HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010/08/17 Item 4
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA STATEMENT
~\{f:. CITY OF
. ..:~ CHUlA VISTA
8/17/10, Item~
REVIEWED BY:
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHING A NEW CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT "BONITA CANYON REPAIRS" (DR-
189), AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2010/2011 crp PROGRAM,
APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR; AUTHORIZE THE
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE
CONSULTANT TEAM OF RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY AND
HELIX ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INC.; AND IF
NECESSARY, AUTHORIZE STAFF TO PREPARE AND SOLICIT
REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS (RFP'S) FOR ENGINEERING
DESIGN, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND GEOTECHNICAL
SERVICES SO THE ENGINEERING DESIGN AND
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMEN~AN BE COMPLETED BY
SPRING 2011 f} I
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS VjV-~ ~
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF ENGINEE~
CITY MANAGE~
ASSISTANT CIT~AGER '? r
4/STHS VOTE: YES [g] NO 0
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
SUMMARY
The City of Chula Vista's infrastructure, such as roadways, signals and street lighting also
includes natural and improved drainage systems to convey water away from property and
ultimately out to the receiving waters of the Otay and Sweetwater Rivers and the San Diego Bay.
There are two canyons in eastern Chula Vista where erosion has been occurring and where City
stan has hired a consultant team in order to prepare a study and make findings on how to reduce
the amount of erosion occurring. Staff is recommending that a Capital Improvement Project
(eIP) be created for Bonita Canyon in Fiscal Year 2010/20 II in order to begin the engineering
design and environmental review necessary to manage the amount of erosion occurring.
ENVIRONMENT AL REVIEW
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposal to establish a CIP in order to
begin the engineering design and environmental review necessary to manage the amount of
erosion occurring within Bonita Canyon for compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and has deternlined that there is no possibility that the activity may have
significant effect on the environment. Therefore, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (General Rule)
4-1
8/17/10, Item~
Page 2 of 4
of the State CEQA Guidelines the proposed action is not subject to CEQA. Although
environmental review is not necessary at this time, additional environmental review will be
required as applicable prior to the approval of any future project specific development
entitlements including, but not limited to, site development plans, building permits, land
development pernlits, and conditional use permits.
RECOMMENDA nON
Council adopt the resolution.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Not applicable.
DISCUSSION
Since the City Council workshop on April 5, 2007 on infrastructure needs, one of the asset
management discussions was on the needs for drainage improvements that needed to be
completed. At that workshop meeting, City staff presented a list of drainage deficiencies that
had been identified through the 2004 Drainage Master Plan regarding the citywide drainage
priority list. A list was prepared as part of comprehensive asset management approach that
would ensure the best use of limited funding. To that end, City staff has been working to
complete the work on those locations listed on the drainage priority list. The list is attached as
Attachment # I and is separated into five priority categories.
The priorities are defined as follows:
Priority I Tier: Frequent flooding and/or high chance of personal injury or property damage.
Priority 2 Tier: Occasional flooding with a chance of personal injury or property damage.
Priority 3 Tier: Frequcnt nuisance flooding.
Priority 4 Tier: Occasional nuisance flooding.
Priority 5 Tier: Frequent or routine maintenance manages problem but a CIP project could
eliminate the problem.
Two canyons, each located in eastern Chula Vista were identified as Priority I locations. Bonita
Canyon located north of Rancho Del Rey Parkway to the intersection of Bonita Road/Willow
Street and the Long Canyon area located from the vicinity of Corral Canyon Road/East H Street
to abollt the area of Canyon Drive/Country Vistas Drive. Each of these two canyons has over
time eroded creating narrow canyons that vary in depth to about 12-feet. The soil material loss
has been transported down stream and leads to siltation deposition. Repairs at Bonita Canyon
are of a more immediate need. Long Canyon repairs are also needed, but can be phased in the
tllture after the work on Bonita Canyon.
In Fiscal Year 2009/2010, City staff entered into an agreement with The Rick Engineering
Company in order for this consultant to prepare an unbiased erosion and drainage assessment of
each of the two canyons. The report was completed on July 23, 20 I 0 and determined that the
4-2
8/17/10, Iteml
Page 3 of 4
highest priority canyon is the work at Bonita Canyon. A copy of the report IS included as
Attachment # 2.
The Bonita and Long Canyon Erosion and Drainage Assessment report includes an opinion of
probable cost to mitigate the erosion. The costs to complete the work are less than originally
contemplated and the priority and phasing of work has been identified. Based on the need to
provide environmental mitigation for each time work is done in the canyon, the cost estimates
show that it is not cost effective to come back several times to complete the needed work. Thus,
although more expensive initially, in the long run, completing the Bonita Canyon project in one
phase becomes the most cost efficient solution and completes the needed work on Bonita Canyon
the quickest.
Bonita Canyon
Tn order to resolve the erosion issue at Bonita Canyon, it is necessary to establish a Capital
Improvement Project (CIP) and amend the Fiscal Year 2010/2011 CTP program. City staff
undertook the effort to hire a consultant to look into each of the top two Priority One locations,
Bonita Canyon and Long Canyon and come up with a feasible plan of action with probahle costs
to mitigate the erosion. Tn the drainage deficiency list presented to Council in April 2007, Bonita
Canyon repairs were originally estimated at $3,900,000 with a recommendation that further
analysis was needed in order to determine what would ultimately be needed.
The extent of the issue at Bonita Canyon is that there is erosion of the canyon bottom and sides
including the gabion structure. A gabion is a wire mesh basket "dam" filled with large stones
that is constructed perpendicular to the flow of the water used to stabilize the soil and control
downstream sedimentation and erosion. Due to the loss of soil material at the sides of the gabion
stmcture being transported downstream to Bonita Road, the drainage culverts at Bonita Road and
Willow Street frequently clog due to sedimentation from the canyon and the backwater effects of
the Sweetwater River.
Due to the fact that Bonita Canyon work must be done as soon as possible, staff is
recommending that a new Capital Improvement Program project be created for Fiscal Year
2010/2011 in the amount of $150,000 in order to begin the design and environmental review.
Construction and environmental mitigation work would not be funded at this time and would be
a subject of a future Council action based on final design and enviromnental review. Tf Council
approves the funding, the design work and envirorunental review could begin relatively quickly
so that by the beginning of Spring 20 II, an engineering set of plans with an envirorunental
document would allow for staff to have a refined constmction and mitigation cost estimate.
If work on Bonita Canyon does not proceed, property damage could incur downstream of the
gabion stmcture. The gabion stmcture would fail and continued sedimentation would end up in
the drainage system at the intersection of Bonita Road and Willow Street. If no work is
completed and continued erosion creates a situation that the gabion structure is not repairable,
the cost to replace the gabion structure is significantly higher than today's repair estimate of
costs. The existing pathway used primarily for maintenance also needs to be regraded and
fencing installed along the route. The public is not allowed in this area.
Tn reviewing the options available for funding this remedial work, traditional funding sources
used for Public Works contracts are not eligible. Thus development impact fees, TransNet funds
and Gas Tax are not eligible. Therefore, staff is recommending that the funding for the Bonita
4-3
nJ_
8/17/10, Item~
Page 4 of 4
Canyon engineering design and enviromllental review come from the General Fund. By
completing the design and environmental review as soon as possible, staff has more options to
pursue an estimated $530,000 in construction and environnlental mitigation flmding grants
concurrently. The construction estimate is based on the preliminary assessment report amI actual
costs will be refined following completion of final design and environmental review. With the
Rick Engineering erosion and drainage assessment report, it is easier to document the needs at
each of the canyons to any environmental area-funding program that advertises a notice of
funding availability (NOlO A) this tlscal year. With this report, staff is now in a better position to
submit for eligible timding, once a NOF A is announced.
Conclusion
Staff recommends that Council appropriate $150,000 into a new CIP, DR-189, project titled
"Bonita Canyon Repairs" and due to the time urgency of needed repairs and with the recently
completed preliminary assessment allowing an opportunity to reduce overall costs, authorize the
Director of Public Works to negotiate with Rick Engineering Company and Helix Environmental
Plamling Inc. to complete the design and environmental review for Bonita Canyon and if
unsuccesstul, to allow staff to prepare and solicit requests for proposals (RFP's) for engineering,
environmental and geotechnical services so that the environmental document and design be
completed by Spnng 2011. Staff will also submit for grant funding in Fiscal Year 2010/2011
construction funds for Bomta Canyon and all work for Long Canyon.
,
Statl will report back to Council once the Bonita Canyon design ami environmental review is
completed.
DECISION MAKER CONFLICT
Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council and has found no property holdings
within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property that is the subject of this action.
CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT
Approval of this resolution will result in the establishment of a new CIP, DR-189 and the
appropriation of $150,000 to the General Fund's Non-Departmental budget. This appropriation
will be offset by unanticipated revenues from the sale of a utility easement resulting in no net
impact to the General Fund. This new CIP project will allow the City to implement the design
and environmental review phase of the Bonita Canyon Repair project. The construction phase
will be brought fOlward for Council consideration at a future date.
ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT
There IS no on-going tlscal impact resulting from this initial phase of work. The construction
and environmental mitigation phase of work is preliminarily estimated at $530,000. A funding
source for this phase of the project has not been identified.
ATTACHMENTS
I. Priority One Drainage Projects from 2004 Drainage Master Plan
2. Rick Engineering Study dated July 23,2010
Prepared by' Francisco X. Rivera, Principal Civil Engineer, Public Works Engineering
J:\Engineer\AGENDA \CAS20 1 0\08-17 -I O\13onita Canyon and I ,ong Canyon Study 8REY.doc
4-4
-I
I-
Z
LIJ
!
