Recommendation to receive information and provide direction relative to the geotechnical analysis peer-review report for the Ocean Boulevard (Bluff) Erosion and Enhancement Phase 2 project.  (District 3)
Yes. Item 25, report from the City Manager Recommendation to receive information and provide direction relative to the geotechnical analysis peer review report for the Ocean Boulevard Bluff Erosion Enhancement Phase two Project District three. Coming up. Let's just hold 110, 15 seconds till we get the the group out and we'll start. 38 in an hour. 25, right. Thank you. Okay. Mr. West. Vice mayor, members of the council, Eric Lopez, will provide the staff report in conjunction with the peer review engineers. So I'll now hand it over to Eric Lopez. Thank you, honorable vice mayor and members of the city council. The purpose of today's presentation is to provide information that was requested by the Council on April 29th, including the results of the geotechnical peer review. Before I introduce the lead geotechnical engineer to discuss the peer review results, I will provide some project background and existing condition details . The purpose of the Ocean Boulevard Bluff, Erosion and Enhancement Project is to stabilize portions of the bluff between 20th place and 36th place. The city's engineers have recommended using cylinder drilling technology and a ten colored chocolate phasing there that contains planter pockets. This project also includes improvements to Bluff Park. The original project plans and specifications were originally approved by the Council on July 9th, 2013. The project area consists of two main phases that that can be separated into various sections that have received different levels of treatment. Phase one at the bottom right corner, which is located between Redondo and 36th place, was stabilized with solar panels in Shop Street in 2011. Phase two Area one, which is located on the left hand corner adjacent to the Museum of Art between 20th place and Lin. Darrow has received most of the required selling hours, but no shark creep. Phase two Area two between Temple and or Asaba has received selling hours, and approximately half of the area has received the final shot recoding. The other half has exposed someone else. Phase two, area three between Rosalba and Paloma has received also on hours and the full shot pretreatment and is ready for staining. On April 29th, the city council voted to delay implementation of to delay continuation of the project construction and directed staff to conduct an engineering analysis. Consider all other alternatives to blood stabilization. Advise the Council on Community Improvements that do not involve concrete, and report the results to the Council and to the public. 40 requested peer review. Three independent geotechnical firms were hired to review the project. The committee was led by John Chandra Wood Layton, consultant, who will now discuss the process and results of the review. Thank you, Eric, and good evening. The other two members are Dr. Carol Morley and also Daniel Crandall. They're here as well. We were asked by the city to review, to perform a peer review of the geotechnical reports to verify the selected slope improvements are the preferred method, I'm sorry, and to evaluate feasible alternatives. The subject of our reviews was the to report prepared by Kleinfeld, the geotechnical engineer of record. Along with the two reports we were provided with the construction plans memorandum by the City Manager dated May 13, 2014, and the memorandum by S.A. P.W. A. The slowest look I located in the coastal environment with existing improvement right on top of the slope. Therefore they are parameters that are unique and specific to the site. It's an overview of the provided documents. We understand that grading to flatten the slope is not an acceptable option because grading will move the top of the slope back and will cut into the size of Bluff Park and or it will move the total of the slope out. They will encroach into the beach area. We also understand that retaining wall at the tall or the middle of the slope are not desirable due to a static and cost reasons. Despite being in a seismically active area, we understand that the design of the slope improvements will need to meet the seismic design requirements. We had these parameters in our mind when we performed a review. The summary of findings. The full exploration consisted of 14 borings and three colon penetration testing, and the borings were advanced at the top of the slope as well as at the beach area by the toll of the slope. It is the committee opinions that the full exploration was adequate considering the extent of the project as well as the consistency of the subsurface soils. The sole parameters were selected based on lab testing and also testing in the field. Along with public correlation. Again, it's the opinion of the committee that the SOL parameters are reasonable for the site. The seismic parameters were developed following the guidelines by California Geological Survey and also Southern California Engineering Center. Those parameters are reasonable, and they follow the practice of the County of Los Angeles. We also review the methods approach and the parameters using the slope stability analysis. And we agree with the approach and method and. The report found that portions of the slab had that fact of safety lower than the court. The court requirements and the committee agreed with that findings. We had a factor of safety with the fission kleinfeld recommended for nailing to stabilized the slope. The committee agreed with that finding that some type of deep soil anchor, such as for nails or tiebacks, will be required to improve the static and seismic stability of the slope. Where solariums are installed, the face will be protected with shot. Creating the shot. Will be stained and sculpted. And also provided with plenty of pockets for vegetation growth. Should create a final along with child credit has