transport functions consider the hydraulic conditions of the stream (i.e., velocity, depth, width, shear stress, and stream power) in varying combinations and the size characteristics of the bed material. The bed - material transport rate computed from these functions does not include the wash -load component of the total sediment load. However, the wash -load component of a stream can be estimated from the watershed sediment yield. Most sediment transport functions are empirical in nature and should be applied to field conditions similar to the conditions in which they were developed. The selection process is based on the premise a sediment transport function that accurately predicts measured sediment transport rates in a gaged stream would be an appropriate predictor in an ungaged stream with similar characteristics. Calculated screening parameters (i.e., d50, slope, velocity, depth, and width) for the project stream are compared to the same screening parameters from a list of rivers (Brownlie 1981) that have sufficient sediment data to determine an appropriate sediment transport function (see Table 1 -1). This selection process is only applicable to lognormal distributions since measured bed - material gradations were reduced to median grain sizes and geometric standard deviations. A discrepancy ratio was calculated for each measured discharge: discrepancy ratio = y, computed 9,. measured RBF Consulting A 10- 103181 20 Morning Canyon Channel Stream Stabilization and Channel Restoration Study Issue Date: March 22, 2005 For each stream dataset, the percentage of discrepancy ratios between 0.5 and 2.0 was determined, and the average discrepancy ratio was computed. The sediment transport functions with the highest percentage of discrepancy ratios within accepted range were selected first and the function with the average discrepancy ratio closest to 1.0 was ranked highest. Table 4-2: List of Applicable Brownlie (1981) Data Sets Data Code River (Reference) ATC Atchafalaya River Toffaleti, 1968 CHO Chop Canals (Chauchry et al., 1970 HII Hit River Shinohara and Tsubaki, 1959 NIO Niobara River (Colby and Hembree, 1955 RGC Rio Grande Conveyance Channel Culbertson et al. 1976 RIO Rio Grande River near Bernalillo, NM Toffaleti 1968 Table 4-3: Data ranges for the Applicable Brownlie (1981) Data Sets Data Code d5o mm Slope ftlft velocity f s Depth feet Width feet ATC 0.080- 0.303 0.0000056- 0.0000513 1.00-6.60 20.00- 50.00 1000- 1650 CHO 0.090- 0.320 0.0000510- 0.0002538 2.20-5.30 4.20-12.00 75- 400 HII 0.210 -1.440 0.0008400- 0.0113000 0.47 -3.05 0.06- 2.40 1- 26 NIO 0.200- 0.360 0.0011000- 0.0018000 2.00-4.20 1.30- 2.00 65- 75 RGC 0.180- 0.280 0.0005300- 0.0008000 2.60-5.00 3.00- 5.00 65- 75 RIO 0.207- 0.368 0.0007400- 0.0008900 2.05-7.83 1.09- 4.80 133- 645 ATC 0.080- 0.303 1 0.0000056- 0.0000513 1 1.00-6.60 20.00- 50.00 1000- 1650 Table 4-4: Summary of selected sediment transport models RBF Consulting JN 10- 103181 21 Screening Parameters % Standard Data Points Deviation # Sediment in Average of Data Data Transport Discrepancy Discrepancy Discrepancy Code Points Function Ratio Range Ratio Ratio ATC 63 v Laursen (Madden). 