~
~
~-----'---------I---
z- z- i
"2 'c i
.9 .9 I
tt 0: I
~ ~
o m
o m
N ~
lA
I B
Ie
1F
26E
IG
25 A-D
LOCATION
Solted in ascending order by by bas"ln name
Bonita Basin Bonita Road and Allen School Road.
iBonita Basin - Canyon from Terra Nova Drive to Bonita Road
i
I
I
i
.............
n"DL:I:-~
PRIORITY 1
----,-- --- -- --------~-------~!----------~----~--- ------
~ lOO-Year
\ Pre\mmaryCo~t
Recommended Improvements I Comments Flood Estimate
I Area
- I ___ _
Replace existing culvert. !pee culvert deteriorating. Soffit reinforcing steel exposed.
!
$500,000
Further analysis needed. Study recommended for entire
canyon to determine improvements needed.
V $3,900,000
$1,500,000
$1,800,000
"~.___w ---.-----..
$4,600,000
LO
I
V $5,600,cSr
V $7,100,000
$2,900,000
$900,000
also needed.
5-31-Q6Pl
ATTACHMENT
v
BONITA AND LONG CANYON EROSION AND
DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT
JOB NUMBER 16296
JULY 23, 2010
~"
I .::_
ENGlNEER1NG COMPANY
rickengineering.com
4-6
July 23,2010
Mr Frank Rivera, P.E.
Senior Civil Engineer
City of Chub Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chub Vista, CA 91910
SUBJECT.
BONITA AND LONG CANYON EROSION AND DRAINAGE
ASSESSMENT
(RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY JOB NUMBER 16296)
Dear Mr. Rivera:
The City of Chub Vista has coordinated with Rick Engineering Company to assess the erosion
and drainage conditions of portions of Bonita and Long Canyon, in northeastern Chula Vista, and
to evaluate the feasible alternatives to repair the failures that have already occuned, as well as the
areas that are subject to future failures. A series of field reviews were performed and based on
these field reviews and preliminary analyses, the limits of work were established. A total of fuur
areas have been identified and discussed within this letter. While it is our opinion that all ofthese
areas need to be addressed, we understand that due to budgetary and environmental constraints,
this may not be entirely feasible to complete as one project, but completed in multiple phases.
Therefore, we have prioritized the four areas below, in order from the area of highest priOlity that
needs to be addressed immediately to the area that, while not desirable to do so, could be
addressed 111 the future.
1. Gabion Structure within Bonita Canyon (Area B)
2. Failed D-41 Outfan within Long Canyon (Area D)
3. Vertical Scour of Long Canyon (Area C)
4. Vertical Scour of Bonita Canyon (Area A)
This letter is intended to present Rick Engineering Company's findings to the City of Chula
Vista. The proposed designs and opinions of probable costs included in this letter are preliminary
and are not intended to be the basis for construction. Prior to construction, each area should be
assessed at a final design level in which preparation of construction drawings, details, final
hydrologic and hydraulic analyses, and a geotechnical assessment will occnr. The geotechnical
assessment win include, at a minimum, recommendations for each of the areas described
below,log of test boring information at several locations along each canyon, and field
reconnaissance findings. Additionally, further biological assessments and analyses will need to
be performed to obtain the appropriate environmental clearance(s) This letter has been organized
to address the potential cause of the failure and erosion, and provide possible solutions for Bonita
and Long Canyon separately. In addition, Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. has prepared a
report titled; "Biological Technical Report for Bonita and Long Canyons Erosion Contrul
Improvements" dated July 19, 2010 and a amendment lettertitled, "Biological Analysis of
Supplemental Erosion Control Improvement Areas within Long Canyon, dated July 7, 2010. (See
Attachment A for both documents.)
5620 :=ricll-s Ruacl . San Oi~go. Caliiorll;a 92110-2596 . (6119) 291 0707 . FAX: (6191 2'11-4155 . t'ickellgil1eerin~.com
SAN DlEGO RIVERSIDE ORANGE SACRAMENT04s~N LUIS OBISPO BAKERSFiElD PHOENIX TUCSON
Mr. Frank RIvera
July 23, 2010
Page 2
Bonita Canyon
The portion of Bonita Canyon that was analyzed, extends fi.om approximately 2,300 feet
northwest of North Rancho Del Rey Parkway to approximately 2,500 feet southeast of Bonita
Road. Figure 3 of the Helix Environmental Planning Inc. report (see Attachment A) shows the
project vicinity. The majority of the canyon is located within the City ofChula Vista; with a small
portion located within the County of San Diego. The canyon itself is bounded by development on
both sides. Within Bonita Canyon, there is an existing gabion structure approximately 900 feet
south of a privately-owned tennis comt (The tennis court is located at 4140 The Hill Road,
within the County of San Diego.) Based on field reconnaissance and coordination with the City
of Chula Vista, this gabion structure and the reach of Bonita Canyon, extending approximately
500 feet downstream of the gabioll structure, have been identified as the portions of Bonita
Canyon that require work to stabilize the area.
In order to access both of these sites, a path/access road will be created. Currently, there is a path
that is aligned adjacent to the canyon, however this path is not maintained by the City of Chula
Vista and it is not an official trail. This path will be widened to an average width of 10 feet and
utilized as the access road. In some areas the width may be less than 10 feet, and in some areas
the width may be more than 10 feet to provide a turnaround for vehicles and equipment staging
areas. (See Attachment B for limits and acreage of the proposed work and the temporary access
path.)
Cabion Structure (Area B) - Station 5+30 to 5+90
The gabion structure, located within Bonita Canyon, is essentially a series of two
spillways for the flows within the canyon. (See Attachment B for the plans for the
existing gabion structure.) Per the plans, which were confinned by field reconnaissance,
the spillway opening in the upstream portion of the structure is approximately 54 feet
wide, while the downstream portion of the structure is only 36 feet wide. As a result,
when flows exit the spillway of the upstream portion of the gabion structure, a portion of
the l10ws flank the downstream portion of the stmcture on both sides. As a result, severe
erosion has occulTed on both sides of the downstream portion of the gabion structure. If
the downstream portion of the gabion structure is not repaired and enlarged, it will
potentially fail. This could cause scour to occur upstTeam of the gabion structure and
large amounts of silt to be conveyed to the downstream canyon and propeliies.
To repair this structure, it is recommended that the downstream portion of the gabion
structure be extended laterally across the canyon to accept alll10ws from the spillway of
the upstream portion of the structure. Additional riprap will also need to be placed on the
sides and downstream portion of the proposed structure. In order to extend the gabion
laterally, the scour holes fOffi1ed on both sides of the existing gabion must be filled and
additional gabion baskets must be utilized. The preliminary details for the repair of this
structure are included with this letter as Attachment B. The preliminary design preserves
as much of the existing structure as possible while still protecting the gabion structure
and Bonita Canyon from additional erosion. The opinion of probable cost for these
repairs is $385,375.00. This cost is broken down in more detail in AttachmentD.Upon
completion of the modification to this structure it is not anticipated that additional repairs
or gabion structures wi11 be required.
2
4-8
~!r. Frank Rivera
July 23, 2010
Page 3
Bonita Canyon Vertical Erosion Downstream of Gabion Strncture (Area A) -
Station 1+00 10 5+30
Flows have caused heavy vertical scour in a portion of Bonita Canyon (downstream of
the gabion structure) due to the failed, Gabion Structure (Area B). The limits of th,s
vertical scour that will be discussed extend for approximately 430 feet as shown in the
exhibit in Attachment B. This section runs parallel to The Hill Road and Corral Court,
and is located upstream of the tennis court located within Bonita Canyon. Aligned
parallel to this portion of Bonita Canyon on the east side, is an access road that turns into
a path that is not maintained by the City of Chula Vista. Scour downstream of the gabion
structure has created a condition in the canyon that has vertically eroded approximately
15 feet of its eastern side for a length of approximately 430 feet. Based on a field visit,
there is evidence that people frequent this area, specifically the eastern side of the
canyon. This 1S a serious safety concern because of the tall and unstable vertical ledges
along this portion of Bonita Canyon. If no alterations are made to this portion of the
canyon, the canyon itself will most likely widen until it reaches equilibrium, which could
result in the loss of the existing path. It is recommended that if no alterations are
performed in this area, the City should post signs that prohibit access.
If this alteration is performed to the canyon, there is still a potential for scour to occur,
but the major change in the future will be in the width ofthe canyon and not in the depth.
It is not believed that the canyon itself is a threat to the houses on the hillsides bounding
the canyon to the east and west. Nevertheless, the opinion of a geotechnical engineer is
recommended to detennine.limits of erosion potential.
In order to address the safety concerns associated with the portion of Bonita Canyon
downstream of the gabion struch1re, the eastern side of the eroded canyon could be re-
graded at a 2: 1 slope and revegetated. The limits will begin from the gabion structure
(Station 5+30), and extend approximately 430 feet downstream (Station 1+00) as shown
in the exhibit in Attachment B. The western side of Bonita Canyon is also experiencing
erosion, but due to the very limited access, no grading and revegetation is proposed. This
side will most likely continue to erode, however, it is not believed at this time that the
erosion is a threat to the bounding properties.
It should be noted that grading 2: 1 slopes and revegetating on the eastern side of the
canyon is not intended to stop the erosion that is occurring within the channel. Erosion is
still anticipated to occur, especially along the toe of the 2: 1 slope. This erosion is not
anticipated to be significant and the safety concerns associated with the non-maintained
path in the area would be addressed. The limits of the proposed grading are shown in the
exhibits within Attachment B, and the opinion of probable cost for these repairs are
$464,250.00. This cost is broken dmvn in more detail in Attachment D.
