HomeMy WebLinkAboutC-3517(B) - Reimbursement Agreement; Construction of the Morning Canyon Stabilization Project•
E
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
rr.
• C-361+
ooltn° ate)
Agenda Item No. 9
September 13, 2005
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Public Works Department
Bob Stein, P.E.
949- 644 -3311
rstein@city.newport-beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: MORNING CANYON STABILIZATON PROJECT - AWARD OF
CONTRACT NO. 3517
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Approve the drawings and specifications
2. Adopt the attached Resolution finding that the conditions in Morning Canyon
constitute an emergency situation and that staff is directed to move forward with
the Morning Canyon Stabilization Project so work can be completed in advance
of the rain season and continue working with California Coast Commission staff
to secure a Coastal Development Permit and make their best efforts to
incorporate the conditions of the permit into the ongoing project.
3. Award Contract No. 3517 to Sunquest General Engineering for the Total Bid
Price of $796,518.50, and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the
contract.
4. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contractual reimbursement agreement
with the owners of 601 Rockford Road and 515 Rockford Place for their share of
the proposed improvements and obtain a deposit of $300,000 from the owners.
The agreement will also contain a waiver /release.
Establish an amount of $60,000 to cover the cost of unforeseen work.
6. Approve Geotechnical work in the amount of $10,000.
DISCUSSION:
On March 9, 2004, City Council authorized a professional services agreement with RBF
Consulting to prepare a stream stabilization and canyon restoration .study. This year
long process involved research, the preparation of conceptual plans, working with
permitting agencies, and coordination with the adjacent property owners. On March 22,
2005 a Study Session was held to review the complex issues in Morning Canyon. (See
the attached Study Session Memo.) Later that evening at the Council Meeting, Council
authorized RBF Consulting to proceed with preparation of final construction documents,
Subject: Morning Canyon StOtion Project - Award of Contract No. 3517
September 13, 2005
Page: 2
permit applications and easement agreements for the Morning Canyon Stabilization •
project. Since that approval, Staff and RBF worked diligently to prepare plans and
specifications with the goal of providing a completed project before the next rainy
season. Upon plan completion, applications were made to the appropriate agencies
and efforts to secure the necessary easements began. Contractors with appropriate
gabion construction experience were pre - qualified to expedite the bidding process and
disqualify lesser experienced contractors that may have difficulty completing the project
before the next rainy season.
Project Work
The work necessary for the completion of this contract consists of two Project Tasks.
Project Task 1 includes clearing and grubbing, dewatering and surface water control,
constructing seven rock - filled gabion grade control structures, a rock - filled gabion bank
protection structure, placing unclassified fill, grouted rock riprap, storm drain extensions,
fencing, sediment and erosion control, dust control and all other work as required to
bring the canyon into readiness to accept storm water flows.
Project Task 2 work includes slope backfill, installing fencing, planting of various
California native shrubs and trees, hydroseeding, and other landscaping tasks.
Following completion of Project Tasks 1 and 2, there is a plant establishment and
maintenance item of work.
Also included in this project is the construction of a slope buttress which is necessary •
for the repair of a previous private property slope failure at 601 Rockford Road and 515
Rockford Place. The estimated cost for the installation of the gabion slope buttress and
associated work is $271,265. If authorized by Council, staff will enter into a contractual
reimbursement agreement with these owners and obtain a deposit of $300,000 to cover
the anticipated costs. The reimbursement agreement will include a waiver of liability for
the work performed by the City for these property owners.
Easements
Staff has worked closely with the adjacent property owners and has secured all of the
required easements and agreements that provide for the City's authority to construct
and maintain the canyon stabilization project. Five temporary construction easements
from property owners have also been obtained. The owner at 601 Rockford Road is
working with staff to obtain a sixth construction easement from the owner at 607
Rockford Road that is needed for building the slope buttress at 601 Rockford Road.
Since this easement is needed for the private slope repair, it will not delay the City's
canyon stabilization project. If the sixth easement is not secured, staff will reduce the
amount of private slope repair work and the owners at 601 Rockford Road and 515
Rockford Place will assume the responsibility of completing the work in conjunction with
their slope repair project. City staff has met with The Irvine Company and is working to
complete an entry agreement for access into the canyon via the Pelican Hill Golf
Course.
•
Subject: Morning Canyon Stabiliz*Project - Award of Contract No. 3517
September 13, 2005
Page: 3
• Permits
Four permits from jurisdictional agencies are required:
• California Department of Fish and Game has issued a draft permit approving the
project and only conditioning the project to have an approved hydroseed mix. The
1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement will be issued September 21, 2005.
• The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has approved the project and
is in the process of issuing the 401 Water Certification Permit.
• The Army Corps of Engineers has approved the project and will issue the 404
Nationwide Permit once the RWQCB 401 Water Certification Permit and the Coastal
Development Permit have been issued.
• The California Coastal Commission (CCC) staff has deemed our application
complete and has agendized our project for Commission review on October 12 or
13, 2005. CCC Staff will be issuing its recommendations no later than September
27, 2005.
Proiect Schedule
While we believe that our design team has expedited this project to the best of our
• ability, the current Coastal Commission process will not allow us to secure a permit in
sufficient time to complete the gabion construction (phase 1) of the work before the
expected peak of the rainy season. City staff met with CCC staff on August 16 and
discussed the distinct possibility that the City Council will direct City staff to proceed with
this project on an emergency basis prior to receiving the Coastal Development Permit
(CDP) from the CCC. CCC staff indicated that if the City must move ahead with the
project without the CDP, the CCC may require alternative or additional mitigation
measures and may assess penalties if the constructed project is not considered to be
the best environmentally - sensitive solution. In essence, the CCC will conduct its
analysis of the appropriate mitigation measures as if the Project had not been
constructed. The ultimate determination by the CCC of what is the best environmentally -
sensitive solution will be an item that is unresolved before the anticipated start of Project
construction. RBF Consulting and City Staff think the proposed gabion system is
indeed the best solution balancing engineering and environmental requirements. RBF
has prepared and submitted a Feasibility Analysis to CCC staff that substantiates that
conclusion. (See the attached June 10, 2005 analysis.) To substantiate the design
team's concerns, staff retained Leighton Consulting, Inc. to prepare a risk assessment
of the potential embankment failure for Morning Canyon (see attached). Their
conclusion is as follows; "in general, it is our conclusion that within the stretch where
manufactured fill comprises the major portion of canyon side, the landsliding risk is very
high. Almost certainly, there will be massive Iandsliding even if the next rainy season
produces moderate rain and stream flow. ".
• Staff believes that it is imperative that the construction commence in a timely manner
and complete prior to the peak rain season. Staff is wonting with the Contractor so that
Subject: Morning Canyon Staftion Project - Award of Contract No. 3517
September 13, 2005
Page: 4
construction may commence on October 3, 2005. Several measures will be •
implemented to expedite the project. The Contractor is required to work a six -day week.
The Contract calls for a bonus of $2,250 per day for completing the Project Task 1 work
ahead of the 50 consecutive working day period. Alternatively, the Contractor will be
assessed $2,000 per day in liquidated damages for not completing the Task 1 work
within 50 days and $250 per day for not completing the Task 2 work within 60 working
days.
If Council prefers to wait for the CCC to issue the Coastal Development Permit
expected in mid- October, then Council should provide direction on whether to
commence with the project this season (with the higher risk of rains due to a later
construction start) or be delayed until Spring 2006 (with the risk of substantial
erosion /landslides occurring during the rain season).
Project Bid
Prior to the bid period, using the pre - qualification process, the City advertised for
contractors interested in bidding the project to submit a Statement of Qualifications to
the City. Three contractors submitted a Statement of Qualifications: GCI Construction
Inc., S.P. Pazargad Engineering Construction, Inc. and Sunquest General Contracting.
All three contractors possessed the required California State Contractors License, had
adequate gabion installation experience and were deemed qualified.
At 2:00 pm on August 30, 2005 the City Clerk opened and read the following bids •
(column 3) for this project:
Bidder Opening Bid Corrected Bid
Low S,P.Pazargad Engineering* $880,057.00 $789,069.00
2 Sunquest General Engineering $796,478.50 $796,518.50
* Bid Withdrawn by S.P. Pazargad
At the bid opening, the apparent low bidder was Sunquest General Engineering.
However, a detailed review of the bids found that S.P. Pazargad Engineering
Construction, Inc. had misread the quantity for one of the bid items. Using the correct
quantity and recomputing the bid amount significantly lowered Pazargad's bid such that
they were the low bidder. Pazargad was contacted and asked if it would honor its unit
bid price for the lower bid item quantity. Upon review, Pazargad said it could not and
asked to have its bid withdrawn. Staff concurred that the error was an honest and
understandable mistake and agreed to allow Pazargad to withdraw its bid. Therefore,
Sunquest General Engineering is the low bidder. Sunquest's corrected bid amount of
$796,518.50 is two percent below the Engineer's Estimate of $810,000.
Environmental Review:
This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA per Section 15333
pertaining to small habitat restoration projects. A Notice of Exemption was filed with the
County Clerk on June 6, 2005. •
Subject: Morning Canyon Stabilio Project - Award of Contract No. 3517
September 13, 2005
Page: 5
• Public Notice:
Staff has periodically sent letters to property owners along Morning Canyon summarizing
the status of the project. Several meetings have also been held with property owners at
City Hall to discuss the project. Staff has also met with various property owners on site on
numerous occasions and walked the project. Property owners have also been noted
through the Coastal Development Permit application process regarding the project.
Geotechnical /Survey Services:
Geotechnical services will be provided by outside consultants per the On -Call
Professional Services Agreement approved by Council on December 9, 2003.
Funding Availability:
There are sufficient funds available in the following accounts for the project:
Account Description
General Fund
Private Contributions
(Wynkoop/Walton Reimbursement}
Prepared by:
Bob Stein, P.E.
Project Manager
Attachments:
Account Number Amount
7014- C5100805 $595,253.50
5100 -5864 $300,000.00
Total: $895,253.50
Submitted by:
en G adum
Public Widrks Director
a. March 22, 2005 Study Session Report
b. Project Location Map
c. Bid Summary
d. Feasibility Analysis prepared by RBF Consulting
e. Declaration of Emergency Resolution
f. Reimbursement Agreement with property owners at 601 Rockford Road and
515 Rockford Place
g. Risk Assessment prepared by Leighton Consulting, Inc.