been commonly used for blood stabilization along the Pacific Coast Highway from Santa monica to San Clemente to San Diego. It is the community's open ended phone, mailing and short clip are appropriate for the site and opportunities to show it is the use of bio technical techniques, which involve using three routes to encode the use of its soil. This option is feasible for the site where create has not been installed and depending on the contour and inclinations of the slopes, the deep rooted vegetation may be implemented with other elements such as steel, wire mesh or timber grids to hold the topsoil and the slope planting. This method, however, is not recommended where it has been installed because it will require remove removal of this shortcut, which it's a tedious process before it is structurally connected to the solid nailing and removal of the shortcut may impact the integrity of the existing soils and also the chocolate is placed places. The poor is fraught directly on the slope phase. So removal of the shortcut work may also take out some of the source that would decrease the stability of the slope. It is the conclusion of the committee that the solar system is an appropriate solution for the project and for the site by the technical techniques may be considered for slope area where Short Create has not been installed but is not recommended in the area where it has been installed. Thank you. Thank you, John. The we have looked at some of the bio technical options and we found a couple of pictures prior to landscaping and after our technical option had been landscape. And we have a couple of pictures included on on this slide. So this is on the top right hand. Hand corner is a steel mesh option and then in the bottom is a fully vegetated bio technical option. We've also included picture of the of a of the shark treats with without any landscaping and without find no staining . And we included a picture of an area that had been created and landscaped. Additional pictures were included were are included in the staff report of before and after scenarios with and without shark creep and landscaping. Mr.. Lopez, just briefly, if you can, to the quick question of once so back the the diving when the from the bottom left that's an of shark treat. That no the bottom bottom the bottom left hand corner is a bio technical vegetated method. Got it. Thank you. And the bottom left hand corner here in this slide is a shot. Create an out and shot treat area with landscaping. With mature landscaping. As discussed in the peer review report and by the by the Geo Technical Committee, there are viable alternatives to short create for areas that currently do not contain financial create. However, these bio technical solutions do require significantly more maintenance. A cost estimate for those for those areas are listed on Slide 13. For phase two, area one that currently has most of the required selling hours but no shot create an estimate. The estimated cost to install a bio technical alternative is 1.04 million for this for the portion of phase two Area two that currently does not have final shot create. The estimated cost to install a geo technical alternative instead of 683,000. The total estimated cost to remove all existing chocolate and install a bio technical alternative is estimated between 9.8 and 11.5 million, and the breakdown between the removal of concrete and the installation of a bio technical alternative is listed on the slide. The timeline. If a biotech the treatment were to be selected would be between seven and nine months to go through. From design and engineering to implementation. The duration of construction has yet to be determined. If the existing Shah were to be removed to install a bio technical option that would require 9 to 12 months to complete the duration of construction is also estimated to increase, but that time has not been determined. The timeline to complete the project per existing plants and specifications will require one month to re mobilize and and another month to complete our remaining major construction. What an anticipated completion date of August 29, 2014. If the Council would like to explore the option of sloping the bluff by extending onto the beach or bluff park, the timeline to design and implement the option assessment is estimated to take 14 to 23 months. In addition to community concerns with impacting the beach or Bluff Park, the city's local coastal program requires that bluff stabilization measures should be designed to cause minimum encroachment on existing sand areas. And that's a reference to page two to page two. That's 29 and the local coastal program. Options to complete the project include proceeding with existing plans, improving landscaping and finishing park improvements to finishing shock weed wearing complete improving landscaping, finishing park improvements and evaluating botanical solutions for Phase two Area one three Removing shot, create and starting bold technical alternatives for an entire bluff or for starting additional alternatives that may not have been considered today. Before I conclude, I would like to thank the by the geotechnical engineering committee led by John Chandra with Leighton, a rural and Daniel with Earth Mechanics and Delta. They have played they have committed such this time, significant time in order to assist the city and council in compiling this report . That concludes that I recommend a staff presentation. Okay. Mr.. Was that complete? Yes, sir. Okay. I should like. To just go to the public. Sure. Let's go ahead and open up in the public comment on the item. So as you come forward, please make sure that you identify yourself for the record. Good evening, council members. I'm Mel Nutter. And before I get started, I do have a memo that some of you may already have seen. And I just want to make sure that you all have a copy. Knowing that my time is undoubtedly limited, I want to refer to notes which usually I prefer not to do. But I