Additional Considerations
An additional possibility that can be considered to address the safety concerns associated
with Bonita Canyon downstream of the gabion structure would be to install a fence,
making access to the vertical slopes difficult. However, access would still be posscble,
and this, not eliminating all safety concerns. This alternative would allow Bonita Canyon
to widen on its own until reaching equilibrium. This erosion will cause deposition of silt
dmvnstream to Bonita Road. We recommend that this area be monitored by City of
3
4-9
Mr. Frank Rivera
July 23, 2010
Page 4
Chula Vista personnel to make sure that the continuing erosion does not impact the fence.
The cost for thiS option has been provided in Appendix D.
Another possibility considered was to armor the limits of erosion within Bonita Canyon
with riprap. However, due to cost and environmental constraints, this possibility was not
considered feasible and was not investigated any further.
Performing this proposed work within Bonita Canyon at Area A and B (Vertical Erosion
Area and Gabion Structure) in two separate phases would not be cost effective due to the
construction and environmental impacts. If this work were perfonned in two separate
phases, the access path would have to be constructed twice. This rework has both cost
and environmental impacts. Attachment D has broken the cost into two separate phases
as well as performing the work all in one phase. By performing the work in one phase it
has been estimated that this will cost approximately $590,875.00. In conclusion, there is
a significant financial benefit if the work was perfonned in one phase.
Additionally, upon completion of this work it is not anticipated that future work will be
required for the gabion structure. As stated previously, it is anticipated that there will be
minor erosion occuning downstream of the gabion structure, but the situation would be
improved from its cunent condition. Another reason for per fanning this work is to
protect the path. While the path is not a recognized trail, it is utilized for maintenance
purposes for the existing infrastructure located within the canyon, and as such, the path
shonld be persevered and/or protected so that access is retained.
Long Canyon
The limits of Long Canyon that were analyzed extend from Conal Canyon Road to the SDG&E
access road, approximately 700 feet east of Canyon Drive adjacent to Bonita Long Canyon Park
within the City ofChula Vista. Figure 3 of the Helix Environmental Plmming Inc. report, located
within Attachment A, shows the project vicinity. Within Long Canyon, an existing DAI Energy
Dissipator has failed. In addition, a portion of Long Canyon itself on the upstream side of the
SDG&E access road has experienced heavy vertical scour. This erosion has caused very tall and
unstable vertical faces on the sides of the Canyon and adjacent to an existing trail. This trail is
cunently maintained by the City of Chula Vista.
In order to access both of these sites, an access road will be created. Cunenlly, there is a City
maintained trail that is aligned adjacent to the canyon. This trail will be utilized as the access
road and widened to an average width of 10 feet. In some areas the width may be less than 10
feet and in some areas the width may be more than 10 feet to accommodate turnaround areas for
vehicles and possible equipment staging areas. Refer to Attachment C for the exhibits that
identify the limits and acreage of the proposed work and access road.
D-41 Energy Dissipator (Area D) - Station 12+00
The D-41 Energy Dissipator that has failed within Long Canyon is located at the end of a
stoml drain system that flows into the canyon from the northern tenninus of Baylor
Avenue. This failure was most likely caused by either the riprap pad not being long
enough, or the pad having inade'luate thickness. This storm drain system and DAl
Energy Dissipator were built per City of Chula Vista Drawing Number 85-159 (no as-
built date is available, however based on the date of the plans, it is estimated that this
structure was built approximately 25 years ago). The D-41 Energy Dissipator was
4
4-10
Mr. Frank Rivera
July 23, 2010
Page 5
i
connecteu to a 23-foot long, 24-inch Corrugated Steel Pipe (CSP) that connected to a
Type A Cleanout before continuing up the side of the canyon. At the top of the canyon,
there is an exiting Type F Catch Basin in which the CSP transitions to an Asbestos
Cement Pipe (ACP) that runs between two, private properties located along Redlands
Place at the tenninus of Baylor Avenue. The two private properties are located at 689
and 693 Redlands Place.
Significant vertical scour has occurred from the location of the failed DAI to the flowline
of Long Canyon. Currently, the 24 inch CSP, that once connected to the DAI, is
exposed, and as a result, extends cantilevered into the scour hole that connects to Long
Canyon. Photographs of the existing failed DAI outfall are located in Attachment E. If
this situation is left unimproved, the erosion will continue to occur, exposing more of the
CSP ami could eventually cause the CSP and the Type A Cleanout to fail.
In order to prevent further erosion from occurring, which ultimately could cause more
failures to this storm drain line, the outlet will have to be repaired and heavily protected.
There are several options that the City of Chula Vista can entertain at this location and
are discussed below.
The first option is to replace the DAI as well as the 23 foot CSP that extends from the
failed DAI to the Type A Cleanout (Area D-I). It is recommended that Reinforced
Concrete Pipe (RCP) be utilized and the vertical alignment adjusted so the D-41 woulu be
constructed at grade. This option would reduce the need to provide additional mitigation,
require less infrastructure maintenance, and is easier to construct. To minimize the
potential of failure, double thickness riprap is proposed around the DAI outfall. The
opinion of probable cost for this approach is $324,100.00. This cost is broken down in
more detail in Attachment D. If this approach is the preferred option, it is our
recommendation that the 148.5 feet of CSP leading up the canyon side also be replaced
with RCP (Area D-2). This is reconnnended due to the tenuency of CSP to fail over
time, and the problems that such a failure could cause on this steep slope. Additionally, it
is our recommendation that the ACP pipe between the properties at the top of the canyon,
also be replaced (Area D-3). Replacing either one, or both of these pipes, in combination
with replacing the DAl has cost saving potential when compared to completing these
portions separately. The approximate cost of replacing Area D-I, in combination with
Area D-2, is approximately $383,625.00; and the cost of replacing Area D-I, in
combination with Area D-2 and D-3, is approximately $408,938.00.00
The second option is to cut the existing CSP that is cUlTently projecting of the failed
slope, so it is flush with the slope, and armor the surrounding area with double thickness
riprap (Area D-l). The opinion of probable cost for this approach is $300,375.00. This
cost is broken down in more detail in Attachment D. This option would reduce the
erosion that is taking place at the outlet, and thereby, lessen the risk of the 24 inch CSP
from further failure.
To access the area of the failed DAI for any of the repair options, a construction road
will have to be cleared along the path on the north side of the canyon. It is anticipated
that at approximately Station 12+00, as shown on the exhibit in Attachment C, access
will have to be provided that includes crossing the canyon to the failed DAl location.
Grauing will have to be performed so that equipment is able to cross the canyon to reach
this area. This consideration, along with obtaining the opinion of a geotechnical engineer,
5
4-11
Mr. Frank Rivera
July 23, 2010
Page 6
has been incorporated into the cost eshmate, which is provided in Appendix D. Thus, it
is our recommendation that any repair of the D-41 take place in combination with the
grading and revegetation that is discussed in the following section.
Long Canyon V crtical Erosion (Area C) - Station 4+50 to Station 22+60
Approximately 1,400 feet west of Corral Canyon Road, Long Canyon has experienced
approximately 20 feet of vertical scour along both sides of the canyon. This erosion is
most likely due to the steepness of the canyon in combination with the tributary
watershed that has increased over the last 25 years. This is a serious safety concern
because of the tall and unstable vertical ledges and because this area is along tbe southern
side of a public pathway that stretches between Corral Canyon Road and Canyon Drive
along the n01ih side ofthe canyon.
As a result, portions of the pathway have been marked with signs as being closed. The
limits of this erosion that are hazardous to the pathway along Long Canyon extends for a
length of approximately 1,800 feet. The limits of erosion are shown on the exhibits in
Attachment C and occur between Station 4+50 to Station 22+60. If no alterations are
made to the canyon, the deep canyon caused by the vertical scour will most likely widen
unhl it reaches equilibrium. The flows traveling through the canyon may still cause some
vertical scour within the canyon causing it to become slightly deeper, but the major
change will be in the width of the canyon. It is not believed that the canyon itself is a
threat to the houses on the hillsides above the canyon. However, if no preventative
measures are taken, the trails will have to be closed or relocated. Nevertheless, the
opinion of a geotechnical engineer is r~commended to determine limits of erosion
potential.
In order to address the safety concerns associated with the portion of Loi1g Canyon, the
northern side of the eroded canyon conld be graded at a 2: 1 slope and revegetated. Due
to the very limited access, the southern side of Long Canyon in this area is not nearly the
safety threat as is on the northern side, so as a result, grading and revegetating the slopes
is not proposed on this side. It should be noted that grading 2:1 slopes and revegetating
on the northern side of the canyon is not intended to stop the erosion that is occurring
within the channel. Erosion is still anticipated to occur, especially along the toe of the
2: 1 slope. This erosion is not anticipated to be significant and the safety concerns
associated with the trail in the area would be addressed. Grading and revegetating this
portion of the northern side of the canyon will encroach on the existing path in several
locations. As a result of this, part of this proposed solution is to move the location of the
trail in these areas. The limits of the proposed grading area and trail relocation are shown
in the exhibits within Attachment C. The opinion of probable cost for this approach is
$1,336,000.00. This cost is broken down in more derail in Attachment D.
As discussed above, we recommend that this grading, associated with the Long Canyon
Vertical Erosion, take place in combination with repairing the failed D-41 outfall and
relocating the trail further to the north. The opinion of probable cost for this approach is
included in Attachment D.
In the case that the City of Chula Vista chooses to not move forward with grading the
northern side of the canyon, a temporary solution could be to place fencing along the trail
in the problematic areas to prevent access to the vertical ledges. If this approach is taken,
4-61 2
DeB :JW:eb:Reports/ 16296. 001
NIT. Frank Rl '.rera
July 23, 2010
Page 7
II is recommended that the City of Chula Vista periodically inspect the area to make sure
that the contmued erosion within the canyon is not encroaching upon the trail or fence.