1985 68.25 1.10 1.16 CHO 33 v Colby 69.70 0.83 0.56 HII 38 Yo Toffaleti -MPM 78.95 0.82 0.48 Toffaleti -MPM 92.50 0.95 0.44 NIO 40 y Colby 92.50 0.83 0.32 RGC 8 Y Laursen (Madden), 1985 87.50 0.91 0.44 RIO 38 Yo Colby 86.84 0.73 0.40 RBF Consulting JN 10- 103181 21 Morning Canyon Channel Stream Stabilization and Channel Restoration Study Issue Date: March 22, 2005 4.4.5 Sediment Continuity Analysis (General Scour /Deposition) For each subreach, a characteristic, rating curve was developed for each of the five (5) hydraulic parameters: water discharge, hydraulic depth, velocity, top width, and energy gradient. The Laursen (Madden), Colby, and Toffaleti -MPM sediment transport models each demonstrated satisfactory correlation between the study reach parameters and previous test cases with van Colby showing the highest correlation of the three. The sediment transport capacities for each subreach were calculated for each of the three (3) selected sediment transport models and for six (6) discharges including the 2, 5 -, 10 -, 25 -, 50 -, and 100 -year expected value events. The results for each event show consistent trends and thus, only the 2 -year event is shown in Table 4-5. Since these yields were very similar, an average yield was calculated for each reach and this value was used in determining relative trends from reach to reach. The difference between the inflowing sediment volume and yield potential was assessed and this volume was evaluated over the channel reach and converted to a scour or fill depth. In general, if the potential yield of a particular reach exceeded the yield of the reach immediately upstream, then scour was predicted for that reach. 4.4.6 Stable Slope Analysis Using the method of trial and error, the slopes of the channel were manually adjusted in the HEC -RAS model. These new hydraulic characteristics were then averaged and used in the SAM model for each reach. This was repeated until a relative balance was established from reach to reach. Figure 6 shows this stable channel profile. This configuration produces sediment yields as shown in Table 4-6. 4.5 Sediment Transport Results and Recommendations The analysis of channel stability for the channel forming event (5 -Year) using the existing channel geometry and ultimate conditions discharges shows significant potential scour in the canyon. Reduction of the channel slope through the installation of grade control structures would alleviate this issue. Grade control structures could be installed to reconstructed at the original channel grade, allowing their downstream drops to form over time. A total of seven (7) grade control structures would be required to obtain the required drop to obtain the stable slopes calculated above. The recommended locations of these grade control Structures are illustrated on Exhibit 2: Morning Canyon Stabilization Plan and Profile. Various methods are available for the construction of grade control structures including; reinforced concrete, grouted or loose rock, sheet piles (steel or vinyl), gabions, and soil cement. Rock - filled gabion mattresses are recommended for the grade control structures in this canyon. These structures can be installed with a minimum of construction impacts using small equipment, and are environmentally friendly. The structures are proposed to be backfilled with soil and landscaped to blend with the natural channel environment. A typical installation cross - section and profile are shown in Figure 7. RBF Consulting A 10- 103181 22 TABLE 4.5. 2-YEAR EXPECTED VALUE SEDIMENT CONTINUITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY - METHOD COMPARISON vChannel a N Length (feet) Width (feet) Channel Velocity (fps) Gross Sediment Yield (tons) Net Sediment Yield (tons) General ScourlDeposrtion (feet) Laursen (Madden). 1985 Taffaleti- MPM Colby La-rsen (Madden), 1985 ToffaletF MPM Colby Laursen (Madden). 