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH .
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Study Session Item No.
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- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: MORNING CANYON RESTORATION PROJECT, C -3517
Introduction
The Morning Canyon Stream Stabilization and Channel Restoration Study prepared by
RBF Consulting (RBF) that you are receiving this evening, states that the erosion and
slope failures in Morning Canyon have progressed to the point where damage to private
improvements is a threat. This study recommends installation of engineered rock
stabilization blankets (gabion) at strategic locations along the canyon bottom to forestall
further erosion of the canyon bed which undermines the canyon slopes. If these
measures are implemented before the next rain season, further erosion of the canyon
bed will be prevented.
Property owners on the canyon have turned to the City for help. As a practical matter,
the City stands as the most reliable entity to act in the best interest of the community
and it is appropriate for the City to guide the corrective process and to prepare a master
plan for drainage, restoration, and water quality for this channel.
Project History
The stability of Morning Canyon has been affected by actions in the canyon that have
occurred over the past fifty years. The following timeline highlights major events in the
canyon's history as based on information obtained from staff, property owners,
consultants, and canyon reports. A more detailed recount of events follows.
1950-1980 Cattle grazing activities occur in hills of Newport Coast resulting in
increase in canyon bed elevation
1959 Substantial grading activities for Cameo Highlands Development occur
1960 City incorporates Cameo Highlands
1980's Arundo donax invades canyon streambed disrupting flow pattern
1990 Construction begins on Pelican Hills Golf Course and housing
developments
EXHIBIT A
•
•
SUBJECT: MORNING CANYON RORATION PROJECT, C -3517 •
March 22, 2005
Page 2
1992 Significant increase in dry- weather flows entering Canyon
1997 Massive failure of canyon slope at 607 Rockford Road (Wynkoop Slope)
2000 City staff identifies severe scour hole at 615 Rockford Road
2002 Rivertech completes concept -level stability analysis of canyon
2004 RBF hired to prepare Stream Stabilization and Canyon Restoration Study
Prior to construction of the Cameo Highland tract, this area was drained by two
canyons, Surrey Canyon flowing into Morning Canyon from the east, and Morning
Canyon flowing to the ocean. At the confluence of two canyons, 2/3 of the flow was
carried by Surrey Canyon and the remainder by Morning Canyon.
Over a thirty-year period beginning in the 1950's, grazing activities and removal of
natural vegetation in the upper watershed disrupted the soil and a surplus of material
was washed into the canyon by storm water runoff. This surplus of material allowed
several feet of sediment to accumulate in the canyon bottom. and created a broadly
rounded channel in the 1980's. The fill slopes (Cameo Highlands) have experienced
failures on various occasions on several properties, including a report of a slope failure
as early as 1977 (Lockwood -Singh & Associates, 1999).
In the late 1950's, with the grading of the Cameo Highlands tract, the canyon that
crossed the tract, Surrey Canyon, was filled and a 51 -inch storm drain was installed
across the tract with the outlet about 250 feet north of the mouth of the now filled
• Surrey Canyon. Two 18 -inch storm drain lines, one from Rockford Road and one from
the Rockford Place cul -de -sac, were constructed and drain to Morning Canyon. A high
slope on the east bank of Morning Canyon was created which partially intruded into the
natural flowline of Morning Canyon. Slope grading and compaction would have been
inspected by the County and would have been performed in accordance with the
standards in force at that time. After completion of construction of the tract, the City
accepted the tract in 1960. The tract map includes a 22 -foot easement along the
western boundary of the tract for storm drain purposes. This easement is largely
located on the fill slope. It is anticipated that this easement was required and granted to
allow for the construction of a future storm drain facility in the event that the upstream
properties were developed.
The giant reed, Arundo donax, invaded the canyon bottom in the 1980's. Arundo and
other dense vegetation in the channel bottom are contributing factors to the degradation
of the channel. The heavy vegetation in the center of the canyon forces flood flows to
run along the banks of the canyon. Erosive scour areas form along the toe of slope that
will eventually undermine the slope and cause it to fail.
Dramatic changes occurred when grading for the Pelican Hill Golf Course and housing
developments commenced. Pictures of flood flows coming off the denuded slopes in
1990 show large amounts of muddy water flowing down the channel, a dramatic change
from previous years. Two detention basins at the northern boundary of Cameo
• Highlands (one on Morning Canyon and one at 'Surrey Canyon') became operational in
1991. The detention basins, designed per approved regulatory standards, reduced the
SUBJECT: MORNING CANYO T ORATION PROJECT, C -3517
March 22, 2005
Page 3
peak flows from large storms while increasing the duration of storm flows through the •
canyon. More importantly from the standpoint of canyon stability, the beneficial
transport of upstream sediment into the canyon was reduced by approximately 50
percent as estimated by Moffatt & Nichol Engineers. As a result, the clearer water
entering the canyon within Cameo Highlands picks up sediment from the canyon
bottom accelerating the natural canyon erosion process.
The reduction of sediment supply to Morning Canyon is especially significant as this .
canyon is steep enough to force storm water runoff to move at a sufficiently high
velocity to erode the channel bottom. Over time, this erosion creates deep incisions in
the channel bottom. Prior to the construction of the golf course and detention basins,
this naturally occurring erosive condition was counteracted in Morning Canyon by
sediment washing into the canyon from the upstream grazing areas. With the
construction of the golf course, the replenishing supply of sediment was reduced and
erosive forces created an incision in the canyon bottom. With the formation of the
incision, the erosive process accelerated because flood flows were now concentrated
within the incised channel. The deepening incision is what motivated many property
owners to act by reinforcing slopes with rock and concrete structures. These activities
were ineffective.
The rapid destabilization of the canyon became evident in the winter of 1997 -1998
when this area experienced above average rainfall and significant individual storm
events. These storms and the resultant storm water runoff accelerated erosion and •
entrenchment, and general degradation of the canyon particularly in the portion of the
channel adjacent to the Wynkoop and Walton properties (601 Rockford Road and 507
Rockford Place respectively). Canyon downcutting and undercutting processes, along
with surface failures associated with heavy rainfall directly on the slope, caused the
Wynkoop/Walton slope to fail.
In 2000, Staff discovered a deep scour hole approximately 120 -feet upstream of the
Wynkoop property. Prior to the 2004/05 winter storms, continued downcutting has
caused additional erosion pushing the drop in the canyon bed approximately 30 feet
upstream to the outlet structure of the 51 -inch storm drain. The unusually high rainfall
this season has caused the downcutting to progress another 50 feet and has now
reached the stormdrain outlet structure. While it appears the 51 -inch storm drain outlet
structure will not be undermined this season, this severe erosion has resulted in surface
erosion (sloughing) of the Patterson slope (621 Rockford Road) including the loss of a
mature tree. Additionally, the McCabe slope (615 Rockford Road) appears on the
verge of sloughing.
Finally, many people have noted that there is now a continuous flow of water coming
down Morning Canyon due to upstream irrigation and wash -down activities. With the
upstream development of the golf course and houses, there has been an increase of dry-
weather flows into Morning Canyon. While the velocities are too low to cause any
significant erosion, these flows do maintain a saturated condition in the canyon bottom •
that potentially facilitates erosion during storm flows due to the reduction of interparticle
SUBJECT: MORNING CANYON R•RATION PROJECT, C -3517
March 22, 2005
Page 4
• cohesion. Additionally, this nuisance runoff transports pollutants, fertilizer and pesticide
residues into the channel. The fertilizer and pesticide residues have most likely
accelerated the vegetative growth in the canyon. The City on at least two occasions has
cleared the bottom of the canyon of foliage and debris to prevent materials from being
washed down to Coast Highway and potentially blocking the culvert under the highway.
Of the actions that occurred over the past 50 years which finally resulted in altering
stream stability in a negative manner for residents along the canyon, the most important
factors were:
1. Loss of sediment re- supply due to upstream housing and golf course
development including detention facilities.
2. Grading steep slopes that encroached into the canyon during the development of
Cameo Shores
3. Diversion of Surrey Canyon flow upstream to a 51 -inch storm drain constructed
as part of the Cameo Highlands development
Less important, but contributing factors include:
• Invasion of the Arundo
• Certain property owner encroachments including fencing, weir, and rip -rap
• Year -round low flow which saturates the canyon bottom
• • Clearing activities in the canyon bottom
• The design of certain storm drain and detention basin outlet structures were
based upon older design standards that have since been updated due to
advances in drainage science.
• Climatic changes in rainfall intensity and durations (record rainfalls and storm
events in 1982/83, 1992/93, 1997/98 and this year)
Issue at Hand
On March 9, 2004, Council approved a Professional Services Agreement for RBF to
prepare 1) a stream stabilization and canyon restoration study and 2) final construction
documents, environmental documents, permits and easements for the stabilization
project. Council approved proceeding with Phase 1 and reporting back to Council at
the completion of this task with recommendations.
The City has reviewed RBF's report and recommendations composed of the following
key components:
• Clearing non - native vegetation from the canyon bottom;
• Importing soil to fill scour areas of the canyon;
•
SUBJECT: MORNING CANYO TORATION PROJECT, C -3517
March 22, 2005
Page 5
• 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 is $825,000 which includes a 25%
contingency. Maintenance of the stabilization and erosion control structures and the
native landscaping is estimated at $5000 per annum.
Staff is recommending approval of a professional services amendment with RBF at
tonight's meeting for Phase 2 so the final construction document, environmental
documents, permits and easements can be prepared. The schedule calls for these
documents to be completed by July 2005 such that construction can proceed in the Fall
of 2005.
Prepared by:
Robert Stein, P.E.
Principal Civil Engineer
Submitted by:
Stephen G. Badum
Public Works Director
•
•
✓ v
t /
c
/
ya
/ � r
W A,
%�
ate
►�I
eyo
_
Goff Course
Sir �
R
Vr F,'\
✓ v
t /
c
/
ya
/ � r
W A,
%�
ate
►�I
eyo
Sir �
R
Momfng Canyon Loc tlm Map
COEYCiG -- Eirol E�wnFeoeM
rVga'
rVAp.rn yn�
D
m
x
x
w
n
TITLE
Stabilization
CONTRACT NO.:
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE:
E
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
BID LOCATION:
DATE:
BY: Bob Stein
11
City Clerk's Office - City Hall
08/30/2005, 2 PM
ASee Note 3
Note 1: Corrected from $100,964 to $9,976.