Additio!l.al Considerations
Additional alternatives that were considered were to armor the limits of Long Canyon
where erosion was taking place with riprap or to install one, or multiple check dams
along the canyon. These possibilities were not investigated because it is believed that
they are infeasible due to environmental constraints. Another option would be to close
the entire area to public access with fences. This option would propose fences at both
ends of the trail, eliminating access to the full1ength of the trail. This wonld address the
safety issue, however, may also result in a negative, public reaction. This option has
been evaluated in our cost estimates and is included in Attachment D.
But, consideration should be made to preserve the trail. The trail has a dual purpose; it is
maintained for recreational pedestrian traffic as well as for maintenance purposes for the
existing infrastructure located within the canyon. As such, the trail should be persevered
and/or protected so that access is retained.
Other altematives were considered for the failed D-41. One option would be to extend
the riprap from the outfall of the D-41 to the flowline of the canyon. This option was
considered, but due to environmental constraints and the ability to upsize the riprap and
doubling it's thiclmess, it was determined that the extension of the pad is not necessary,
thus saving mitigation and construction costs. During final design, additional options
may be considered with respect to the replacement of the pipe. It may be a viable option
to consider lining the pipes, however this will have to be assessed at final design.
If you have any questions regarding the information presented in this letter, please do not hesitate
to contact either Jennifer Wirsing or myself at (619) 29l-0707. Thank You.
Sincerely,
hct ~EERING COMPANY
~~.
/ L n=-;~
Den i{ c. : b' M.S.
R.C.E. #32838 Exp. 6/12
Principal
Attachments
Attachment A. Biological Technical Report for Bonita and Long Canyons Erosion Control
Improvements (Prepared By Helix Enviromnental Planning, Inc. Dated June 28,
2010)
Attachment B: Supplemental Infonnation for Bonita Canyon
Attachment C: Supplemental Information for Long Canyon
Attaclunent D: Opinion of Probable Cost for Bonita and Long Canyon
Attachment E: Photographs of Bonita and Long Canyon
4-13
DeB :JW :eb: R~ports!l6296_UO 1
Long Canyon Photos
.,.
I
.....
.,.
Failed D-41
Erosion within Long Canyon
W: \16296\H ydro\_docs\LongCan yonPhotos.doc
6/22/2010
Bonita and Long Canyon J-16296
Failed D-41
Bonita Canyon Photos
./>0
I
~
Gabion Structure
en
Erosion within Bonita Canyon
W :\16296\H ydro\_docs\BonitaCanyonPhotos.doc
6/22/2 0 10
Bonita and Long Canyon J-16296
Gabion Structure
Erosion within Bonita Canyon
ClTY OF CHUL~ VISTA - BONITA CANYON IMPROVEMENTS
Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost
Area B: Gabion Structure Only
ITEMElESCRIPTION: " -cc 'UNIT QUANTIj'Y UNIT PRICE' TOfALPRICt:
EXCAVATE AND FILL CY 380 $60,00 $22,800,00
GABION STRUCTURE CY 60 $250,00 $15,000,00
RIP-RAP (1/4 TON) CY 130 $150,00 $19,500,00
SUBTOTAL: $57,300,00
MOBILlZATIO~I: $10,000,00
TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL: $10,000,00
CLEARING AND GRUBBING": $15,000,00
TOTAL: $92,300,00
CONTINGENCY (25%): $23,075,00
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL: $115,375.00
DESIGN AND INSPECTION FEES: $45,000,00
ENVIRONMENTAL FEES (INCL. MITIGATION): $225,000.00
GRAND TOTAL: $385,375.00
# Includes clearing and grubbing of construction access trail.
Area A: Grading and Revegetation Only
ITEM DESCRIPtION't ';, .'" '>,: UNIT 'QUANTITI UNIT PRICE' ,: IOTAL PRICE
EXCAVATE AND EXPORT CY 1,000 $30,00 $30,000,00
EXCAVATE AND FILL CY 40 $60,00 $2,400,00
NATIVE-MIX HYDROSEED SF 24,000 $0,50 $12,000,00
TEMPORARY IRRIGATION SF 24,000 $1.25 $30,000,00
SUBIOIAL: $74,400.00
MOBILIZATION: $15,000.00
TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL: $20,000.00
CLEARING AND GRUBBING": $30,000,00
TOTAL: $139,400.00
CONTINGENCY (25%): $34,850.00
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL: $174,250.00
DESIGN AND INSPECTION FEES: $60,000,00
ENVIRONMENTAL FEES (INCL. MITIGATION): $230,000,00
GRAND TOTAL: $464,250.00
# Includes clearing and grubbing of construction access trail.
Rick Engineering Company, Project )-16296
Prepared by: T JS; Reviewed by: JR
Date. 07/12/2010
Page 1 of2
W:/16296/Civif/~ docs/Opinion of Prob"ble Cost - Bonita Canyon (Mull/pie Scenanos).xls
4-16
CiTY OF CHUlA VISTA - BONiTA CANYOl\IIMPROVEMENTS
Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost
Area A and B: Grading, Revegetation, and Gabion Structure
ITEM. DESCRIPTION"' "".{,,' ",.' , , UNJT QUANTITY mllTPRICE"" TOTAL PRICE
EXCAVATE AND EXPORT CY 1,000 530"00 $30,000"00
EXCAVATE AND FILL CY 420 $60"00 $25,200"00
GABION STRUCTURE CY 60 $250.00 $15,000.00
RIP-RAP (114 TON\ CY 130 $150.00 $19,500.00
NATIVE-MIX HYDROSEED SF 24,000 $0.50 $12,000.00
TEMPORARY IRRIGATION SF 24,000 $1.25 $30,000.00
SUB,OTAL: $131,700.00
MOBILIZATION: $15,000.00
TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL. $20,000.00
CLEARING AND GRUBBING": $30,000,00
TOTAL: $196,700.00
CONTINGENCY (25%): $49,175.00
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL: $245,875.00
DESIGN AND INSPECTION FEES: $80,000.00
ENVIRONMENTAL FEES (INCL. MITIGATION): $265,000.00
GRAND TOTAL: $590,875.00
# Includes clearing and grUbbing of construction access trail.
Area A: Construct Fence Only
ITEM DESCRIPTiON" __d,. "'\/+,,::':'Cc UNIT QUANTITy'" UNIT PRICE' ' ,.TOTAL PRICE
CHAIN-LINK FENCE' LF 500 $20.00 $10,000.00
SUBTOTAL: $10,000.00
MOBILIZATION: $5,000.00
TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL: $10,000.00
CLEARING AND GRUBBING": $15,000.00
TOTAL: $40,000.00
CONTINGENCY (10%): $4,000.00
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL: $44,000.00
DESIGN AND INSPECTION FEES: $20,000.00
ENVIRONMENTAL FEES (INCL. MITIGATION): $195,000.00
GRAND TOTAL: $259,000.00
*Unit price for Chain Link Fence does not include cost for monitoring fence.
# Includes clearing and grubbing of construction access trail.
I
Rick Engineering Company, Project )-16296
PrepJred by: TJS, Reviewed by: JR
Date: 07/12/2010
Page 2 of 2
W:/16296/Civifl_docsIOpinion of Probable Cost - Bonita Canyon (Multiple Scenarios).xfs
4-17
CITY OF CHlILA VISTA - LOillG CAl-NON iMPROVEMEIIJTS
Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost
Area D-1: Replace Failed D-41 with Rip Rap
ITEIVl.DESCRIPTIClN. ',:;::;, ;'>;: . "'>,.Y " . 'UNIT' 'QUANTITY. 'U~IITPRICE...' TOTALPRICE
EXCAVATE AND EXPORT CY 310 $30.00 $9,300.00
EXCAVATE AND FILL CY 170 $60.00 $10,200.00
REMOVE 24" STORM DRAIN PIPE LF 12 $25.00 $300.00
RIP-RAP (114 TON)' CY 70 $150.00 $10,500.00
SUBTO, AL: $30,300.00
MOBILIZATION: $10,000.00
TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL: $10,000.00
CLEARING AND GRUBBING': $10,000.00
TOTAL: $60,300.00
CONTINGENCY (25%): $15,075.00
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL: $75,375.00
DESIGN AND INSPECTION FEES: $40,000.00
ENVIRONMENTAL (INCL MITIGATION): $185,000.00
GRAND TOTAL: $300,375.00
*1tem and quantity subject to change upon detailed design
#. Includes clearing and grUbbing of construction access trail.