1985 Toffaleti- MPM Colby 66 24.28 8.06 3.15 11 6 0 -11 -6 0 -1.21 -066 0.00 65 20.11 23.48 3.10 89 49 2 -78 -43 -2 -3.55 -196 -0.09 64 20.31 27.08 6.66 2084 900 1 -1995 -851 1 -78.02 -3128 0.04 60 25.20 12.57 2.20 10 4 0 2074 896 1 140.81 6043 0.07 59 20.34 6.31 3.31 21 15 1 -11 -11 -1 -1.84 -1.84 -017 58 21.01 7.32 3.01 17 10 1 4 5 0 0.58 - 0.70 0.00 57 20.24 8.16 2.76 12 6 1 5 4 0 0.65 0.52 0.00 56 20.00 8.77 2.97 17 10 1 -5 -4 0 -0.61 -0.49 0.00 52 20.06 735 2.78 130 58 3 -113 48 -2 -16.49 -7.01 -0.29 51 19.63 5.72 2.86 9 3 0 121 55 3 23.20 10.54 0.58 50 20.00 570 3.30 15 1 -6 -4 •1 -1 13 -0.75 -0 19 49 19.43 6 39 4.32 56 43 2 -41 -36 -1 -7.10 -6.24 -0.17 48 25.04 10 36 3.67 113 83 3 -57 40 -1 -4.73 47 20.00 11.78 3.24 87 63 2 28 20 1 237 1.83 0.09 46 18.24 12.68 378 72 56 2 15 7 0 1.40 0.65 0.00 45 21.96 19.34 3.45 112 86 3 40 -30 -1 -2.03 44 2632 19.40 4.69 1296 1397 48 -1184 -1311 45 4987 -55.22 -1.90 43 29.63 19.21 4.69 444 795 32 852 602 18 32.20 22.75 0.60 42 21.97 22.50 3.48 95 60 3 348 735 29 15.19 31.98. 1.26 38 18.71 21.17 2.80 36 13 1 59 47 2 3.21 2.56 0.11 37 18.53 19.72 3.48 89 47 2 -53 -34 -1 -3.12 -2.00 -0.06 33 20 30 16.63 3.75 92 48 2 -3 -1 0 -0.19 -0.06 0.00 32 1906 17.62 4.01 131 90 7 -39 -42 -5 1 -2.50 -2.69 -0.32 28 1760 16.89 3.42 65 27 2 66 63 5 4.77 4.56 0.36 27 18.40 16.87 3 92 124 77 7 -59 -50 -5 -4.09 -347 -0.35 23 15.94 16.03 3 33 60 22 2 64 55 5 5.39 4.63 22 15.65 15.26 3.97 128 83 7 -68 -61 -5 -6.12 .549 18 20.10 9.34 8.82 2412 1019 104 -2284 -936 -97 - 261.78 - 107.28 1177 17 20.17 964 7.39 4185 1455 88 -1773 -436 16 .19610 -48.22 16 20.02 9 41 6.94 5136 859 94 -951 596 -6 - 108.62 68.07 15 20.00 976 5.53 1002 709 29 4134 150 85 455.88 18.53 7.16 14 2002 9.67 3.59 427 285 14 575 424 15 63.91 47.12 1.67 13 2006 8.01 1 4.19 465 307 15 -38 -22 -1 -5.09 -2.94 -0.13 12 2006 6.76 4.52 394 210 11 71 97 4 11.26 15.38 0.63 11 1977 6.68 4 71 97 36 4 297 174 7 48.40 28.38 1.14 10 19.86 6.19 6.45 597 309 15 -500 -273 -11 -8754 -47 80 -1 93 9 20.03 6.65 6 37 634 367 18 -37 -58 -3 -5.97 -9.36 -0.48 8 20.01 9.89 4.60 125 62 5 509 305 13 55.34 33.16 1.41 7 20.15 12.65 4.23 197 134 8 -72 -72 -3 -6.08 -6.08 -0.25 6 21.40 11.44 5.37 642 453 21 -445 -319 -13 -39.11 -28.03 -1.14 5 2043 . 10.54 6.52 1119 792 31 -477 -339 -10 -47 66 -33.87 -1.00 4 19.79 8.85 8.24 1204 1541 43 -85 -749 -12 -10.44 -91.97 -147 3 20.04 6.92 8.76 1080 1478 43 124 63 0 19.23 9.77 0.00 2 20 14 7.00 7 71 1174 766 31 -94 712 12 -14.34 108.61 1.83 1 1136 5.86 9.64 1852 109 7 53 -678 -331 -22 - 188.40 -91.00 -fi.05 a$ a A w R A R A 4 a 8 .� A$� R A .� R 6: C e R R R A' 8 R i�• i; a S; c S" 9 0 5 8$ S 8 a S o C 6 Y aom; sago; iloRORooR e:e &ov.ASa�R�.:oASaoiAaa.o�: a 8: R R e d s" e- i s; x i+ B q a 1O _ a a d ft e 8 ° .3 R R§ a-- :" a s f$ R o x K a R 8 a A A Y S aA °'9 a 2 0 8 R 8 S� e _x$S RReS:ai R RA Rn7$ -' ss 1�• - R i R'' - S + a, w p+ R i A A = A R R R_ Y A S A -"+ i= d w i x R t x A N _ R C p'' - q• arc i'. • -,, F L R_'° i A C R, A A-" A 3 8 8 o - GAS r$a 1aa� aan n lTt IT f To 711.1r. .gym m m 8 m R x 8: R m 8 - T �_im RIF :io s a x - m 8 A 3 x a s m a MIT - el:.R ,a, x :, m s .- n a 8 '. 8 8% o 1V xl.° ��� i :� = n ,I m a;a a x R .e ^ a,� a � d ' - Y " `vii ^ ^ a I ' ^° i .Qi ^° i n A °a -4 o elA - _ _ _ _ _ _ a r a o f—J `I pC N C CL E 0 U C d C C m L U uj LL N O Ifi O N O N O N O ry ry O O_ m A of N (ION) u01lena13 punaE) 0 0 0 0 °o 0 °o m °m 0 0 � N d c c m s °o U O V 8 M °o N O O I I � 1 m c 1 i i 9 m N a i I � 1 i i I 1 N O Ifi O N O N O N O ry ry O O_ m A of N (ION) u01lena13 punaE) 0 0 0 0 °o 0 °o m °m 0 0 � N d c c m s °o U O V 8 M °o N O O Morning Canyon Channel Stream Stabilization and Channel Restoration Study Issue Date: March 22, 2005 5.0 RECOMMENDED FLOOD CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS The proposed flood control improvements identified in this study are designed to provide long -term stabilization for the reach of Morning Canyon from PCH to the Pelican Hills Golf Course. The recommended improvements utilize structural control measures and modifications to the stream alignment and geometry. It will provide 100 -year level of flood protection to the adjacent areas and will stabilize the streambed and channel banks while restoring the natural channel system. Exhibit 2 shows the locations of the proposed grade controls and detail sections. The key components of the recommended improvements are summarized in the following paragraphs. 