Note2: This is the amount assessed to 601 Rockford Road and 515 Rockford Place. It includes Bid Items 11 -14.
Note 3: Pazargad requested to withdraw its bid due to the bid error for Item 8. This request is granted. Sunquest is now the Low Bidder.
f: \users \pbw\ shared \contract100 -01\ \BID SUMMARY .xis
See Note 2 - -> $271,2bb.U(4W
Page 1
Engineer's Estimate
S.P. Pazargad
Construction
Sunquest General Engineering
ITEM
DESCRIPTION QUANTITY
NI
UT
AMOUNT
UNIT
AMOUNT
UNIT
AMOUNT
1
Mobilization 1 LS $18,608.00
Traffic Control 1 LS 5,000.00
Construction Survey Staking 1 LS 15,000.00
Clear and Grubbing 1 LS 25,000.00
Gabion Grade Control Structures 995 CY 300.00
Unclassified Fill 2,000 CY 60.00
Grouted Rock Riprap 70 CY 150.00
18 -Inch RCP Storm Drain 58 LF 200.00
Salvage and Relocated Chain Link Fence 20 CY 20.00
8' Wrought Iron Fence and Two Gates 68 EA 70,00
Dewatering (for gabion bank protection only) 1.0 LS 5,000.00
Excavation for Gabion Bank Protection Struct 2,480.0 CY 20.00
Gabion Bank Protection Structures. 700 CY 260.00
Benched Backfll for Gabion Bank Protection 1;595' CY :25.00
15- Gallon Plant Material 35. EA 100.00
36 -Inch Box Plant Material 1 EA 1,000.00
Rooted Cutting Plant Material 585 EA 1.00
D -40 Plant Material 60 EA 2.10
Hydroseed 42,230 SF 0.20
and Relocate Oak Tree 1 EA 500.00
90 -Day Establishment & -60 -day Maintenance 1 EA 10,000.00
Total EE
$18,608.00
$48,000.00
$48,000.00
$65,000.00
$65,000.00
2
5,000.00
25,000.00
25,000.00
25,000.00
25,000.00
3
15,000.00
5,200.00
5,200.00
6,000.00
6,000.00
4
25,000.00
18,000.00
18,000.00
15,000.00
15,000.00
5
298,500.00
225.00
223,875.00
190.00
189,050.00
6
120,000.00
32.00
64,000.00
35.00.
70,000:00
7
10,500,00
180.00
12,600.00
400.00
28,000.00
8
11,600.00
172.00
9,976.00
< -See Note 1
178.00
10,324.00
9
400.00
132.00
2,640.00
150.00
3,000.00
10
4;760:00
180.00
12,240.00
400.00
27,200.00
11
5,000.00
12,000.00
12,000.00
13,000.00
;3,'00000
12
49,600.00
24.00
59,520.00
28.00
13
182,000.00
225.00
157,500.00
190.00
1WtObi,Q0
14
39,875.00
38.00
60,610.00
35.00
U 55W5i00
15
3,500.00
150.00
5,250.00
150.00
5,250.00
1,000.00
290.00
290.00
1,500.00
1,500.00
585.00
7.10
4,153.50
7.00
4,095.00
126.00
75.00
4,500.00
75.00
4,500.00
d2Salvage
8,446.00
0.15
6,334.50
0.15
6,334.50
500.00
4,880.00
4,880.00
15,000.00
15,000.00
10,000.00
52,500,00
52,500.00
50,000.00
50,000.00
$810,000.00
LOW
$789,069.00
2ND
$796,518.50
ASee Note 3
Note 1: Corrected from $100,964 to $9,976.
Note2: This is the amount assessed to 601 Rockford Road and 515 Rockford Place. It includes Bid Items 11 -14.
Note 3: Pazargad requested to withdraw its bid due to the bid error for Item 8. This request is granted. Sunquest is now the Low Bidder.
f: \users \pbw\ shared \contract100 -01\ \BID SUMMARY .xis
See Note 2 - -> $271,2bb.U(4W
Page 1
0 0
Feasibility and Alternatives Analysis 10
Morning Canyon Stabilization and Restoration Project
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.1 Project Location
The Morning Canyon Channel project site is located within the City of Newport Beach,
Orange County. The 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 Pacific Coast Highway (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 an unimproved condition
through the entire reach of the project site, and has been recently experiencing
significant erosion and degradation.
The project site is bounded by existing residential developments on both sides of the
creek. The Corona Highlands development is to the northwest, and the Cameo
Highlands development is located to the southeast. The downstream limit of the canyon
is at Pack Coast Highway. The upstream limit is an existing storm water detention
basin constructed as part of the Newport Coast development. The creek discharges to
the ocean approximately one - quarter mile south of the project site.
1.2 Project Applicant •
This Analysis will support an application for a CDP issued by the CCC. The formal
application will be filed by the following party, herein reference to as the Applicant:
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92658
Contact: Mr. Robert Stein
9491644 -3322
1.3 Project Description (Original Project)
Proposed Project Improvements:
The proposed project includes the reconstruction and restoration of Morning Canyon
channel through the use of grade control structures. Seven (7) grade control structures
are proposed along the canyon to restore the stream invert to its original grade, and to
establish an equilibrium slope to prevent future erosion and bank failures. The grade
control structures are proposed to be rock - filled gabion baskets. Each structure would
include a 3 -foot vertical drop height, and a length of approximately 35 feet. The banks of
the gabion structures vary from 5- to 6 -feet in height, and are designed to contain the
flow from a 100 -year frequency storm event. The voids in the rock - filled gabion baskets
are proposed to be backfilled with soil and re- vegetated to restore the canyon to a more •
natural channel system.
Feasibility Analysis - 1 - June 10, 2005
EXHIBIT D
• The project includes the use of approximately 800 cubic yards of earth fill to restore the
canyon invert to its previous elevations, and approximately 910 cubic yards of rock - filled
gabion baskets to form the 7 grade control structures.
Future Maintenance Activities:
Future maintenance activities for the proposed project are anticipated to be very minor,
and would generally include the following:
1. Annual inspections of the grade control structures
2. Inspections after Major storm events
3. Routine general maintenance would include:
a. Debris and exotic vegetation removal
b. Minor repairs to the wire mesh of the gabion baskets
4. Non - routing maintenance and repair would include:
a. Repair items identified during periodic inspections
5. Emergency repair work
Constructing Phasing and Maintenance Access:
Construction of the Morning Canyon Channel restoration is anticipated to occur from
September 2005 — November 2005. Construction staging and equipment storage shall
occur along Surrey Drive and the adjacent open space /park areas.
• Temporary Construction Access:
Construction of the proposed project would occur from the north end of the project site.
Access to the site will occur from Surrey Drive along an existing ingress /egress easement
previously dedicated to the City of Newport Beach. Implementation of the project will
require permanent and temporary easements for the adjacent property owners. A 22 -foot
drainage easement is currently dedicated from the properties along the southern side of the
canyon. Additional easements will be obtained from properties on both sides of the
canyon. A temporary construction access road is proposed to be graded to the channel
invert within the existing ingress /egress easement. The access road is proposed to be a
bladed earthen road that would be allowed to revegetate after construction.
•
Long -Term Maintenance Access:
Long -term access for maintenance operations is proposed to occur within the existing
ingresslegress easement. Annual inspections and minor maintenance would include
pedestrian access only. Major maintenance activities, if required, would require
reconstruction of the bladed earthen roadway installed during the initial construction
activities.
Feasibility Analysis .2. June 70, 2006
10 0
2.0 PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 0
2.1 Project Background /Need
Morning Canyon was a natural stream located in the Newport Coast watershed area.
The canyon extends from the Pacific Ocean upstream to the Pelican Hills Golf Course.
The upper canyon includes the reach from Pacific Coast Highway to the Pelican Hills
Golf Course, and is referred to as the "project reach." The upper canyon is bounded by
the Corona Highlands development to the north, and the Cameo Highlands development
to the south. The property lines for each of the developments generally extend to the
centerline of the canyon stream. The Cameo Highlands and Corona Highlands
developments were constructed in the 1950's. The construction of the Cameo
Highlands development included the placement of fill adjacent to the creek for the
creation of residential lots. The fill was placed at a slope of 1.5 horizontal to 1 vertical.
The Pelican Hills Golf Course and upstream Newport Coast development were
constructed in the 1990's.
In recent years the canyon through the project reach has been experiencing significant
erosion and degradation. The result of this stream erosion has been the development of
an incised channel, and failure of adjacent fill slopes resulting in property damage. As a
result of the erosion, some residents have installed ad -hoc scour protection measures to
provide some site - specific protection. These measures tend to propagate the problem to
a new location, and have resulted in lawsuit between property owners. Numerous •
hydrology, hydraulic, geomorphic, and geotechnical analyses have been developed for
Morning Canyon and its watershed in the past 15 years. These reports are generally a
result of erosion, slope failures, and property damage that have occurred along the
canyon, and attest to the need to develop a whole scale stream restoration project for
the upper Morning Canyon.
A sediment transport analysis was prepared for the project site to develop the
recommended improvements for the proposed project. The analysis was based on the
current condition of the watershed that has been fully developed. The purpose of the
analysis was to develop an equilibrium slope for the canyon. This is the slope that the
channel invert would tend to adjust to based on the current watershed conditions.
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 and lateral sources. The
equilibrium slope was determined to be approximately 0.0025 feet per foot. Over the
length of the project reach, this equilibrium slope could result in the lowering of the invert
by up to 21 feet.
This theoretical analysis was checked with actual field conditions to determine the
reasonableness of the predicted results. The construction of the Cameo Highlands
development included the installation of a 51 -inch diameter pipe which outlets to the
canyon via a box culvert energy dissipator at approximately the midpoint of the project
reach. The outlet of the pipe was constructed at the invert of the canyon, as
documented in a photograph in the Lockwood -Singh & Associates study of 1999. After
the 2004 /2005 -storm season, visual and topographic surveys of the canyon were •
performed by RBF. These surveys indicated that the invert of the canyon has dropped
Feasibility Analysis - 3 - June 10, 2005
9 0
. by approximately 10 -feet at the outlet of the 51 -inch storm drain. This corresponds very
closely with the predicted scour of 10.5 -feet at this location. Currently, a vertical drop of
approximately 7 -8 feet exists just downstream of the pipe energy dissipator. This is an
unsafe condition, and any further erosion will result in the failure of the energy dissipator
structure, and could result in the potential for significant property damage.