Area D-1: Reconstruct D-41 and its 23-feet of Upstream Storm Drain Pipe
ITEM:DESC RII'TION;.::':" ,.'1:-,,- .,: ',:f.': UNIT '.QUANTITY ,,'.UNITPRICE:' TOTALPRICE
EXCAVATE AND EXPORT CY 290 $30.00 $8,700.00
EXCAVATE AND FILL CY 170 $60.00 $10,200.00
REMOVE 24" STORM DRAIN PIPE LF 23 $25.00 $575.00
24" RCP STORM DRAIN PIPE LF 23 $100.00 $2,300.00
CONCRETE ENERGY DISSIPATOR (D-41) EA 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00
RIP-RAP (1/4 TONV' CY 50 $150.00 $7.500.00
SUBTOTAL: $49,275.00
MOBILIZATION: $10,000.00
TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL: $10,000.00
CLEARING AND GRUBBING": $10,000.00
TOTAL: $79,275.00
CONTINGENCY (25%): $19,818.75
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL: $99,093.75
DESIGN AND INSPECTION FEES: $40.000.00
ENVIRONMENTAL (INCL. MITIGATION): $185,000.00
GRAND TOTAL: $324,093.75
*ftem and quantity subject to change upon detailed design
# Ine/udes clearing and grubbing of construction access trail.
4-18
I
I
I
I
I
i
__L
Rick Engineering Company, Project J-16296
Prepared by: TJS; Reviewed by: JR
Date: 07/12/2010
Page 10f5
W:/16296/Civif/_docs/Opinion ofProb::Jbfe Cost Long Canyon (Multiple Scenarios).xls
CITY OF CHULA VISTA - LONG CANYON IMPROVEMENTS
Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost
Area 0-1 and 0-2: Reconstruct 0-41 and its Upstream Storm Drain Pipe in 2:1 Slope
ITE~jrDE.SCRIP.rION;:-i,,',;'\':'i"::::;':;-':_}';-': '., -UNIT QUANTIT'( '-;UNII,PRICE TOTAL PRICE
EXCAVATE AND EXPORT CY 290 $30,00 $8,700,00
EXCAVATE AND FILL CY 170 $60,00 $10,200 00
REMOVE 24" STORM DRAIN PIPE LF 180 $25,00 $4,500.00
REMOVE CONCRETE PIPE ANCHORS EA 4 $300,00 $1,?00,00
24" RCP STORM DRAIN PIPE LF 180 $100,00 $18,000,00
CONCRETE PIPE ANCHORS EA 4 $1,200,00 $4,800.00
CONCRETE ENERGY DISSIPATOR (0-41) EA 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00
RIP-RAP (1/4 TONt CY 50 $150.00 $7,500.00
SUBTOTAL: $74,900,00
MOBILIZATION: $10,000.00
TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL: $15,000,00
CLEARING AND GRUBBING": $15,000.00
TOTAL: $114,900.00
CONTINGENCY (25%): $28,725.00
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL: $143,625.00
DESIGN AND INSPECTION FEES: $55,000.00
ENVIRONMENTAL (INCL. MITIGATION): $185,000.00
GRAND TOTAL: $383,625.00
*/tem and quantity subject to change upon detailed design
;# Includes clearing and grubbing of construction access trail.
Area 0-1, D-2, and 0-3: Reconstruct 0-41 and its Upstream Storm Drain Pipe to Baylor Avenue
ITEM:DESCRIP,TI ON ':?:0:::~:'i?,,<"::;:;:':~~{"'1:'fYt::"'.{::; :"UNIO. 'QUANTITY.: 'DUNIT,f;'RICE,:; ',TOTACPRICE
EXCAVATE AND EXPORT CY 290 $30.00 . $8,700.00
EXCAVATE AND FILL CY 170 $60.00 $10,200.00
RFMOVE 24" STORM DRAIN PIPE LF 310 $25 00 $7,750.00
REMOVE CONCRETE PIPE ANCHORS EA 4 $300.00 $1,200.00
24" RCP STORM DRAIN PIPE LF 310 $100.00 $31,000.00
CONCRETE PIPE ANCHORS EA 4 $1,200.00 $4,800.00
CONCRETE ENERGY DISSIPATOR (D-41) EA 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00
RIP-RAP 11/4 TONY CY 50 $150.00 $7,50000
SUBTOTAL: $91,150.00
MOBILIZATION: $10,000.00
TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL: $15,000.00
CLEARING AND GRUBBING": $15,000.00
TOTAL: $131,150.00
CONTINGENCY (25%): $32,787.50
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL: $163,93.7.50
DESIGN AND INSPECTION FEES: $60,000.00
ENVIRONMENTAL (INet MITIGATION): $185,000.00
GRAND TOTAL: $408,937.50
*Jtem and quantity subject to change upon detailed design
# Includes clearing and grubbing of construction access trail.
Rick Engineering Company, Project J-16296
Prepared by: T JS, Reviewed by: JR
Date: 07/12/2010
Page2of5
WJ16296/CivJf/~docs/Opinion of Probab{e Cost Long Canyon (Multiple Scenarios).xls
4-19
CITY OF CHUlA \fISTA -lOi\IG CANYOI\IIMPROVEMENTS
Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost
Area C: Grade and Revegetate Northeastern Bank of Canyon (incfudes Re-aiigning Trail)
ITi=I\iFDESCRIPTION ,;'"',, "',", '\," ,-:-C,,',. UNII, QUANTITY 'UNILPRICE' TOTAL PRICE
EXCAVATE AND EXPORT CY 7,300 $30.00 $219,000.00
NATIVE MIX HYDROSEED SF 83,300 $0.50 $41,650.00
TEMPORARY IRRIGATION SF 83,300 $1.25 $104,125.00
SUBTOTAL: $364,775.00
MOBILIZATION: $15,000.00
TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL: $30,000.00
CLEARING AND GRUBBING": $55,000.00
TOTAL: $464,775.00
CONTINGENCY (25%): $116,193.75
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL: $580,968.75
DESIGN AND INSPECTION FEES: $180,000.00
ENVIRONMENTAL (INCL. MITIGATION): $575,000.00
GRANO TOTAL: $1,335,968.75
# Includes clearing and grubbing of construction access trail.
Area C and D-1: Re-align Trail, Grade and Revegetate Northeastern Bank of Canyon, and
Replace Failed D-41 with Rip Rap
ITEMOESCRIPTlOWc "::,}.:".,,,., ;,"",'i,"';',.;' ""c',"",,' 6UNIT'; QUANTITY ,UNIT PRICE':. TOTAL'PRICE
EXCAVATE AND EXPORT CY 7,370 $30.00 $221,100.00
P,EMOVE 24" STORM DRAIN PIPE LF 12 $25.00 $300.00
RIP-RAP 11/4 TONt CY 70 $150.00 $10,500.00
NATIVE-MIX HYDROSEED SF 83,300 $0.50 $41,650.00
TEMPORARY IRRIGATION SF 83,300 $1.25 $104,125.00
SUBTOTAL: $377,675.00
MOBILIZATION: $15,000,00
TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL: $30,000,00
CLEARING AND GRUBBING": $60,000.00
TOTAL: $482,675.00
CONTINGENCY (25%): $120,668.75
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL: $603,343.75
DESIGN AND INSPECTION FEES: $190,000.00
ENVIRONMENTAL (INCL. MITIGATION): $580,000.00
GRAND TOTAL: $1,373,343.75
*/tem and quantity subject to change upon detailed design
# Includes clearing and grubbing of construction access trail.
Rick Engineering Company, Project )-16296
Prepared by: T JS, Reviewed by: JR
Date: 07/12/2010
Page 3 of 5
W:/16296/Civill_docsIOpinion of Probable Cost - Long Canyon (Multiple Scenarios).xls
4-20
CITY OF CHUlA VISTA - LONG CANYON IMPROVEMENTS
Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost
Area C and D-1: Re-align Trail, Grade and Revegetate Northeastern Bank of Canyon, and
Reconstruct D-41 and 23-feet of its Upstream Storm Drain Pipe
IIEMDI::SCRIPTION ,',' ",i '".<:>'i'.' UNIT" 'QUANTITY UNITPRICE .' ,OTAL PRICE
EXCAVATE AND EXPORT CY 7,370 $30.00 $221,100.00
REMOVE 24" STORM DRAIN PIPE LF 23 $25.00 $575,00
24" RCP STORM DRAIN PIPE LF 23 $100.00 $2,300.00
CO~ICRETE ENERGY DISSIPATOR (0-41) EA 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00
RIP-RAP (1/4 TON)' CY 50 $150.00 $7,500.00
NATIVE-MIX HYDROSEED SF 83,300 $0.50 $41,650.00
TEMPORARY IRRIGATION SF 83,300 $1.25 $104,125.00
SUBTOTAL: $397,250.00
MOBILIZATION: $15,000.00
TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL: $30,000.00
CLEARING AND GRUBBING": $60,000.00
TOTAL: $502,250.00
CONTINGENCY (25%): $125,562.50
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL: $627,812.50
DESIGN AND INSPECTION FEES: $190,000.00
ENVIRONMENTAL (INCL MITIGATION): $580,00000
GRANO TOTAL: $1,397,812.50
"'Item and quantity subject to change upon detailed design
# Includes clearing and grubbing of construction access trail.
Area C: Re-align Trail and Construct Fence
ITEM DESCRIPTION" ,""'"..,':,,,.,,',:'::''':',,.:.,: "UNIT. QUAN,ITY . UNIT'PRICE . TOTAL'pRICE
CHAIN-LINK FENCE' LF 2,100 $20.00 $42,000.00
SUBTOTAL: $42,000.00
MOBILIZATION: $5,000.00
TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL: $10,00000
CLEARING AND GRUBBING': $20,000.00
TOTAL: $77,000.00
CONTINGENCY (25%): $19,250.00
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL: $96,250,00
DESIGN AND INSPECTION FEES: $25,000.00
ENVIRONMENTAL (INCL MITIGATION): $40,000.00
GRAND TOTAL: $161,250.00
*Unit price for Chain Link Fence does not include cost for monitoring fence.
!/. Includes clearing and grUbbing of construction access trail and fe-alignment of existing trail.
Rick Engineering Company, Project )-16296
Prepared by" T JS; Reviewed by: JR
Date; 07/12/2010
Page <I of 5
W:/16296/Civif/_docsIOpinion of Probable Cost - Long Canyon (Multipfe Scenarios).xls
4~21
ClTY OF CHULA VISTA -lONG CAi"JIYON IMPROVEMENTS
Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost
Area C: Construct Fence Only
ITEM'Dt:SCRIPTION ,," ...'.../:..... p" :..,:;.' ':".UNIT" QUANTITY ,UNIT PRICE: TOTALPRICE
CHAIN-LINK FENCE' LF 1,700 $20.00 $34,000.00
SUS1OtAL: $34,000.00
MOBILIZATION: $5,000.00
TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL: $10,000.00
CLEARING AND GRUBBING": $10,000.00
TOTAL: $59,000.00
CONTINGENCY (10%): 55,900.00
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL: $64,900.00
DESIGN AND INSPECTION FEES: $20,000.00
ENVIRONMENTAL (INCL. MITIGATION): $170,00000
GRAND TOTAL: $254,900.00
""Unit price for Chain Link Fence does not include cost for monitoring fence.