5.1 Grade Control Structures A total of seven grade control structures are required on Morning Canyon between PCH and Pelican Hills Golf Course to stabilize and to adjust the channel invert to the proper equilibrium slope in order to maintain its sediment balance. The grade control structures will have a maximum drop height of 3 feet. Rock - filled gabion structures were selected as the recommended alternative type because of their minimum of construction impacts, environmental sensitivity, and they are economical with a long service life. The gabion structures are rock - filled wire baskets, which are stacked and tied together to form a grade control structure. The preliminary design of the structures is illustrated in Figure 7: Typical Gabion Drop Structure Details. RBF Consulting A 10- 103181 26 Morning Canyon Channel Stream Stabilization and Channel Restoration Study Issue Date: March 22, 2005 �o c i -- i .. —__. Er 157 i %CitUID — FLC F(LU rW1C —/ IILIX -Pil_� J W TD W 275 O_M Em S Profile View Isometric View Figure 7. Typical Gabion Structure Details 5.2 Stream Restoration and Channel Fill In conjunction with the installation of the grade control structures, the degraded, incised channel is proposed to be backfilled to reconstruct the original canyon grades. Earth fill will be imported to fill the existing incised channel. The locations and extent of the channel fill are illustrated on Exhibit 2. To minimize the visual impact of the improvements, the gabion structures will be filled with soil and re- vegetated to restore the canyon to a more natural channel system. Vegetation is proposed to be a mixture of native species including: willows, mulefat, coast live oaks, and California sycamores. A conceptual rendering of Morning Canyon Channel before, during, and two -years after construction of the proposed project are illustrated on the Figure 8. RBF Consulting A 10- 103151 27 Morning Canyon Channel Stream Stabilization and Channel Restoration Study Issue Date: March 22, 2005 Existing Creek Gabion and Creek at Construction Gabion and Creek at Two-Year Growth Figure 8. Rendering of Project Improvements RBF Consulting A 10-103181 28 Morning Canyon Channel Stream Stabilization and Channel Restoration Study Issue Date: March 22, 2005 5.3 Additional Studies and Final Design During the course of this study the channel has experienced significant additional degradation. The design survey performed by RBF Consulting was prepared in November 2004. Prior to the final design of the recommended improvements, a new field survey should be prepared for the canyon. Final design of all components of the project needs to be based on the current condition of the channel. Adjustments to the channel topography may affect the recommended locations and sizes of the grade control structures. RBF Consulting A 10- 103181 29 l I' n g� II � - I I °} ui fSw I ... N pp N N s g i i I as 9 I. n pl°pryJl I�i� � s i . Y __ _. . I '00 NW's �d' ��o P� t t e Y 6, a � + 4 I i a e� �s ads " 8�d ? a 6 " 6 3t N " a' a q J 'i i 9�g � T il{ ....---- .