Stability analyses have been previously performed for the Cameo Highlands fill slope by
Douglas E. Morgan, Inc (1999), Lockwood -Singh & Associates (1999), Lotus Consulting
Engineers (2000), and Geofirm (2003). The results of these studies generally indicate
that the factor of safety of these fill slopes is less than 1.25, and are therefore prone to
failure. The Lockwood -Singh study indicated that during the 1997/1998 El Nino, years,
the down cutting and undercutting process contributed to the failure of the Wynkoop and
Walton slopes within the Cameo Highlands development. The erosion and degradation
of the channel invert removes some subjacent lateral support for the fill slopes and
further exacerbates the already unstable slopes. To minimize this problem, the Morning
Canyon stabilization project includes the filling of the incised canyon to reconstruct the
original channel grades.
Downstream Imoacts
The sediment distribution along Morning Canyon is characterized by a substantial
concentration of clays and silts, roughly 30 to 40 percent by volume, and an estimated
median grain size of 0.16 millimeters. In conjunction with its relative steepness, the
Canyon is sensitive to changes in erosion processes.
• The Morning Canyon project reach between Pacific Coast Highway and the Pelican Hill
Golf Course is currently undergoing accelerated degradation in order to establish
dynamic equilibrium. This is largely due to the concentration of runoff from two detention
basins located upstream on the Pelican Hill Golf Course as well as the reduction of the
sediment supply resulting from their function.
In particular, the project reach has undergone 10 feet of head - cutting alone at the mid -
reach outfall over the course of this current wet season, placing the adjacent slopes in
jeopardy of significant destabilization and possible failure. In addition, the degradation of
the project reach has resulted in further reduction of the sediment supply to the reach
downstream of Pacific Coast Highway.
The proposed improvements are not expected to cause further impacts to the reach
downstream of Pacific Coast Highway since the intent is to emulate the conditions of
dynamic equilibrium, which the Project reach has nearly established on its own.
However, in addition to establishing dynamic equilibrium, the proposed improvements
will provide the added benefit of protecting the adjacent slopes from potential failure.
2.2 Basic Purpose and Need Statement
The basic purpose of the proposed project can be expressed as follows:
Through the reconstruction and stabilization of Morning Canyon by the
• use of seven (7) grade control structures, the project shall restore the
stream to an equilibrium condition to prevent additional erosion and
Feasibility Analysis - 4 - June 10, 2005
0 0
degradation; restore the canyon bottom to its previous bed elevations and is
reduce the potential for adjacent slope failures; restore the canyon to a
more natural condition through the removal of exotic species and
replacement with native species.
2.3 Water Dependency
Due to the type of project site (drainage channel), and the improvements proposed
herein, this project has been identified as "water dependent'. No change of use is
proposed.
2.4 Uniqueness
The Morning Canyon Channel is unique due to regionalltopographic conditions (i.e.,
watersheds), engineering challenges (water conveyance and erosion), and public
health /safety with respect to slope stability.
3.0 EVALUATION OF FEASABILITY
Existing off -site drainage patterns, the location of the Morning Canyon Channel, the
surrounding urbanized land uses, and the confirmation of water dependency has
established the criteria for alternatives relative to identifying a feasible environmentally •
superior alternative, while achieving the Project's objectives and goals.
3.1 Analysis of the Alternatives
RBF has examined several possible scenarios and configurations in determining the
environmentally superior alternative for the canyon stabilization project. The proposed
project consists of wholesale improvements with respect to stabilization of the canyon
and protection of adjacent properties.
The proposed Project concept has been designed to restore an equilibrium condition to
the canyon, reconstruct the previous channel grades, and restore a more native canyon
condition. Alternatives to the proposed Project were developed, evaluated, and selected
based on their satisfaction of goals of the Project:
• Restore the canyon gradient to an equilibrium condition to prevent further
erosion and degradation;
• Reconstruct the canyon bed to the original grade to alleviate stability impacts to
the adjacent development slopes;
• Minimize adverse environmental effects; and
• Increase water quality associated with post - project conditions.
•
Feasibility Analysis - 5 - June 10, 2005
0 0
• More than seven (7) alternative project improvements have been considered during the
development of the Original Project (Alternative 1), the No Project Alternative,
Alternatives 2 through 5, and the "additional alternatives" not analyzed in detail within
this analysis. Due to the type of the improvements proposed, and the need to build the
improvements in the canyon, off -site "additional alternatives" beyond the immediate
project reach were not evaluated in this study.
3.2 Discussion of Alternatives
3.2.1 No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative would not accomplish any of the project objectives or goals.
The no- action plan would result in no improvements within the canyon, and would not
address the existing erosion problems that currently threaten adjacent land uses.
3.2.2 Alternative 1: Original Project - Gabion Grade Control
Alternative 1, also known as the original project, was considered by the Applicant in
order to fulfill the basic need and purpose of the project. Alternative 1 consists of the
installation of seven (7) rock - filled gabion grade control structures within the project
reach. This Alternative was presented to CCC Staff during an on -site Pre - Application
Field Meeting on April 28, 2005. Refer to the enclosed large -scale photographs and site
plans for more detail.
• Discussion of Alternative:
Project Function. The grade control structures would stabilize the canyon by creating an
equilibrium slope along the channel invert. The grade control structures use a 3 -foot
drop height typically recommended for the stabilization of degrading channels. The
structures would be placed along the creek to restore the canyon to the original grades.
The structures are proposed to be rock - filled gabion baskets, and will be backfilled with
soil and re- vegetated after construction. The location of the grade control structures and
incised channel fill would be consistent with the project's purpose and goal.
Public Health and Safety. Alternative 1 would achieve the Project's basic goal and
purpose. The canyon gradient would be stabilized to a state of dynamic equilibrium.
The incised channel would be filled to reconstruct the original grades and stabilize the
adjacent fill slopes.
Project Impacts. The proposed project includes the construction of 7 grade control
structures and the placement of earthen fill within the existing canyon. The project
includes approximately 910 cubic -yards of gabion baskets, and 800 cubic -yards of earth
fill. The total area of impact is 0.32 acres.
There is the potential that all altematives (excluding the No Project) will create temporary
impacts due to construction activities. Exposed surfaces, construction debris, equipment
and truck traffic will temporarily impact the project site. These impacts are considered
short-term, would cease upon project completion. Alternative No. 1 would minimize the
• temporary construction impacts through the use of smaller equipment for the
construction of the project improvements. The gabion baskets use smaller rock than a
Feasibility Analysis - 6 - June 10, 2005
0 0
rock riprap structure, and do not require the large dump trucks or loaders to place the
rock to fill the baskets.
Table 1
Impact Summary: Alternative 1
Improvement Type
Impact Type
Impacts
Grade Control Structures
Permanent'
910 cy fill
Elevation Fill
Permanent
800 cy fill
5' Work Area Buffer
Temporary
1.0 acres
Potential Restoration of
Habitat
NA
0.32 acres
1. t ms improvement consists of all impacts associated with the grade control structures.
2. Temporary impacts include access roads, excavation and work areas around
permanent impact areas.
Water Quality. Alternative 1 includes the reconstruction of a stable slope through the
project reach. This will eliminate erosion and scour issues currently associated with the
project site.
Vegetation Enhancement. The installation of gabion baskets will allow the grade control
structures to be backfilled with soil and re- vegetated to restore the canyon to a more
natural condition. The area of the gabion structures is 0.19 acres. The reconstruction of
the incised channel will also allow the canyon bottom to be re- vegetated with the project
construction. The area of the channel fill is 0.13 acres.
3.2.3 Alternative 2: No Elevation Fill
Alternative 2 was created in an effort to develop an alternative that did not include
placing fill within the existing canyon incised channel. This alternative would still include
the necessary drop structures within the existing channel; however, the locations and
heights are revised to work with the current condition. A large 12 -foot high drop
structure would be constructed at the outlet of the 51 -inch storm drain pipe. Due to the
height of the structure, this facility would need to be a reinforced concrete drop structure.
Two additional structures would be located upstream of the 51 -inch outlet pipe similar to
the locations in Alternative No. 1. These structures would be rock - filled gabion baskets.
Discussion of Alternative:
Project Function. The location of the grade control structures would be consistent with
the project's purpose and goal for establishment of an equilibrium slope only. The
stabilization of adjacent fill slopes would not be provided.
Public Health and Safety. Alternative 2 would achieve only one of the Project's basic
goal and purpose. A stable slope along the canyon bottom would be created. However,
since fill in the existing incised channel would be eliminated, adverse affects such as
Feasibility Analysis - 7 - June 10, 2005
0
•
L J
0
•
•
• •
continued instability of the adjacent fill slopes would continue. This issue is considered
important and is major public health and safety issue associated with the project.
Project Impacts. The proposed project includes the construction of 3 grade control
structures only. No placement of earthen fill within the existing incised canyon is
proposed. The project includes approximately 260 cubic -yards of gabion baskets, and a
reinforced concrete straight drop structure. The straight drop would be required to be
rectangular channel section with a length of approximately 40 feet, and with 20 feet of
loose riprap downstream. The total area of impact is 0.07 acres.
It should also be noted that there is a potential that Altemative 2 (as with Alternative 1)
will create temporary impacts due to construction activities. Exposed surfaces,
construction debris, equipment and truck traffic may temporarily impact views adjacent
to the site. These impacts are considered short-term, would cease upon project
completion. Alternative No. 2 would require the construction of a reinforced concrete
structure within the existing channel. Construction of this type of facility would require
access for large equipment such as concrete trucks, excavators, and dump trucks. This
equipment would require the temporary establishment of a large construction access
roadway.
Table 2
Impact Summary: Alternative 2
Improvement Type
Impact Type
Impacts
Grade Control Structures
Permanent
0.07 acres
Elevation Fill
Permanent
0.00 cy
10' Work Area Buffer
Temporary
1.2 acres
Potential Restoration of
Habitat
1%
0.05 acres
Water Quality. Alternative 2 includes the reconstruction of a stable slope through the
project reach. This will eliminate erosion and scour issues currently associated with the
project site.
Vegetation Restoration. The installation of the 2 gabion baskets will allow the grade
control structures to be backfilled with soil and re- vegetated to restore the canyon to a
more natural condition. The area of the gabion structures is 0.05 acres. The existing
incised canyon or reinforced concrete structure would not allow for vegetation
restoration.