# Includes clearing and grubbing of construction access trail.
Rick Engineering Company, Project J 16296
Prepared by: TJS; Reviewed by: J,q
Date: 07/12/2010
Page Sot5
W:/16296/Civil/_docslOpinion of Probable Cost - Long Canyon (Multiple Scenarios).xfs
4-22
H(UX
-
July 7,2010
RIC-09
Ms. Jennifer Wirsing
RICK Engineering Company
5620 Friars Road
San Diego, California 92110
Subject: Biological Analysis of Supplemental Erosion Control Improvement Areas within
Long Canyon
Dear Ms. Wirsing:
Per your request, this supplemental report provides information on 2 additional areas identified
for potential erosion control improvements within the Long Canyon study area not previously
addressed in the Biological Technical Report (BTR) prepared by HELIX Environmental
Planning Inc. (HELIX 2010) on June 28,2010.
Introduction
The 2 additional areas, identified as Area D-2 and Area D-3, were added to the Long Canyon
study area following completion of the BTR. As such, this supplemental report addresses the
existing biological conditions and impacts to biological resources that would result from
implementation of the proposed project within these areas as well as recommend mitigation for
the impacts.
Long Canyon is located north of East H Street and Hampton Court, west of Corral Canyon Road
and Sunny Crest Lane, south of Country Vistas Lane, and east of Redlands Place in the City of
Chula Vista, San Diego County, California (Figures S-l and S-2). Areas D-2 and D-3 within
Long Canyon are located within unsectioned land of Township 17 South, Range I West on the
San Bernardino Base and Meridian U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-rninute Jamul Mountains
quadrangle maps (Figure S-2).
Area D-2 is the Baylor outfall that requires replacement, and Area D-3 would provide access to
the Baylor outfall.
Methods
Given that Areas D-2 and D-3 were added following field work for the original Long Canyon
study area, vegetation was mapped in the office by HELIX biologist W. Larry Sward on a
I "=100' aerial photograph using aerial photograph interpretation. A site visit would be required
to verify the vegetation mapping, record plant and animal species, and identify any potential U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and/or California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)
jurisdictional features within these 2 areas.
7578 EI Cajol~ Bortlevard, Suite 200, La A1esa, CA 91942 . phone (619) 462-1515 . fax (619) 462~0552 . www.he1ixepi.cam 0 \g:~r ~r
4-23
H(lIX
~
Letter Report to Ms. Jennifer Wirsing
July 7,2010
Existing Conditions
Vegetation Communities
Three (3) vegetation communities occur within Areas D-2 and D-3 of Long Canyon: Diegan
coastal sage scrub, non-native grassland, and developed land (Figure S-3; Table S-1), Diegan
coastal sage scrub and non-native grassland are considered sensitive vegetation communities;
developed land is not considered sensitive.
Table S-l
EXISTING VEGETATION COMMUNITIES
WITmN LONG CANYON AREAS D-2 AND D-3 (acre)
VEGETATION COMMUNITY Area D-2 Area D-3 Total
Diegan coastal saQ:e scrub 0.11 0.00 0.11
Non-native ~rassland 0.03 0.00 0.03
Developed land 0.03 I 0.03 0.06
TOTAL 0.17 0.03 0.20
Diegan coastal sage scrub
Diegan coastal sage scrub is dominated by subshrubs with leaves that abscise during drought and are
replaced by a lesser amount of smaller leaves. This adaptation allows these species to withstand
drought periods in summer and fall. Coastal sage scrub occurs on a vatiety of soil types from sandy
.lithosols on siliceous sandstone to clay-rich chernozems on volcanic ash. Typical species found
within Diegan coastal sage scrub include Califomia sagebrush (Artemisia californica), buckwheat
(Eriogonum fasciculatum), laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), and black sage (Salvia mellifera).
Approximately 0.11 acre of Diegan coastal sage scrub occurs within Area D-2.
Non-native grassland
Non-native grassland is a dense to sparse cover of annual grasses, often associated with
numerous species of showy-flowered, native, annual forbs. Characteristic species within this
vegetation community include oats (Avena sp.), red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens),
common ripgut grass (B. diandrus), ryegrass (Lolium sp.), and mustard (Brassica sp.). Most of
the annual, introduced species that comprise the majority of species and biomass within non-
native grassland originate from the Mediterranean region, an area with a long history of
agriculture and a climate similar to California. These 2 factors, in addition to intensive grazing
and agricultural practices in conjunction with severe droughts, contributed to the successful
invasion and establishment of these species and the replacement of native grasslands with an
annual-dominated, non-native grassland (Jackson 1985). Approximately 0.03 acre of non-native
grassland occurs within Area D- 2.
Page 2 of 4
7578 EI Cajon Boulevard. Suite 200, La M"a, C1 91942 . pbone{619J 462-1515 . fax (619) 462-0552 . www.bdixepi.cmn @ i:;~r!'Ir
4-24
HfUX
~
Letter Report to Ms. Jennifer Wirsing
July 7, 2010
Developed
Developed land is where permanent structures and/or pavement have been placed, which
prevents the growth of vegetation, or where landscaping is clearly tended and maintained. Within
Areas D-2 and D-3, developed land totals 0.06 acre and consists of residential landscaping.
Potential Sensitive Plant and Animal Species and Jurisdictional Areas
As previously stated, field work was not conducted in these areas and a site visit would be required
to verify the vegetation mapping, record plant and animal species, and identify any potential Corps
and/or CDFG jurisdictional features within these 2 areas prior to project approval.
Impacts
Proposed erosion control improvements in Areas D- 2 and D- 3 would result in 0.20 acre of
temporary impacts (Figure S-3; Table S-2). No permanent impacts to Areas D-2 and 0-3 are
anticipated. Temporary impacts to sensitive vegetation communities (i.e., Diegan coastal sage
scrub and non-native grassland) are considered significant and require mitigation.
Table S-2
EXISTING VEGETATION COMMUNITIES
WITIDN LONG CANYON AREAS D-2 AND D-3 (acre)*
Vegetation Community Temporary Mitigation Mitigation
Imnact Ratio
Diegan coastal sa ae scrub O.ll 1.5: 1 0.17
Non-native f!Tassland 0.03 1:1 0.03
Developed land 0.06 -- 0.00
TOTAL 0.20 -- 0.20
* Acreages are rounded to the nearest 0.01
Impacts to sensitive plant and animal species, should they be present, may be considered
significant and require mitigation. likewise, impacts to Corps and/or CDFG jurisdictional areas,
should they be present, may require permits from these agencies and mitigation.
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation for temporary impacts to sensitive vegetation communities within Areas D-2 and 0-3
would total 0.20 acre (Table $-2). Mitigation for temporary impacts would occur through on-site
restoration either through hydroseeding the areas with plant palettes similar to those impacted
and/or through installation of appropriate, native container stock. With implementation of this
mitigation, impacts to sensitive vegetation communities would be reduced to below a level of
significance.
Page 3 of 4
. 'I' r.>~!!'1
7578 E! Cdjon Boidef.lard, Suite 200, La Mesa, CA 91942 . ph~ne (619) 462~1515 . fa>. (619) 4-62-0552 .1lJt//uwelxcpu{J711 WU-.,
4-25
_1-
HillX
~
Letter Report to Ms. Jennifer Wirsing
July?, 2010
Please contact me at (619) 462-1515 should you have any questions.
Sincerely,
/~~;t~ d'~
Sarichia Cacciatore
Project Manager
Enclosures: Figure S-l Regional Location Map
Figure S- 2 Project Location Map
Figure S-3 Vegetation/Sensitive Resources/Impacts
REFERENCES
HELIX Environmental Planning Inc. 2010. Biological Technical Report for Bonita and Long
Canyons Erosion Control Improvements. June 28.
Jackson, L. 1985. Ecological origins of California's Mediterranean grasses. Journal of
Biogeography 12: 349-361.
Page 4 of 4
7578 El Cujan Botik/ad, Suite 200, L.u'vIes.;, CA 91942 to phulle (619) 462-1515 .. fax (619) 462-0552 .~.i/lf).hdi:;epi.com @E1' E4
4-26
RIVERSIDE
I COUNTY
'---~----------7
ORANGE! SAN 01 EGO ~
COUNTY) COUNTY ,
.-_../~
I
",
-',
Vail Lnke:;-,}
"
._-----~--._----
O'NeillLakeJ,
Pacific
Ocean
I
JIC"P;W"R'''~';'
Alpine
ii'l
,-.I C
L<)velandReserwJ;r
harNIILake
,,~-
N
W*E
S
4 0
8
Miles
8
L\Ar<GlSIR\RIC.09 LO[lgCynBamt;,r'j'lI\Map\BiOIllTR\FigS ClleglOnol m;td -"''''1
Regional Location Map
LONG CANYON EROSION CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS
UHIX
Figure 8-1
4-27
. ,~
ii'
-
..
.. ...' I~,
';'
,..-.
'_..~-.:.<- I,
j 'oj
:,-'"
".'1:"".
-,,"-<
.-: ,
Date: 07/06110
2,000
Feet., ," _ ,." . -.'
Source:,USG-S-7.5' Quadrangles";
~~--.
2,000 1,000
Job No: RlC-09
-J;Iriu!~lVl~unta'iils ~I;d N:ili~h~l City:-.