-------------- A e ;s� s _ Y i qx 3 GOpst Fvw City of Newport Beach NO. BA- 051 BUDGET AMENDMENT 2004 -05 AMOUNT: $1ass7o.00 EFFECT ON BUDGETARY FUND BALANCE: Increase Revenue Estimates Increase in Budgetary Fund Balance X Increase Expenditure Appropriations AND AX Decrease in Budgetary Fund Balance Transfer Budget Appropriations No effect on Budgetary Fund Balance SOURCE: from existing budget appropriations from additional estimated revenues PX from unappropriated fund balance EXPLANATION: This budget amendment is requested to provide for the following: To increase expenditure appropriations from General Fund unappropriated fund balance for the Morning Canyon Restoration Droiect. ACCOUNTING ENTRY: BUDGETARY FUND BALANCE Fund Account Description 010 3605 General Fund - Fund Balance REVENUE ESTIMATES (3601) Fund /Division Account Description EXPENDITURE APPROPRIATIONS (3603) Description Division Number 7012 General Fund - Drainage Account Number C5100750 Upper Morning Canyon Channel Division Number Account Number Division Number Account Number Division Number Account Number Signed: Fi ancial Approval: Administ ti ve Services Director Signed: (,,_ . Administrative Approval: City Manager Signed: City Council Approval: City Clerk Amount Debit Credit $148,870.00 * AH:i:Hi7iTi. Date X GS t Date Date % • 4i w t Morning Canyon Erosion Problem The views of a long -time canyon resident (since 1962) 621 Rockford Road Corona del Mar, CA Prepared by Bob Patterson 949 -720 -1252 cdmrom@adelphia.net 2 f� Topics • A brief history of Morning Canyon • Conditions Unique to 621 Rockford Road • The 1989 Planning Commission Appeal • Answers to questions from a residents perspective — What is the cause of the erosion in the canyon? — Why the city is ultimately responsible for the erosion in the canyon? — Why the city should pay for the solution? 3 © What is Morning Canyon? • A picturesque open space which provides watershed drainage and habitat for plants and animals. • Also a flood channel used by the City of Newport Beach to drain its city streets and adjacent developments of rainwater and other nuisance runoff waters into the Pacific Ocean. 4�M] 1959 During grading, a gully was filled and an underground drainage pipe was installed to pass upstream rainwater under Cameo Highlands. 5 RCII CammlG&hlands`Fmn Map 6;12 • The 52" pipe ends at an outflow structure at the toe of the slope of 621 Rockford Road. • The City has an easement to maintain the pipe, structure and drainage channel. 7 In 1989, the Orange County Planning Commission approved a drainage and grading plan for Pelican Hills golf course and the Newport Coast development, part of which is upstream from Morning Canyon. The City of Newport Beach was involved in the process. s 9 L Watershed Comparison 10 7EJJ Approval for the development was granted despite legitimate 1 concerns that were formally raised during a 1989 appeal initiated by canyon residents regarding the proposed changes in hydrology. These concems were addressed to: The Irvine Company The Orange County Planning Commission The City of Newport Beach 11 ! Topics of concern presented by residents during the appeal hearing • More overall water from rainstorm events • Constant flow of irrigation runoff saturating the river channel • Deficiencies in the design and construction of the outflow structure at 621 Rockford Rd. • Potential of future property damage from erosion caused by the proposed changes in hydrology 12 .I Conditions Prior to the 1990 Newport Coast Development Rain runoff during winter storms Channel bottom was dry most of the year A maintained access road ran its length Despite several significant storms, the channel bottom maintained a