3.2.4 Alternative 3: Grouted Riprap Grade Control
Alternative 3 is similar to Alternative 1, except that the rock - filled gabion grade control
structures would be replaced with grouted rock riprap structures. Grouted rock would be
Feasibility Analysis
ra
June 10, 2005
•
required, rather than loose rock, due to the slope and flow velocities within the
structures.
Discussion of Alternative:
Project Function. The grade control structures would stabilize the canyon by creating an
equilibrium slope along the channel invert. The grade control structures use a 3 -foot
drop height typically recommended for the stabilization of degrading channels. The
structures would be placed along the creek to restore the canyon to the original grades.
The structures are proposed to be grouted riprap and would not allow for re- vegetated
after construction. The location of the grade control structures and incised channel fill
would be consistent with the project's purpose and goal.
Public Health and Safety. Alternative 3 would achieve the Project's basic goal and
purpose. The canyon gradient would be stabilized to a state of dynamic equilibrium.
The incised channel would be filled to reconstruct the original grades and stabilize the
adjacent fill slopes.
Project Impacts. The proposed project includes the construction of 7 grade control
structures and the placement of earthen fill within the existing canyon. The project
includes approximately 1,050 cubic -yards of grouted rock riprap, and 800 cubic -yards of
earth fill. The total area of impact is 0.35 acres.
There is the potential that all alternatives (excluding the No Project) will create temporary
impacts due to construction activities. Exposed surfaces, construction debris, equipment
and truck traffic will temporarily impact the project site. These impacts are considered
short-term, would cease upon project completion. Alternative No. 3 would require the
construction of grouted rock riprap structures within the existing channel. Construction
of this type of facility would require access for large equipment such as concrete trucks,
excavators, and dump trucks. This equipment would require the temporary
establishment of a large construction access roadway.
Table 3
Impact Summary: Alternative 3
Improvement Type
Impact Type
Impacts
Grade Control Structures
Permanent'
1050 cy fill
Elevation Fill
Permanent
800 cy fill
10' Work Area Buffer
Temporary
1.2 acres
Potential Restoration of
Habitat
NA
0.13 acres
Water Quality. Alternative 3 includes the reconstruction of a stable slope through the
project reach. This will eliminate erosion and scour issues currently associated with the
project site.
Feasibility Analysis 9 - June 10, 2005
F
•
•
0 0
• Vegetation Enhancement. The installation of grouted rock riprap structures would not
allow the grade control structures to be re- vegetated after construction. The
reconstruction of the incised channel will allow the canyon bottom to be re- vegetated
with the project construction. The area of the channel fill is 0.13 acres.
3.2.5 Alternative 4: Vinyl Sheet Pile Grade Control
Alternative 4 is similar to Alternative 1, except that the rock - filled gabion grade control
structures would be replaced with vinyl (or steel) sheet piles for the drop structures, and
30 -feet of loose riprap for scour and erosion protection downstream of the drops. Final
determination of vinyl or steel sheet piles would be dependant on the results of
additional geotechnical analyses to determine the corrosive properties of the soil and
bedrock elevations.
Discussion of Alternative:
Project Function. The grade control structures would stabilize the canyon by creating an
equilibrium slope along the channel invert. The grade control structures use a 3 -foot
drop height typically recommended for the stabilization of degrading channels. The
structures would be placed along the creek to restore the canyon to the original grades.
The structures are proposed to be vinyl sheet pipes and loose riprap and would not allow
for re- vegetated after construction. The location of the grade control structures and
incised channel fill would be consistent with the project's purpose and goal.
• Public Health and Safety. Alternative 4 would achieve the Project's basic goal and
purpose. The canyon gradient would be stabilized to a state of dynamic equilibrium.
The incised channel would be filled to reconstruct the original grades and stabilize the
adjacent fill slopes.
Project Impacts. The proposed project includes the construction of 7 grade control
structures and the placement of earthen fill within the existing canyon. The project
includes approximately 900 cubic -yards of loose rock riprap, and 800 cubic -yards of
earth fill. The total area of impact is 0.32 acres.
There is the potential that all alternatives (excluding the No Project) will create temporary
impacts due to construction activities. Exposed surfaces, construction debris, equipment
and truck traffic will temporarily impact the project site. These impacts are considered
short-term, would cease upon project completion. Altemative No. 4 would require the
installation of sheet piles and placement of large rock riprap within the existing channel.
Construction of this type of facility would require access for large equipment such as
excavators, and dump trucks. This equipment would require the temporary
establishment of a large construction access roadway.
Feasibility Analysis -10- June 10, 2005
•
Table 4
Impact Summary: Alternative 4
•
Improvement Type
Impact Type
Impacts
Grade Control Structures
Permanent'
900 cy fill
Elevation Fill
Permanent
800 Cy fill
10' Work Area Buffer
Temporary
1.2 acres
Potential Restoration of
Habitat
NA
0.73 acres
Water Quality. Alternative 4 includes the reconstruction of a stable slope through the
project reach. This will eliminate erosion and scour issues currently associated with the
project site.
Vegetation Enhancement. The installation of sheet pile and rock riprap scour protection
would not allow the grade control structures to be re- vegetated after construction. The
reconstruction of the incised channel will allow the canyon bottom to be re- vegetated
with the project construction. The area of the channel fill is 0.13 acres.
3.2.6 Alternative 5: Soil Cement Grade Control
Alternative 5 is similar to Alternative 4, except that the sheet pile drop structures would
be replaced with soil cement drop structures. The soil cement drop structures would
have a crest width of 8 -feet and a 1:1 slope for the 3 -foot drop. Loose riprap would be
required downstream of the drops, similar to Alternative 4.
Discussion of Alternative:
Project Function. The grade control structures would stabilize the canyon by creating an
equilibrium slope along the channel invert. The grade control structures use a 3 -foot
drop height typically recommended for the stabilization of degrading channels. The
structures would be placed along the creek to restore the canyon to the original grades.
The structures are proposed to be soil cement and loose riprap and would not allow for
re- vegetated after construction. The location of the grade control structures and incised
channel fill would be consistent with the project's purpose and goal.
Public Health and Safety. Alternative
purpose. The canyon gradient would
The incised channel would be filled to
adjacent fill slopes.
5 would achieve the Project's basic goal and
be stabilized to a state of dynamic equilibrium.
reconstruct the original grades and stabilize the
Project Impacts. The proposed project includes the construction of 7 grade control
structures and the placement of earthen fill within the existing canyon. The project
includes approximately 460 cubic -yards of soil cement, 900 cubic-yards of loose rock
riprap, and 800 cubic -yards of earth fill. The total area of impact is 0.34 acres.
Feasibility Analysis _111- June 10, 2005
•
E
•
• There is the potential that all alternatives (excluding the No Project) will create temporary
impacts due to construction activities. Exposed surfaces, construction debris, equipment
and truck traffic will temporarily impact the project site. These impacts are considered
short -term, would cease upon project completion. Alternative No. 5 would require the
installation of soil cement and placement of large rock riprap within the existing channel.
Construction of this type of facility would require access for large equipment such as
concrete trucks, excavators, and dump trucks. This equipment would require the
temporary establishment of a large construction access roadway.
Table 4
Impact Summary: Alternative 4
Improvement Type
Impact Type
Impacts
Grade Control Structures
Permanent'
1,360 cy fill
Elevation Fill
Permanent
800 cy fill
10' Work Area Buffer
Temporary
1.2 acres
Potential Restoration of
Habitat
NA
0.13 acres
• Wafer Quality. Alternative 5 includes the reconstruction of a stable slope through the
project reach. This will eliminate erosion and scour issues currently associated with the
project site.
Vegetation Enhancement. The installation of soil cement and rock riprap scour protection
would not allow the grade control structures to be re- vegetated after construction. The
reconstruction of the incised channel will allow the canyon bottom to be re- vegetated with
the project construction. The area of the channel fill is 0.13 acres.
3.2.7 Alternatives Considered But Not Evaluated
Several alternatives were considered during the planning process, but were not
evaluated in detail due to the following:
Offsite Proiect Location:
The Morning Canyon Channel is unique due to regional/topographic conditions (i.e.,
watersheds), engineering challenges (water conveyance and erosion), and public
health /safety with respect to slope stability.
The 2 major components of the project's objective are to establish an equilibrium slope
for the existing canyon bed, and stabilization of the adjacent fill slopes. Therefore,
offsite project improvements would not meet the project goals.
Feasibility Analysis -12- June 10, 2005
• •
E
Full Channel Alternative:
Installation of a channel system through the entire canyon was briefly reviewed as a
potential project alternative to eliminate erosion and degradation in the canyon. This
alternative would result in much greater impacts to the canyon which could not be
mitigated by habitat restoration. A channel system would also result in significant
impacts to properties in the lower one -third of the project reach. This segment would
need to include channel improvements to convey the water to the existing culvert at
Pacific Coast Highway, or would require construction of a large energy dissipator
structure to reduce the higher flow velocities in an improved channel. Therefore, full
channel alternatives were not considered.
4.0 CONCLUSION
This Analysis focused on five (5) specific alternatives (including the No Project
Alternative) in order to identify a feasible environmentally superior alternative that is
consistent with the project objectives, purpose, and need. Those alternatives, and the
results of the analysis, are as follows:
The No Project Alternative, in which no discharge of fill material would occur on -site
would have the least environmental impacts. However, this Alternative does not meet
the project's objective and protect the public welfare and is inconsistent with the purpose •
and need. No modifications to the canyon would occur and existing erosion and slope
stability issues would remain. The No Project Alternative is not considered to be a
feasible option.
Alternative 1, the Original Project (Gabion Grade Control), meets all project objectives
and goals. The Alternative was created to achieve all objectives; consequently, the
Alternative is the recommended plan.
Alternative 2, No Elevation Fill, meets only half of the project objectives and goals.
Since the incised channel fill was eliminated, goals of improving public safety for the
adjacent residential fill slope are not meet. Therefore, Alternative 2 is not considered to
be a feasible option.
Alternative 3, Grouted Riprap Grade Control, meets all of the project objectives and
goals. As with Alternative 1, channel fill and rock will be placed in the existing canyon.
However, due to the type of material used for the grade control structures, less
restoration of habitat is possible with this alternative. This alternative also results in
larger temporary construction impacts. Due to the increase of environmental impacts,
this is not an environmentally superior alternative. Therefore, Alternative 3 is not
considered to be a feasible option.