',j
t\AtcGlS\RIRIC -DQ Lon~CynB01ril,Cyn\Mop\IllO\BTR\l1gS-;!_Loc3lion.m,d -t'<"M
Project Location Map
LONG CANYON EROSION CONl'ROL IMPROVEMENTS
UHIX
Figure 8-2
4-28
-""!r"",
~
Riparian Woodland
Tamarisk Scrub
Native Grassland
~'~
.to. '., ~
.....,
Oiegan Coastal Sage Scrub
Non-naliva Grassland
'J Non-native Grassland-Disturbed
Non.nalive Vegetation
) Disturbed Habitat
Deve oped Land
~ Permanent
@ Temporary
o Study Area
\fA} San Diego County Viguiera
(Viguiera !acinil1ta)
.j:o
I
'"
CD
HHIX
N
W~'E
W
5
50
o
100
J Feet
::t~
\,<
\- '"
Vegetation/Sensitive Resources/Impacts
Job No: RIC-09
Date: 07/06/10
LONG CANYON EROSION CONTROL IMPROVElvlENTS
Figure 8-3
"';}i'~c~~f:f~j::;~i~~~~iJ:;~;t~;i,~~~~~,~\~;~JRt~'~.!!j%t
., . "",,,. .' ,,', ",.' """.', ,.'''..,.,...._._ "",le","'
" .'~' . . ' .c, 'f ,,,,,,,,., '." . l""',~'l~"\i'fM.'")",,r""iC;';;;;''i';i''''''''').\
, .' ,,' ... p"d. fi" . f,', 'W ,.V>{,'. ,."..,,,,,"bP~'" '" ",,,,,, ""
. . .< ,~,/f:" ,:,:" ,i'" ' .")f~,:~>,,"~,(,,!;\/.W~,,:\',lii1.jilf.",jll
, ."" h ,...' , ".'" ..,," ",,"" - -" .,..,,,,""r,,,..,.~,j1JJ' .,
.CJ';"":, <";}:.,,,t:' .6i,t~~1'~G~;~0}~!i141'~,,1j
_ ~ _ ' 1 ~ \ T~t;;,",L ," ._, . _' . ,~c """, ,",', ."J 7, ,,~, '.1'" 'x",'$}~ ."_{.,~"J{;",,,,~
. "".,, ," ", .",,,,, ,,,,'" ," ...".~
, . ...", ,,'" ".,,' .,,,_, . , ,."..,.,.a., .,," .", ,'A'-"""'" ,,,,~;C~' ,",..
", .. " .'" . " - "," - ". ". .. ,,,,-- #" ." ,'''''''
..'_' 'C,"',' " , .' ..,.." y ,'",,,," ;-< ;V'"'''''''' .,;",.",,; ,
'.' , ,.",,,,,' '.>. ", ,C,,__,' . ,."'" . '" , "",,,.-.' ,'~' ","""',,,"
"' 'J ", ,.,,' ., . ,,;~,,' ,," ",," r.T ' . .',.,'1- ,. " '10,7"'" ,<', , ,,,,,,,,wil"""
, ,'''r-:'',J';' ',T,' :ie,"-'':'" '. :!-"'::'1~,"::,,\,.:f'" :,if.:!~ ,.",.'~
, ..' ' , , ..' '" ' ". ,,,,,-." ,'" ,^,..,,,,,P ,
i~~iR.,{:,;{.';~~~:;;€~~i~il~1ii~ltii6~,
. " ", ',", . " . ,,' ..,.""J.. ,."", .,."""",,,.,"w ,--....".'",.,,,.,'
-' ,. ,,' '.' ," ""," , ",.,.,,', " ",., , "-,~",,., ".,,*""'" ".";,,,,,-
,';" ".' '" ",f.'" ., " ,,,,"', "~c ,', "......; ,..,,,~,,,,,,,,,~,,,..,,,,",,.,-,
, ' :. "" -.;,'<r ,:''- . .,i!.~:F' . ,,'~,. ,;:.;;"./ . , ,I. .;. ,'I lJi:"'i:;' ,!t<'! ;;'N""",.i;,';';"';<:;i;;",C,...<;:l>"'~"W[." ~;\:'hj:"{' L-.,,C
;. '.. ,,; ii" ' '/.-. :';, ..:".,'i:",- ,,0'" ,;. ); .. ~.,'!;;,;~'~c"J.1;lj'1~il;,,'i' , ' "~'Sf",.zJ~1'i:y".,!:,,,,,",,,_.:,j\;ui . p~..'t';J"-~C"
. _': ''', d '''' ,', . . "'." ","" ,~;,' , "",,"..''':' A',,,- · ,-"'''' ;"Oc",,"",'" ".",."",,'
r-,T", "",::.'''is>;;-\~ ':';__:' c".~". ."""",,"'i, ".;"",,,,,...,,",h "'1>'''<;'''''';<''''~' .,",.(>
""." " ",' ..'" 1-" ,,,,__,. -~,,,,,, ..., "., 'If"'''
';,j,O" ,-:: ,>,'ii';"''''-'', ',<to" i i ,,,,',,-i,iIi....~,,i'~'i'i'\0'~""'~I;\.~."'.
., ..,"', ,.">' ,," ',; , ">I' ", r ", "'-,,.,.,~ -, r''' ff!ii" 1\! ,..;;l1''',r ',N''''''''
c':.'N;~;~g;:, ~./:.i~;~\i;.q~ ,t'F" r::):l'~i~;i~~'J)f~t~~~J~r :'~~I- ~~~!Jitf;&:,,+{Jf~;;. ; .. \piJn~!'-\~ t1i~~C:~
'~,' '" _ " . ..,,, . ,.",~" ,,0' .w' "" ..." ,..".' _",_" ." -<C', W''' a
,. "",p" ",""f" p, "",I' "" Met...!"".,,, '1(;;"'-" .,,'~ ".".
.',t . ",,' """", n;. ;,.. .,'. ""''41'''."" "",',,,;,,f"-"" iJ/' ' , -""
""';"J'Jc.""""""'^''''''''''' "..' . """~ 't!' ilf!,iJ"k. ,."""'F~*~'<l; (: , ~lii?ff[i'.
",_,~~' "~,.",, J'~" "",,,w."""" ,", "" >",,"'''d'' ", "",.-
, ,c,^'0f'Pii""-' J'",c' i '.'J",,,,,,~,..,,~r,',,,,,4\Y" ",,,", ' '0,
l:jJ~:~,;%!;~;~*};:t;;,~:'/t;...',~~ 1'::' ~"."it:1ff;"~\':-Y', ~i;;(';i"~"~~i i:-.j;;,:1'!i~~~/:~' ,~;tfktl!i,:
''"'''~' " '," ,,, "." """ ~''',''~ ",' ,,' ,,' m" ",,"" , "
. " """,,~, ,,;e,,, -",". ',)' ,,' '" ,,', .. ",,,,,,i"","~ ">''' '" ".,,.,,, '", .... , .. ~ . ~~~
"",,",,,"'''~' ,"''', ",.",",' ""k-.ll;; ~"w.." -.'" ,.",,' "".,.."" I, ,',' ""\;-"'~~ :1f},~;': t \
, _,......~.~~ .."~,~"_1.) . .;;-"~ '::;'Z'-':>'"<- ),.... ._ ~!i("'" .,/, "\1rl""".' ,\..,." ",,<,,,,:,,,~_~h"~-~'= 4l'i '" " ,...i"""
;.;-'.i;,,"";"f-'t1,"">'~"'"'~;;: "', c.,."" :,J.,,:'.~ ;;;:~~*w;"".,;, ,;,0../.",,,,'[1,,",.,",:",,,] ""1"0,' 2!'.~.I"-;~"';~'" ftii.,.
" . ,,- ,> ",,'- ", ,," ." ...-- ,--,',",,"" , ' .~" " .
c, "t~"'j\0,,",,t",ji-;i!i'if""'1!;-' .' ;~~:i"j;' 1':);,.~,iil;..J:~"'" . :
. . ." r' "" ",," ' .,' ..,'" "-,,, ,,,< ",-,,,,,,'~'-'" '
, . ,,,~;.,,~ ,.}i'l.~",..", ;-';~'o:'t~~ '-',' . :g~:i' ,?{J'!-";;f;.":,,,,,>,,~"t" ~~ ~ :;:11~ .;: ~ t~".~~,-
'" .",', ~._ ?E",.<G ' '.' '. ~u . '. ..,"~<i. ~ ,,,,?,"":'" ' ,,1. ',' .:__~D~':" '~ ~~' ,-;:' 1111l(
, , "'''' ,__;1""'"'' '<i' "t ,:;-:<1 <;" ,ct.';' "",ii"""!>>"'>, S" ~,
. . ;''''-'''''''' ,~",:", .)'j'?~Y" ,-,\:;.-i[,~,",o" q" ,,'<" ,;.\,:';;'1 'j .,'~"' r-~Ifrtl'l'- ,. . I", ~:r-'~'r f; J
, "..e ",,__ .,"," ~"" ", '-'.' p.,,'" "","..r,','" ~I .~"
c> ,r',.yfo' y." ~ .,;;;~,,',\1~' "1"'~'"t~\ J~~ -.r .. , ,~ \(,~n'::'r,. ~::.,.i:' :;';l;'~~."~ --~'t', "~jf. c ~~~-'"'r;~~~~W;llf:Ji't,~:
'C'. " ",~,' ,,,' . ,..'" ,.w'''' .",.".-.-.