want to say that on December 21st of 2009, the city gave notice that the zoning administrator would hold a hearing on this particular application for a coastal development permit for the Bluff Park Project. And in February of this year, there was a request under your Public Notice or Public Records Act requirements for a copy of that permit, as well as the plans associated with it. And unfortunately, your staff was unable to come up with what we were looking for. And instead we ultimately obtained a copy of much of that from the Coastal Commission where a notice was provided to them about the action taken on December 21st of 2009. And I mention that because there are a variety of conditions we found in that documentation, including an indication that certain plans had had been approved. And we've never been able to locate those plans, nor apparently has anybody at the city, as far as we can tell, are at the Coastal Commission. And in that connection, one week after the zoning administrator acted on this coastal development permit, there was a an engineering report. It was labeled preliminary or draft, but it did not talk about Short Creek at all. It talked about some of the other ways of dealing with stabilizing the bluff. And I can only speculate that whatever the plans were that were submitted to the zoning administrator and where the subject of that permit action, in fact did not include shot, create the memo that I've provided you and I seem about running out of time if you're strict about that. The memo I provided indicates, as did your staff, that in spite of the fact that your consulting firm or the peer review group did an admirable job of dealing with the issues, given the constraints that were provided. Thank you. We're going to leave. We believe that if you take a careful look at that memo that I've distributed, you will see that it's quite possible for there to be some encroachment on the beach, if that's a better way of dealing with this. Thank you, Bill. Thanks. Next speaker, please. Hi. Gabrielle Weekes, Sierra Club. Hi, Al. Long time no see. I was just hounding him this afternoon about something else, so this sign pretty much says it all. Let's. Let's take our time and get it right. The neighborhood associations were shown drawings of something that was mostly plants to stabilize the bluffs the way it had been. I've lived in Long Beach for about 15 years, and that's been stabilized by plant the whole time I've lived here. The Sierra Club is out there once a week with a regular hike that we've had since the eighties. That goes up and down that and I'm there out there early in the morning. So, I mean, I've never seen chunks of dirt fly loose or anything I can understand. Maybe one has shored up a little bit with some new plants, but we're absolutely confused by why the whole thing looks like a target parking lot at an angle. But let's take our time and get it right. There's been a lot of damage done. There's a lot of cement and pins and steel plates. And, you know, and thank you, by the way, for actually giving us a price on how much to remove all that. I think it was horrible mistake. I don't know anybody who says, yeah, lots of cement. Our beach looks like the monitor or the Merrimac. Maybe we will have to spend the big bucks to remove all that, but at least let's take our time and get something right. And maybe we decide that this is that the GEO staff needs more supervising so that we don't accidentally spend 9 million on shock treat that nobody meant to be there. It is sturdy and that's great, but it was pretty sturdy before. So I don't understand why we've got like the, you know, Civil War bunker going on there, but let's take our time and get it right, because this thing will last for 20 or 50 years. And if we spend more money removing all that ugly stuff before teenagers graffiti it, well, maybe that's what we do, because it's going to be there for many, many years. And that's what we've hinged our tourism on. Tourists aren't going to come to hang out and spend money at something that looks like Attica. Making. Gabrielle next speaker, please. Hi. My name is Seamus and I'm a licensed civil engineer in the state of California. I live in the fourth district and I have property in the second district. I'm the vice chair of the Long Beach chapter of the Surfrider Foundation, and the Lummis chapter thinks the alternative is horrible. We need to pull it out and pretty much follow alternative for option number four. So there are alternatives. And I got a little bit ahead of myself. I wanted to start off with Go Team USA 2018. We'll come round next time. Okay. So one recommendation is to finish as much work as you possibly can that doesn't involve concrete and demobilize all that equipment off the beach so we can study the alternatives for the concrete removal while we can finish everything else and just make the beach not look like a construction zone. Another recommendation I recommend for you guys is to get the stakeholders involved in some sort of stakeholder workshop because there's a lot of plans and details that you guys don't need to be involved with, with, and the stakeholders are happy to spend their time getting into it and all the little options and alternatives. And this concept about the stakeholders don't want an alternative extending out onto the beach. I don't know what stakeholders they're talking about, but some of the people right here are perfectly happy with that alternative. The peer review is flawed due to the narrow scope. If you can go to the second slide on that on this slide up here, can we go back to the different slides? The second slide is up there. Whoever is in charge of that? No. All right. Well, the city council has to ask the the staff to do a peer review of all alternatives before they scope the peer review. Most of the alternatives were wiped out and not even considered. So if you need a peer review, have them go back and do it again. I disagree with as a licensed civil