Alternative 4, Vinyl Sheet Pile Grade Control, meets all of the project objectives and
goals. As with Alternative 1, channel fill and rock will be placed in the existing canyon.
However, due to the type of material used for the grade control structures, less
restoration of habitat is possible with this alternative. This alternative also results in
Feasibility Analysis -13- June 10, 2005
0 0
• larger temporary construction impacts. Due to the increase of environmental impacts,
this is not an environmentally superior alternative. Therefore, Alternative 4 is not
considered to be a feasible option.
•
•
Alternative 5, Soil Cement Grade Control, meets all of the project objectives and goals.
As with Alternative 1, channel fill, soil cement, and rock will be placed in the existing
canyon. However, due to the type of material used for the grade control structures, less
restoration of habitat is possible with this alternative. This alternative also results in
larger temporary construction impacts. Due to the increase of environmental impacts,
this is not an environmentally superior alternative. Therefore, Alternative 5 is not
considered to be a feasible option.
Based on the discussion contained herein, Alternative 1 has been identified as the most
feasible environmentally superior alternative.
Feasibility Analysis -14- June 10, 2005
0 0
REFERENCES
Douglas E. Morgan, Inc. `Results of Investigation, Slope Damage, Wynkoop and Walton
Properties, 601 Rockford Road and 515 Rockford Place, Corona Del Mar, California."
January 29, 1999.
Geofirm. "Geotechnical Evaution and Recommendation for Repair of Slope Failure, 515
Rockford Place and 601 Rockford Road, Corona Del Mar, California." May 28, 2003
Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. "Document Review and Site Observations, Wynkoop
Property and Walton Property 601 Rockford Road and 515 Rockford Place, Corona Del
Mar, California." January 12, 1999.
John M. Tettemer & Associates, Ltd. 'Report on Storm Runoff Conditions in Buck Gully
and Morning Canyon." February 1996,
Lawrence R. Wlezien, Inc. "Job No. 3154 — WYNKOOP, ET AL V. ROUSE, ET AL."
January 27, 1999.
Lockwood -Singh & Associates. "Hydrologic, Geomorphic, Hydraulic and Geotechnical
Findings Regarding Morning Canyon Watershed, and Related Channel and Slope
Processes, Newport Beach, California." February 1, 1999.
Lotus Consulting Engineers, Inc. "Preliminary Geotechnical Report Existing 1997 -1998
Sloe Failure at the Rear of 601 Rockford Road & 515 Rockford Place, Corona Del Mar,
California." September 25, 2000.
Moffatt & Nichol, Engineers. "Morning Canyon Sedimentation (MNE 2450 -08)." April 14,
1992.
RBF Consulting. "Morning Canyon Stream Stability and Channel Restoration Study."
Draft March 2005.
Rivertech, Inc. "Morning Canyon Stabilization, Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses."
August 2002.
Feasibility Analysis -15- June 10, 2005
CJ
•
0 0
RESOLUTION NO. 2005 - _
is A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT
BEACH DECLARING THE IMMEDIATE STABILIZIATION OF MORNING
CANYON TO BE A MATTER REQUIRING EMERGENCY ACTION,
CONFIRMING AUTHORIZATION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
TO AWARD A CONTRACT FOR THE STABILIZATION OF THE
CANYON , AND CONFIRMING THE AWARD OF THE CONTRACT TO
SUNQUEST GENERAL ENGINEERING
The City Council finds and declares as follows:
WHEREAS, urban development in the Morning Canyon watershed over the past
60 years has reached a critical point such that the canyon bottom is rapidly eroding;
and
WHEREAS, the fill material on the Cameo Highlands canyon slopes sits on a
clay layer which in turn sits on an adversely inclined bed surface, and that this barely
stable slope condition can be disrupted with minor amounts of infiltrated rainwater, and
that the 2005 catastrophic Bluebird Canyon slope failure in Laguna Beach was due to
a similar failure mode and resulted in substantial loss of property and endangered
residents; and
• WHEREAS, the risk assessment by Leighton Consulting, Inc. dated August 8,
2005, states that in Morning Canyon, especially "... where the manufactured fill
comprises the major portion of canyon side, the landsliding risk is very high. Almost
certainly there will be a massive landsliding even if the next rainy season produces
moderate rain and stream flow"; and
WHEREAS, the storm season officially commences on October 15 and
significant rainfall usually is expected no later than January; and
WHEREAS, a rigorous assessment of the canyon hydrodynamics and sediment
transport has been performed and has been used as the basis for the preparation of
engineered drawings and specifications to repair the canyon flood plain and install
engineered gabion control structures to forestall future streambed erosion in an
environmentally sensitive manner in accordance with best practices and in concert with
the regulatory agencies; and
WHEREAS, the project will take approximately 60 days to complete; and
WHEREAS, permit applications have been submitted and approved by State
Fish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers and Regional Water Quality Control Board;
and
• WHEREAS, the permit application with the California Coastal Commission
(CCC) has been deemed complete and City staff has met with CCC staff to discuss the
project, CCC staff cannot agendize the permit application to be heard before the
EXHIBIT E
0 0
Commission until October 13 and such a delay will put the City in jeopardy of not being •
able to complete the project in advance of the expected storms within the winter rain
season.
NOW THEREFORE, based upon the above findings, the City Council declares the
conditions in Morning Canyon constitute an emergency situation and that staff is
directed to:
1. Move forward with the Morning Canyon Stabilization Project so work can be
completed in advance of the expected storms and
2. Continue working with California Coastal Commission staff to secure a
Coastal Development Permit and make their best efforts to incorporate the
conditions of the permit into the ongoing project.
Adopted this day of 2005
John Heffernan Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
f: WsersVpbMshared \resolutions\moming canyon stabilization.doc
C 1
• REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AND
CHRISTOPHER WYNKOOP AND JOY WYNKOOP AS INDIVIDUALS
AND TRUSTEES OF THE WYNKOOP FAMILY TRUST AND
CHARLOTTE WALTON AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND AS TRUSTEE FOR
THE MENZIES FAMILY TRUST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE
MORNING CANYON STABILIZATION PROJECT
THIS REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT ( "Agreement "), is made and entered into on
this day of , 2005, by and between: THE CITY OF NEWPORT
BEACH, California, a Municipal Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City", and Christopher
Wynkoop and Joy Wynkoop, as individuals and as trustees of the Wynkoop Family Trust,
hereinafter collectively referred to as the " Wynkoops" and Charlotte Walton as an individual and
as trustee of the Menzies Family Trust, hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Walton ". The
Wynkoops and the Walton shall hereinafter be referred to collectively as the "Owners." The
Owners and City are sometimes hereinafter individually referred to as "party" and hereinafter
collectively referred to as "parties."
RECITALS
WHEREAS, City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under
• the laws of the State of California with the power to cant' on its business as it is now being
conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of the City; and
WHEREAS, the Wynkoops are the owners of the real property located at 601 Rockford
Road, Corona del Mar, California, APN 475 031 15, hereinafter referred to as the " Wynkoops
Property"; and
WHEREAS, the Waltons are the owners of the real property located at 515 Rockford
Place, Corona del mar, California, APN 475 031 13, hereinafter referred to as the "Walton
Property", (hereinafter the Wynkoops Property and the Waltons Property shall be collectively
referred to as the "Owners Property "); and
WHEREAS, the City is proposing to construct the project commonly known as the
"Morning Canyon Stabilization Project" shown in Exhibit "A" which includes the clearing of
vegetation, importing of fill, localized regrading of the canyon bottom, installing seven gabion
structures, installing grouted rock at the end structure of the 42 -inch storm drain main, installing
gabion slope protection at selected locations, broadcasting hydroseed in the canyon bottom,
revegetating areas of the canyon and other appurtenant and incidental items of work (the
"Projeen; and
WHEREAS, the parties previously agreed that to construct the Project, certain
improvements to the Owners Property would need to be made for which the City would be
reimbursed; and
•
EXHIBIT F
Page t of 8
0 0
WHEREAS, based on the Owners representation that the Owners would reimburse the •
City, the City did incorporate improvements to the Owners Property into the Project which
improvements include an 18 inch RCP Strom Drain (fifty -one (5 1) linear feet of which is the
responsibility of the Owners), excavating and dewatering for the gabion bank protection,
installing gabion bank protection and backfilling behind the gabion bank protection as delineated
and described in more detail as items 8, 11, 12, 13 and 14 respectively on Exhibit B which is
attached hereto and incorporated by this reference, hereinafter collectively referred to as the
"Owner Improvements "; and
WHEREAS, the estimated cost of constructing Owner Improvements is Two Hundred
Seventy -One Thousand Two Hundred Sixty -Five Dollars and No Cents ($271,265.00),
hereinafter referred to as the "Cost Estimate "; and
. WHEREAS, the Owners have agreed to fully reimburse the City for all costs associated
with constructing Owner Improvements even if said costs exceed the Cost Estimate; and
WHEREAS, the City and Owners acknowledge that there is a risk in constructing the
Project and Owner Improvements in that the construction of the Project and the Owner
Improvements may cause slope failures on the Owners Property and other damages to the
Owners Property and other properties adjoining the Project area; and
WHEREAS, the Owners have agreed to expressly assume all risk of damages to the
Owners Property that may result from the construction of the Project and Owner Improvements
and to waive and release the City from all damages from the construction of the Project and •
Owner Improvements including, but not limited to, slope failures or other acts of passive or
active negligence; and
WHEREAS, the Owners acknowledge and agree that the City is not guaranteeing that
construction of the Project and Owner Improvements will prevent any damages to the Owner's
Property including, but not limited to, slope failures or other damages and that the City is not
assuming liability for any damages associated in any way with its construction of the Project;
and
WHEREAS, City has agreed to administer and manage the design and construction
contracts for the Project subject to the conditions set forth below.
AGREEMENT
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein, the
Parties hereto agree as follows:
Section 1: Recitals. The Recitals above are deemed true and correct, are hereby
incorporated in this Section as though fully set forth herein, and each Party to this Agreement
acknowledges and agrees that such Party is bound by the same.
Section 2: Elements of Agreement. City and Owners shall work cooperatively •
together so the Project can be constructed in a manner that minimizes the costs and impacts to
Page 2 of 8
• 0
• the public. The specific terns and conditions governing the elements of this Agreement are set
forth hereinafter.