'~..;;- _~~l:~~" _\ <'. ~' .~",~~~1;5!~ -r;<< ;':~ ~ z{~ ' :~~5 ~';;:.I;,1:l;lJ~f/'~ ~,< ;.1,';1-;: ~~ ~;~:fi-~' ~ /!/i,,":'"
".,~'- ,'i"";-.'; ,"'( J: '; ,;ie,;;'" ;",'--,",N"'''"''!\V'' ,,-
, '" '\.:li., ,c"*"'" ~c. \" ",."",<: '_ ',1(' ,'I.,i.e.!.;, '" ',i>- ,'~l r.:"~~~,t~"~~_;"~'Ii,~;:~l,:t~#i'-'~ ::;-..-:' ~It
,,0[ I ~'<' ,<,' ""d - ~.r'" 0' < ,,,,~,..,' ' ," ",,-,,<~""'~ ~
,~" " ,,,"" ,-",', ",. ' ,;; . ,"" ,'" '-. ,~ ,,_ ,,'" '^ '. ,i,' ,","<' ",' """ "
~',':',.'l:f' ".,,,,;,;",~gf"~'" _'V A e,".';'; ;:r.'. -,. '"'[~ .it'-"h",~:;:,"'i,~;/,("@~:i,;!/"i~'r:'t~ ,
, "i' " ",''-' _"..." ,,' "". ., .. -' '."~' ''''' ..~,. r"' ",,,.,,. ~
. ,.".,___" ,'"', ,','" "..,," '.,' """,," 'r.,,,,r.-= ,~'."" "." <I'"~ rf
~ .,~i.'" P' ",...'c' ,.,...-, ",' ~:., "",_,,,,,o,t."",",,"""~' .,.. ,q'''~~ i'
. &"~,,,,;.. '<" ,.,;. ," '" ",,~,"," ,p ',.' .'" '..." ,;,""
U 0 ....:'''\l.'~>li. ""f;'t".:c.t . _.if ."" ..-'i.4".,'...,O't'(..>....'.;~ ~~- ,,,.,,,r.~
,oo . '", """ ' ,"',;c- d _. "" ,'s'"'' " .~
,,::;; ",;,.y" ,~..'''' ,.. ,~ .~1-~~ "' \l~''''',",,;:''~
; <it? ,,;'/'8," it$' "il 1&i'
, '''''~' ,';',L- " il~r' ",f\>: - ,'i'''''~
.. ., " .,,,' J'~'" ','; '.-"~" _17:':""""""''''''l;' ~.~..'; '; ,,,,- ~ -
'"....,,~ -'T';"; "..7~,'" ~.)~,~i"''-'"'''''''~''',,''i''''''''''':7'~'''';''' t_"",,"<--, ,(/-if
, ,'" "O;~~.,.- " , .."'~"_....r: -.,. ~ ~"tf' ~~ - ~.~' '" . {~". -'"
,.., ".,-,.,,,.... -,,,,~,,,.'" '''- ~,~ . " ,
~ . "<!' d;1'O'-~'''''-:;;" .< .""".,,iF~-,,_l'r', ","'7k\""'P 'h
jj -' "'.';- <~ ~~. n,' "..,~ ", ,In"" ::,~ jf'"OI'''-""''~ }:0f ' "
'J!. ,. ~!:,~:,. . ";;''''i;" J;, :)..<<:.Y "', . "",-,,,,7,,,, "Y ~ 'ie''::'" /1 1.'~6~:'"''
"~,,'!i't',, (F,,"'..;"'~; - '. &C;,l;-i;~"fY, "
,., 'd,'" . \-.-,Y' ",,,,' ",,' ,..,,/}: -"~<~.,..,,..,~ "
, .<~.' , ' .e ~ . ' - .'", -"".~'" " ," c.-
. ".. '" 'Ai" '. x ....~" ',' If' , ( ':~' '-' ",. " ~j- ",!,e~" ..-
, :,"" ,: ~\", , '')1,:, '(<I ., <:::,~'rf!') ;-;;,;"(-.'ifj.fiii.ii
. ",,,".,~,,,, ,.,,' .....7','.. .I>-'-?\~~'f'"'.,,~}fh"""'<'~l'tjJ,
,. ,.: .... ""~",~ .. ',"-b;?".;,'I,c':, j~ ;H~:<;;i,')j;,,;';rf:C.ci",.~;;J;".\c ~\\:;"
'c"' ",,~1~'~'-;;-;;"''' ""h,~i~~'/'.,1:'1'.""',i";..J"".,.;.
_. ~ '''S ~fu""C~\"'~~~':)~~{~j:;r:~Ji!.~J:$:~~
~
gol;
o
or
~
g
.
au
~~
~~
\0 $
~~
~ 9
c~
~
gq
u ~
C2~
.. u
o 1!'
Z :J
D'
o rj
~ "
,
"
o
~
,,&
W~O
~
'"
'"
5
-
u
o
o
o
or
",!,
4-30
l/)
C
o
.-
-
CO
C
Ol
.-
l/)
Q.)
c
a.
U
(J)
:2
~
Z
CI:I
;;;;
CI:I
>
o
~
~
..,
C'l
OJ
~
::J
OJ
i.L
....l
o
~
E-<
Z
o
u
Z
o
..,
r/J
~
CI:I
r/J
Z
o
>-
z
-<
u
o
z
o
....l
Q
~
~
z
o
~
><
---'
.......
=
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHING A NEW CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT "BONITA CANYON REPAIRS"
(DR-189), AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2010/2011 CIP
PROGRAM, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR;
AUTHORIZE THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO
NEGOTIATE WlnI THE CONSULTANT TEAM OF RICK
ENGINEERING COMPANY AND HELIX ENVIRONMENTAL
PLANNING INe.; AND IF NECESSARY, AUTHORIZE STAFF
TO PREPARE AND SOLICIT REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS
(RFP'S) FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN, ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW AND GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES SO THE
ENGINEERING DESIGN AND ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENT CAN BE COMPLETED BY SPRING 2011
WHEREAS, in 2004 the City of Chula Vista completed a Citywide Drainage Master Plan
prepared by the consultant PBS&J; and
WHEREAS, City staff presented the findings to the City Council at an infrastructure
workshop on April 5, 2007; and
WHEREAS, a list of drainage deficiencies that had been identified through the 2004
Drainage Master Plan regarding the citywide drainage priority list was prepared as part of
comprehensive asset management approach that would ensure the best use of limited funding;
and
WHEREAS, City staff has been working to complete the work on those locations listed
on the drainage priority list that is separated into the following five priority categories:
Priority 1 Tier: Frequent flooding and/or high chance of personal Injury or
property damage.
Priority 2 Tier: Occasional flooding with a chance of personal injury or property
damage.
Priority 3 Tier: Frequent nuisance flooding.
Priority 4 Tier: Occasional nuisance flooding.
Priority 5 Tier: Frequent or routine maintenance manages problem but a CIP
project could eliminate the problem; and
4-31
Resolution No.
Page 2
WHEREAS, in Fiscal Year 2009/2010, City staff entered into an agreement with The
Rick Engineering Company in order for this consultant to prepare an unbiased evaluation of
Bonita Canyon and Long Canyon, each a Priority I Tier canyon; and
WHEREAS, each canyon is located in eastern Chula Vista; and
WHEREAS, Bonita Canyon is located north of Rancho Del Rey Parkway to the
intersection of Bonita Road/Willow Street and the Long Canyon study area is located from the
vicinity of Corral Canyon Road/East H Street to about the area of Canyon Drive/Country Vistas
Drive; and
WHEREAS, the consultant is recommending that the work at Bonita Canyon be
completed first; and
WHEREAS, in order to resolve the erosion issue at Bonita Canyon, it is necessary to
establish a Capital Improvement Program project; and
WHEREAS, in the drainage deficiency list presented to Council in April 2007, Bonita
Canyon repairs were originally estimated at $3,900,000 with a recommendation that further
analysis was needed in order to determine what would ultimately be needed; and
WHEREAS, the work estimate today ranges from about $680,000 to $1,000,000
depending on the number of phases that work is completed in; and
WHEREAS, if Council approves the funding, the design work and environmental review
could begin relatively quickly so that pending construction funding, construction work could
commence sooner; and
WHEREAS, the majority of Bonita Canyon is designated Conservation Area pursuant to
the City ofChula Vista's MSCP SubArea Plan; and
WHEREAS, although more expensive initially, in the long mn, completing the project in
one phase becomes the most cost efficient solution and completes the needed work on Bonita
Canyon the quickest; and
WHEREAS, staffs recommendation [s to appropriate $150,000 for design and
environmental review on Bonita Canyon; and
WHEREAS, the consultant team of Rick Engineering Company and Helix Environmental
Planning, Inc. have unique knowledge of this project, due to the work performed on their
recently completed Preliminary Assessment Report: and
WHEREAS, due to the urgency of the need for repairs to Bonita Canyon and the cost and
time savings that can be achieved by retaining consultants with familiarity and expertise related
to this project, staff is requesting that Council authorize negotiating terms with the consultant
team of Rick Engineering Company and Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. to perform the
design work and environmental review; and
4-32
I
____L
Resolution No.
Page 3
WHEREAS, staff will bring back as a future action to Council a report on funding
options such as grant funding to fund the construction and mitigation phase of the project
estimated at $530,000.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista does hereby establish a new Capital Improvement Project "Bonita Canyon Repairs" (DR-
189), amend the Fiscal Year 2010/2011 CIP Program and appropriate $150,000 from
unanticipated revenues to the General Fund Non-Departmental CIP budget into a new Capital
Improvement Program project titled "Bonita Canyon Repairs" (DR-189) to fund the engineering
design and environmental review only.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does
hereby authorize the Director of Public Works to negotiate with the consultant team of Rick
Engineering Company and Helix Environmental Planning Inc.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if the Director of Public Works is unsuccessful in
negotiating a contract with the consultant team, authorize staff to prepare and solicit requests for
proposals (RFP's) for engineering design, environmental review and geotechnical services so the
engineering design and environmental document can be completed by Spring 2011.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Richard A. Hopkins
Director of Public Works
~%OYt ~
Bart C. Miesfeld f~ ""P(L~-l J '/.1.,l \.QJj
City Attorney
4-33