constant level with few signs of degradation 13 ® Conditions Since the 1990 Upstream Development • Increase in total storm runoff • Significant amounts of nuisance water running on a constant basis year round • Water saturated river bottom • Accelerated erosion • Property damage 14 ::M�] Cause of Accelerated Erosion in Morning Canyon The recent severe rainstorms have surely sped up the process but are not the underlying cause. This erosion is ultimately the result of Changes in hydrology due to the upstream development which was allowed by the City of Newport Beach in 1989. 15 E Specifically • Increase of overall storm runoff due to the newly developed upstream watershed • Addition of significant amounts of nuisance runoff water from developed neighborhoods, street drains and the Pelican Hills golf course 2 • Nuisance water runs 24 -7, 12 months a year • Canyon bottom soil is constantly water saturated • Major reduction of sediment transport from the upstream watershed 16 E,3� We feel that the canyon residents and city staff have made a convincing argument that the City of Newport Beach is ultimately responsible for the repair and maintenance of the public drainage system that traverses our property. Furthermore, we believe that the city would be held responsible for any damage caused by the failure of its drainage system. The residents along both sides of the canyon have cooperated with your staff, and have provided all permissions necessary for the city to design and complete the stabilization project. 17 ji It has been suggested by one Council Member in particular that this erosion problem is somehow a private property issue, and the city should not be paying for the solution. This short- sighted view (lies in the face of reason, common sense, and the evidence. I am hopeful and confident that the majority of the council are quite aware of the potential consequences to the city should that view prevail tonight. That being said, I do not believe there is a person in this room that wants this issue to be decided in a court of law. Wejust want the city to step up to the plate and give us assurances that you will take responsibility and fix the problem. 18 ® Immediate Concem: Our property is in danger, and we may experience a major slope failure. Although we have made several requests for the city to take emergency measures to protect the toe of our slope from their drainage water, nothing has been done. We feel that this inaction is partially due to the lack of a clear city council directive with regard to responsibility. It is our opinion that timely preventative measures could have lessoned the recent damage to our property, and we view this failure to take action as a sign of neglect on the part of the city. 19 9 We urge the Council to approve the three Staff recommendations with regard to the Morning Canyon stabilization project. 20 . D We also urge the Council to send a clear message to the canyon residents by additionally directing staff to take immediate steps to stabilize the properties that are in eminent danger. 21 a October2004 22 � January 2005 23 7 February 14, 2005 24170 621 Rockford Rd. Looking North 4 Morning Canyon 52 inch pipe Area of Cameo Highlands draining into the 52 inch pipe. Rockford -! Cameo pC -__ °° Highlands G^a ✓.:.ic Iro-r vS4:ISM1 N 5 Xr.pnn G:SS', fi: ]`.,. c Is A:vmmgreCS'YJr Pelv.ii Mr RJ ���•. ria'a 53 m:M10 � r Cameu 4gAlan.f5 I ._..�_ r i SCanleo 5 -ores rl 631 R:.rlul.:'k:l � JA, v � � e: I l October 2004 Ak i#a February 14. 2005 Watershed Comparison Only a small portion of the draina(ye water ori(Tinates in Z� Cameo Hiulflands JanUarN 1005 February 28, 2005