Section 3: City's Specific Obligations. City shall administer and manage the design
and construction contracts for the Project. The City shall have the sole and absolute discretion as
to all aspects of design and construction of the Project, as well as construction change orders
related thereto. The City shall be obligated to ensure that all necessary building permits to
construct the Project are obtained.
Section 4: Owner's Specific Obligations. Owners shall:
A. Reimburse the City for all costs associated with the construction of
the Owner Improvements even if the costs exceed the Cost Estimate. The Waltons and
Wynkoops shall split any cost of reimbursement on an equal basis.
B. Concurrent with Owners execution of this Agreement, the
Wynkoops and Walton shall each tender a cashiers check made payable to the "City of Newport
Beach" in the amount of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars and NO/Cents ($150,000.00)
for a total of Three Hundred Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($300,000.00), hereinafter
referred to as the "Deposit ". The City shall maintain the Deposit in a separate account. The City
shall have the right to withdraw funds to pay for the construction of the Owner Improvements as
the Owner Improvements are constructed. The City in its sole discretion may at any time
• provide the Owners with written notice that additional funds must be placed on deposit with the
City to cover actual or projected costs of constructing the Owner Improvements and the Owners
shall have three (3) calendar days after receipt of this notice to deposit the additional funds with
the City. Any additional deposit requested by the City shall be split between the Wynkoops and
Walton on an equal basis. Upon final completion of the Project, the City shall refund Owners
funds on deposit with the City, if any, that were not necessary to pay for costs associated in any
with the construction of the Owner Improvements. Any refund shall be paid to the Wynkoops
and Waltons on an equal basis.
C. The Owners agree that the Cost Estimate is only an estimate and
that extra work, changed conditions, differing site conditions or other factors may result in
change orders increasing the cost of constructing the Owner Improvements. The Owners agree
that the City shall have sole discretion to approve any change orders that the City determines are
necessary and that the Owners shall be liable for all change orders that relate in any way to the
Owners' Improvements. The Waltons and Wynkoops shall split the cost of any change orders on
an equal basis.
D. Owners agree to accept the Owner Improvements upon final
completion of the Project, as determined by the City in its sole and absolute discretion. After
final completion of the Project, the City shall have no duty to repair, maintain, remove or take
any other action associated in any way with the Owner Improvements.
Section 5: Hold Harmless. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Owners shall
• indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards and commission, officers,
Page 3 of 8
0 0
consultants, contractors, subcontractors, vendors, volunteers, agents, attorneys 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 the Owner Improvements including, but
not limited to, the construction of the Owner Improvements, the effects of the Owner
Improvements, and/or the impacts caused by the Owner Improvements on any other person or
property including, but not limited to adjoining properties and/or adjoining property owners; any
representation or warranty set forth herein that is determined to be false; and/or Owners'
presence or activities conducted on or about the Project (including the negligent and/or willful
acts, errors and/or omissions of Owners, their principals, officers, agents, employees, vendors,
suppliers, consultants, contractors, 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 Owners to
indemnify the Indemnified Parties from any Claim arising from the sole negligence or willful
misconduct of the Indemnified Parties. The parties expressly agree that the design of the Owner
Improvements was a collaborative effort among the parties and the City shall not be deemed to
be solely negligent for the design of the Owner Improvements. 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.
Section 6: Waiver and Release of Liability: The Owners hereby acknowledge
and agree as follows:
A. THE OWNERS RECOGNIZE AND AGREE THAT: (1)
CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT AND OWNER IMPROVEMENTS IS
DANGEROUS AND CONTAINS RISK OF PERSONAL INJURY, DEATH,
DISABILITY, OR PROPERTY DAMAGE OR LOSS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED
TO SLOPE FAILURES ON THE OWNERS PROPERTY AND /OR OTHER DAMAGES
(HEREINAFTER "DAMAGES "); (2) THE CITY IS NOT GUARANTEEING THAT
CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT AND OWNER IMPROVEMENTS WILL
PREVENT FUTURE DAMAGES TO THE OWNERS PROPERTY; AND (3) THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE OWNER IMPROVEMENTS MAY RESULT IN FUTURE
DAMAGES TO OWNERS PROPERTY OR OTHER ADJOINING PROPERTIES.
B. THE OWNERS RECOGNIZE AND AGREE THAT THEY
HAVE BEEN FULLY INFORMED OF ALL ASPECTS OF THE PROJECT
INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE OWNER
IMPROVEMENTS AND OWNERS EXPRESSLY APPROVE OF THE DESIGN FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF THE OWNER IMPROVEMENTS. DESPITE THE POTENTIAL
RISK OF DAMAGES TO OWNERS AS A RESULT OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF
THE PROJECT AND OWNER IMPROVEMENTS, EACH OWNER HAS DECIDED TO •
EXPRESSLY ASSUME THE RISK OF DAMAGES TO OWNERS CAUSED BY THE
Page 4 of 8
0 0
•CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT AND OWNER IMPROVEMENTS. THE
OWNERS UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THEY ARE VOLUNTARILY
AGREEING TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT AND OWNER
IMPROVEMENTS.
C. THE OWNERS HEREBY AGREE TO EXPRESSLY ASSUME ANY
AND ALL RISK, RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY FOR ALL RISKS
ASSOCIATED IN ANY WAY WITH THE PROJECT AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE
OWNER IMPROVEMENTS, WHETHER IDENTIFIED BY THE CITY OR NOT
INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE FOLLOWING: (1) RISK OF SLOPE
FAILURES ON OWNERS PROPERTY CAUSED BY THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
PROJECT AND OWNER IMPROVEMENTS; (2) RISK THAT THE PROJECT AND
OWNER IMPROVEMENTS MAY NOT PROTECT OWNERS PROPERTY FROM
FUTURE DAMAGES; (3) RISK THAT THE OWNER IMPROVEMENTS MAY CAUSE
DAMAGES TO OWNERS PROPERTY OR OTHER PROPERTIES OR PERSONS
INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADJOINING PROPERTIES AND ADJOINING
PROPERTY OWNERS; AND (4) RISK OF PASSIVE OR ACTIVE NEGLIGENCE
AND /OR OTHER ACT OR OMISSION THAT MAY RESULT IN DAMAGES.
D. BY EXECUTING THIS AGREEMENT AND INITIALING BELOW
THE OWNERS FOR THEMSELVES, THEIR HEIRS, OR ANYONE .WHO MIGHT
CLAIM ON THEIR BEHALF, AGREE NOT TO BRING ANY CLAIM, AND WAIVE,
RELEASE AND DISCHARGE THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, ITS CITY
COUNCIL, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, OFFICIALS, OFFICERS, AGENTS,
VOLUNTEERS, CONSULTANTS, CONTRACTORS, ANY SUBCONTRACTORS,
VENDORS, ATTORNEYS AND EMPLOYEES FOR ANY DAMAGES, LOSSES, COSTS
AND EXPENSE ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED IN ANY WAY TO THE PROJECT
AND OWNER IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ALL
LIABILITY FOR: (1) THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT AND OWNER
IMPROVEMENTS; (2) ANY FUTURE DAMAGES CAUSED BY THE PROJECT AND
OWNER IMPROVEMENTS TO THE OWNERS PROPERTY OR OTHER
PROPERTIES OR PERSONS INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADJOINING
PROPERTIES AND /OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS; (3) THE FAILURE OF
THE PROJECT AND OWNER IMPROVEMENTS TO PREVENT DAMAGES OF ANY
NATURE; AND (4) ANY ACTIVE OR PASSIVE NEGLIGENCE OR ACT OR
OMISSION BY THE CITY, ITS CITY COUNCIL, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS,
OFFICIALS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, VOLUNTEERS, CONSULTANTS,
CONTRACTORS, ANY SUBCONTRACTORS, VENDORS, ATTORNEYS AND
EMPLOYEES. THIS RELEASE AND WAIVER EXTENDS TO ALL CLAIMS OF
EVERY KIND OR NATURE WHATSOEVER FORESEEN OR UNFORESEEN,
KNOWN OR UNKNOWN. EACH OWNER EXPRESSLY INTENDS THIS RELEASE
TO BE EFFECTIVE, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE CLAIM OF LIABILITY IS
ASSERTED IN NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY OR OTHER THEORY OF
RECOVERY.
• E. EACH OWNER HAS READ, UNDERSTANDS AND AGREES TO
THE WAIVER AND RELEASE OF LIABILITY. EACH OWNER UNDERSTANDS
Page 5 of 8
THAT BY THEIR SIGNATURE ON THIS AGREEMENT AND BY INITIALING •
BELOW, THAT EACH OWNER IS WAIVING FOR THEMSELVES RIGHTS,
INCLUDING ANY RIGHTS THEY MAY HAVE AGAINST THE CITY OF NEWPORT
BEACH OR ITS CITY COUNCIL, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, OFFICERS,
OFFICIALS, AGENTS, VOLUNTEERS, CONSULTANTS, CONTRACTORS, ANY
SUBCONTRACTORS, VENDORS, ATTORNEYS AND EMPLOYEES.
Christopher Wynkoop Joy Wynkoop Charlotte Walton
Section 7 Improvements Constructed By Owners. Owners shall not construct or
place any wall or structure that creates a water barrier across the Project area. Further, owners
shall not construct or place any wall or structure that concentrates water flow entering the Project
area without the express written permission of the City which may deny said request in
accordance with Section 7(A) below.
A. Before constructing or placing any wall or structure that
concentrates water flow entering the Project area, the Owners shall be required to obtain the
approval of the City which, in its sole discretion, may deny the request if the City determines that
concentrating water flow would adversely impact flood control operations in the Project area, or
the properties adjacent to the Project area. The Grantor shall provide any and all information; .
drawing sand other materials requested by the Director of the Public Works Department of the
City of Newport Beach or his/her designee necessary to make said determination.
B. Any improvements permitted by the City which may be allowed
shall be operated and maintained at no cost to the City.
Section 8: Term. This Agreement shall be in full force and effect until the specified
obligations of both Parties have been fulfilled or the Agreement is terminated as set forth herein.
Section 9: Notices. All notices or other communications required or permitted
hereunder shall be in writing and shall be personally delivered or sent by registered or certified
mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, delivered or sent by electronic transmission, and
shall be deemed received upon the earlier of (i) the date of delivery to the address of the person
to receive such notice if delivered personally or by messenger or overnight courier; (ii) three (3)
business days after the date of posting by the United States Post Office if by mail; or (iii) when
sent if given by electronic transmission. Any notice, request, demand, direction, or other
communication sent by electronic transmission must be confirmed within forty -eight (48) hours
by letter mailed or delivered. Notices or other communications shall be addressed as follows:
To City: City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663 •
Attention: Public Works Director
Facsimile: (949) 644 -3020
Page 6 of 8
• To Owners: Christopher Wynkoop
Joy Wynkoop
601 Rockford Road
Corona del Mar, California 92625
Facsimile (949) 851 -1740
Charlotte Walton
2133 E. Nicolet
Phoenix, Arizona 85020
Facsimile (602) 264 -6140
Section 10: 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.
Section 11: No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is entered into by and for
the Owners and the City, and nothing herein is intended to establish rights or interests in
individuals or entities not a party hereto.
Section 12: Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding
and agreement between the Parties and supersedes all previous negotiations between them
pertaining to the subject matter thereof.
• Section 13: Waiver. A waiver of a breach of the covenants, conditions, or obligations
under this Agreement by either Party shall not be construed as a waiver of any succeeding breach
of the same or other covenants, conditions, or obligations of this Agreement.
Section 14: Modification. Alteration, change, or modification of this Agreement shall
be in the form of a written amendment, which shall be signed by each Party.
Section 15. Severabilitv. Whenever possible, each provision of this Agreement shall
be interpreted in such a manner as to be effective and valid under applicable law, but if any
provision of this Agreement shall be invalid under the applicable law, such provision shall be
ineffective only to the extent of such prohibition or invalidity, without invalidating the reminder
of that provision, or the remaining provisions of this Agreement.
Section 16. Warranties and Representations. The Wynkoops represent and guarantee
that the Wynkoop Family Trust is the sole owner of the Wynkoop Property and that the
Wynkoops are the trustees of the Wynkoop Family Trust and have the authority to enter into this
Agreement. The Waltons represent and guarantee that the Menzies Family Trust is the sole
owner of the Walton Property and that Charlotte Walton is the trustee of the Menzies Family
trust and has the authority to enter into this Agreement.
Section 17. 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
Page 7 of 8
C�
0
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 Owners.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed
as of the day and year first above written.
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Lo
City Attorney
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
By
Mayor
ATTEST:
By
City Clerk
OWNERS
By
Christopher Wynkoop as an individual
and as trustee of the Wynkoop Family Trust
By
M
Joy Wynkoop as an individual
and as trustee of the Wynkoop Family Trust
C,
J
Charlotte Walton as an individual
and as trustee of the Menzies Family Trust •
eaweWuw �mn :dry 04-0 n�omt mrn do ]�3517V b ae ,a= oo
MWSA
Page 8 of 8
0
•
•
RISK ASSESSMENT, EMBANKMENT FAILURE ALONG MORNING CANYON,
WESTERLY OF ROCKFORD ROAD, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:.
City of Newport Beach
Public Works Department
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, California 92658
Project No. 600997 -001
August 8, 2005
4
Leighton Consulting, Inc.
A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY
EXHIBIT G
4 0
Leighton Consulting, Inc.
A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY
August 8, 2005
Project No. 600997 -001
To: City of Newport Beach
Public Works Department
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, California 92658
Attention: Mr. Robert Stein
Subject: Risk Assessment, Embankment Failure Along Morning Canyon, Westerly of
Rockford Road, Newport Beach, California
In accordance with your request, Leighton Consulting, Inc. has performed a limited review of the .
geotechnical conditions along the banks of Morning Canyon where stream downcutting of the
thread of the canyon has oversteepened the toe of canyon side slopes that support residences
along Rockford Road, Rockford Place and Seaward Road. The purpose of our review was to
provide risk assessment guidelines.
In general, the thread of the canyon exposes bedrock of the Monterey Formation, a sedimentary
rock with likely inclusion of weak sedimentary layers. Residential development of the area in
the 1950's was achieved by placement of manufactured fill slope along the easterly sides of the
canyon. Along most of the length of this stretch of the canyon, the manufactured slope appears
to have been founded into bedrock some distance above the canyon bottom. Along a portion of
the southeasterly side of the canyon, however the base of the fill is almost coincident with the
canyon bottom.
In general, it is our conclusion that within the stretch where the manufactured fill comprises the
major portion of canyon side, the landsliding risk is very high. Almost certainly there will be
massive landsliding even if the next rainy season produces moderate rain and stream flow.
•
17781 Cowan . Irvine, CA 92614 -6009
943253 -9836 • Fax 949 -250 -1114 . wwwleightonconsulting.com
•
600997 -001
Where stream flow is contained within bedrock and the fill starts higher upon the canyon side,
the potential for landsliding is moderate. Continued canyon downcutting increases the potential
for landslides. Massive landsliding could occur during an extreme rainy season.
The following contains the details our review and the basis of our conclusions.
Background
The subject canyon slope has a history of surficial failures and the potential for future surficial
failures remains high. The potential increases as the thread of the canyon deepens with erosion
and meandering of the canyon, and locally exaggerates the steepness of the toe of the slope. To
date, the failures appear to have impacted the backyards and backyard improvements in a
piecemeal fashion. Leighton Consulting's study was performed to assess the risk of deep - seated
instability of the canyon sides and the potential for more drastic damage to the adjacent
properties.
• Scooe of Work
The scope of our services included:
1. Background Review —The materials referenced in Appendix A were reviewed.
2. Geologic Reconnaissance — Reconnaissance level geologic mapping of the bedrock
exposures along the thread of the canyon was performed on July 17 "'. The limited
observations are shown on Plate 1.
3, Soil Sampling — Four soil samples were obtained, one of fill materials, one of old canyon
bottom materials below the fill, and two bedrock samples (Sample #3 was claystone and #4
was silty sandstone). Sample locations are shown on Plate I and photographs of the samples
sites are at the rear of the text.
4. Laboratory Testing — Index properties of the obtained sample were determined (see
Appendix B),
5. Slope Stability Analyses — Slope stability analyses were performed to quantify the stability
level of the embankment sides (see Appendix Q.
•
Z Leighton
. 11•• FI
CJ
Site Geoloov
The area around Morning Canyon is dominated by outcrops of the middle to late Miocene
Monterey Formation, composed chiefly of siliceous and tuffaceous shale, siltstone and
calcareous sandstone, extend from Upper Newport Bay southward along the coast of Laguna
Beach (Tan and Edgington, 1976).
Gradual, interrupted emergence of the region from the sea occurring in Pleistocene times created
numerous wave -cut terrace platforms, most of which were covered by marine deposits. The
subsequent erosion of adjacent highlands provided a non - marine colluvial cover that is mapped
elsewhere as slope wash deposits. Minor stream deposits of Pleistocene age flank major
drainages in some areas. Younger surficial deposits of Holocene age are alluvial and slope wash
deposits and beach sediments along the coast (Tan and Edgington, 1976).
Within Morning Canyon, mapped surficial deposits consist of artificial fill, alluvium, and non -
marine terrace material. Artificial fill associated with the development of the Cameo Highlands
is found in various locations along the canyon. The alluvial material is generally limited to the
floor of the canyon, frequently incised by the active stream.
The majority of the Monterey Formation, where exposed within the canyon, is massive to poorly •
bedded clayey sandstone. While other welt - bedded exposures of bedrock may exist within the
canyon, only one location was observed during our recent site mapping. This one exception was
a small outcrop on the west side of the canyon, near the rear property line of 522 and 524
Seaward Road. The bedrock exposed at this location is comprised of well bedded, silty sand that
strikes (horizontal orientation) to the northwest (N44W and N33W) and dips (tilts downward) to
the north (25 and 48 degrees, respectively). Poorly defined bedding was also measured on the
north side of the canyon, at the rear of 528 Seaward Road, on a poorly bedded sandstone unit
(N25E, 13N). Review of mapping by others (Tan and Edgington, 1976) in the immediate area,
reveals a wide range of bedding attitudes, possibly controlled by a fault mapped through the
canyon within the project site.
Stability Discussion
Two distinct conditions are recognized along the canyon side walls. Where the side wall is
essentially comprised of manufactured fill, the fill strength and down - cutting of the fill -slope toe
controls stability. This condition occurs below residences at 601 Rockford Road and 515
4101, 0
- 3 - Leighton
i
600997 -001
Rockford Place. Elsewhere, the toe of the fill is above the active stream bed and stability is
controlled by the strength of the bedrock and the orientation and dip of the sedimentary layers.
Active rotational (arcuate in shape) landsliding is on going within the artificial fill,
which supports the backyards of these two residences. Typically rotational landslides
self - stabilize and the slide movement ceases as the slide mass is shifted downslope.
However, when the slide toe is within a canyon and subject to removal by stream flow,
the fragile balance is upset, slide mass reactivates and headward retreat of the scarp area
occurs. The present conditions at the area of the two properties are such that massive
landslide reactivation is almost a certainty even in a moderately severe rainy season.
2. Upstream and downstream of the two residences mentioned above, the canyon bottom is
incised to bedrock of the Monterey Formation. This sedimentary rock within the study
area was generally found to be massive, but isolated inclusions of low strength (silt and
clay) layers within the bedrock were observed. We have performed parametric stability
analyses that indicate that if a weak layer (such as the one observed and sampled as our
Sample #3 at 615 Rockford Road) with a steep inclination (downward tilt) towards the
canyon bottom is daylighted (exposed) by the canyon thread downcutting, instability
• could occur. The mapped geology of the site by us and by other investigators indicate that
there is enough variability in dip angle (amount of dip) and orientation of the bedding
that massive failure has a theoretical chance of occurrence. Without in -depth detailed
investigation, it is not appropriate to quantify this chance except that it will significantly
increase with continued canyon downcutting.
•
a Leighton
600997 -001
•
Should you have any questions concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact this
office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service.
Q ESSION41 Respectfully submitted,
Ego
—M. 0 O
tAMC a LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC.
OR Woody Joe Pollard, CEG 2297
Senior Project Geologist
QLOQpoIRAJ y� r
y900RMMAND �
No, aka -
F"P 9/3oro� A Iraj Poormand, PE, GE 693
Senior Geotechnical Consultant
`r7A`��FCFINIGQ� P
WJP/IP /Ir C�
Attachments: Site Photographs •
Plate 1 — Site Map
Appendix A — References
Appendix B — Boring Logs
Appendix C — Laboratory Test Results
Distribution: (2) Addressee
5 Leighton