engineer, I disagree with the conclusions of that peer review. The conclusion said that because it's going to be expensive and because it's going to be damaging to remove the shock to the existing soil, then you shouldn't do it. Well, that's not a good reason not to do it. We all knew it would be expensive and time consuming and damaging to the existing soil. And if you're going to rebuild the bluff in some way, you're probably going to have to damage the existing soil. So those are givens and that's not a reason not to remove the shot. Cory, thank you for your time. Next Speaker Hello, my name is David Revell. I'm a coastal geomorphologist and was the lead author on the essay. P.W. A Report. On April 29th, I presented to the City Council on a range of bio technical stabilization alternatives. I've said that I was here to work with the city to try and come up with some alternatives. I promptly followed up with Mr. Lopez with two of the three peer review committee members, and I followed up with a report two weeks later which was submitted to the city looking at a wide range of alternatives. In that report, we also raised nine questions for consideration by the geotechnical committee. None of them were addressed or answered in the by this committee. These questions ranged from the potential size of a catastrophic landslide, the inclusion of the existing seawall and the slope stability analysis and the angle of repose related to the geologic unit that this block is made up of. After review of the report, I noticed that several of the alternatives were included. I heard in the presentation that the by the vegetation stabilization was actually considered feasible, and however, the big missing piece was the slope regrading and slope stabilization caused by recreating a stable slope and apparently was precluded for the same reason that it was not considered by the Kleinfeld to report. The Kleinfeld to report was specifically told not to look at regrading because of this concern about going out on to the beach, a decision not to include construction of an additional wall was the cost in esthetics. Can we regrade this slope? Technically, absolutely. We've done it in many places and engineers do that a lot. The bluffs of Long Beach have evolved over time. The once wave attacked cliffs have been sheltered from waves. The artificial sand fill has been placed to widen the beach. And as that cliff has gradually retreated, we've started to get closer to an equilibrium angle of stability. This natural process would have given us this free, constructed, stable angle if we had just given it time. And that has obviously not been the case we've now injected in an urban environment. We need engineering and we need some partners to make sure we get the plants and the slope stable now. In my professional opinion, there are several technical alternatives for stabilizing this bluff. We absolutely need to consider slope regrading and slope stabilization. We can achieve a lot with that. I don't think that either the KLINEFELTER report or the peer review committee was given the freedom to look at that alternative in earnest. And I think that is what city staff should be directed to do and to provide another option in the suite of stabilization tools. Thank you. Hi. I'm Will Collin. I live on Loma Avenue. We greatly appreciate the opportunity given to. The community during this temporary pause in. Construction. We've been busy researching records, contacting other cities about how they've resolved similar issues and putting together alternatives for our bluffs. With that in mind, I'm here to support the council directing staff to do two things. First, continue the pause on the bluff stabilization until all alternatives can be compared. No more work on the short creek, no more piecemeal. Work on repairing the revegetation. Failures of Phase one and two staff should put together a complete list of alternatives for bluff, stabilization, revegetation, and then do a thorough analysis of the costs and benefits. And staff should provide the community a way to participate in the analysis so that options for cost savings and assurances for final successes are fully vetted prior to spending any more money. Second. Contract contractors and renegotiate a modification of the contract. We'd like to see work on the Bluff Park complete as soon as possible, and we understand this may require some temporary handrails that can be removed when the bluff work starts again and maybe some time. Other than that, modifications can be made to that contract. But we think that there are ways to do this that will allow public use of the park on schedule. And we hope that the city attorney can negotiate a contract modification that keeps the crew working while the city figures out what to do with the Stuff Revitalization Project. Now it's clear to everyone that mistakes were made prior to the permit getting approved. We do not believe that there was any intentional wrongdoing. But telling the engineers from KLINEFELTER to upgrade the slope was prohibited by the Coastal Commission was wrong. This is not prohibited by the city's LPC or the Coastal Act and telling the peer review team to also omit any consideration of that alternative is just repeating the error. So we do not know who asked the Coastal Commission for that opinion or what the Coastal Commission said. But we know that the that the beach fill is not only allowed for for bluff stabilization, it was anticipated when the LCP was adopted and if the city told the Coastal Commission it. Wasn't necessary because there was an. Alternative that didn't require beach fill, that would also be wrong. The alternative of short Crete is prohibited in the Coastal Act. Finally, if the community is allowed to contribute to that comparison of all the alternatives, we believe that we can find innovative ways to reduce costs for all the necessary repairs. We appreciate the opportunity, given the community during this pause, and we look forward to bringing our ideas on how to fix the mistakes to this point. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Great. Good evening. As City Council vice mayor. Temporarily. My name is Gordon a cager and live at 235 Loma and thank you very much for bringing this subject back to City Council. Thank you. For those of you who participated in the special session at the end of April for making this happen, I'm also very happy to tell you that I've been renominated to the city's Sustainable City Commission, and I'm honored to represent the third District. I'd like to very briefly finish Mel Nutter's comments. This was something that he was prevented from speaking about as a result of the time constraints. I'd like to read specifically a paragraph that he was not permitted to to say because of the time. What we can say is that a Kleinfeld or engineering report dated a week after the December hearing describing slope stability techniques that did not include the use of shock create. This is back in December of 2009 because shark creep was not being considered then. Presumably the approved plans did not provide for the shock treatment suggested later. Is that is the case? The work currently performed appears to be unpermitted and in violation of your LCP requirements. I'm here to ask specifically two things this evening. I'd like your assistant assistance to direct staff tonight to finish the Bluff Park Project. The residents of the city deserve their park back. The Bluff Park residents deserve their park back. We can finish the sidewalk. We can finish the handrails. We can do the lawn. We can do the irrigation and finish the construction. Separate that project from what's happening on the bluff, please. It's a whole different project, whole different constraints. We should finish the park fast, and we should do the Bluff Erosion Project much more slowly. Secondly, I think it's very, very reasonable to request a cost benefit analysis, a feasibility study, and stop me if this sounds too eco terrorism or unreasonable. But this is a very complex project. You've just had numbers prod up to you in public that no one has had an opportunity to look at independently. Have we had a competitive bid put out? Do we know what it costs to remove shot create? By the way, when I did construction at my house and I got to do demo and my new kitchen is going in, I use the same company who's doing the new construction to do the demolition of the old work. That's what saves costs. And if you're interested in saving money on this project, please consider directing staff to more competitive notions of how to cost these kinds of projects to benefit the community. Please slow down. Cool your jets. There's no hurry here. We're looking for a long term solution to a problem that's been decades in the making. And there's no reason to do this fast. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is Sydney Simon. I live in Belmont Heights and I'm a property owner in Alamitos Beach. First of all, I want to reiterate that whatever we do, we've got it forever, certainly as long as any of us are going to be around here. So I say let's slow down and not rush to judgment. We've been given the impression that these concrete walls are going to be covered with plants. But I actually really question the utility of these planter pockets. They measure about two feet by two feet. They are they are laid on a in a cement wall that South facing that's got the sun beating down on it every single day. And I just question how legitimate the growth, the promise of lush growth is that it's going to be coming out of there. I don't actually even know of a project that has successfully used planter pockets. Another thing that I'm really worried about as it's configured now and even what the peer review suggested. It sounds to me like a patchwork of solutions and there isn't any kind of consistent design that's going to get to bring the whole thing together, and that's just a recipe for disaster. So I propose absolutely separating the park from the bluff finish the park. The neighborhoods would be so indebted if we could finish the park, get the irrigation going, and then address the bluff. Then consider the costs and alternatives to removing the shock rate, flattening the slope for erosion and seismic control and revegetated with carefully selected native plants. Thanks a lot. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Hello. Council and Vice Mayor. My name is Isaac Waxhaw and I live on First Street in Bluff Park. First of all, I'd like to say that I don't think it's possible to separate the park from. From the bluff. I've seen this construction going on, and whenever they work on the bluff, the park is not accessed, accessible. Not to my point. This Council approved plans and specifications for the Bluff Corrosion and Enhancement Project not once, but twice. The second. Time. Was a year and a half after the first project was completed and you voted to continue it. A vote to change this project from the existing plan is you approved twice is telling us. That you made a mistake. Twice. A multimillion dollar mistake. And he waited for for many years until the project was weeks from completion. Three weeks to stop and admit. Your costly mistake? I don't think so. I don't think so many of us. And I think it's really most of us feel that you showed good judgment when you voted for the first time and again when you voted for it the second time. The 2010 report explains in great details why the existing plan is right. I read the entire report and it makes a lot of sense to me. I also spoke to some experts about it, too. Four years later, we have a new report. Concluding that the first report was correct. Let's finish the project. You approved a plan to ensure people that your decisions were right. And let's get it finished real soon. And please, let's not waste any more money. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Council and vice mayor. My name is Elise McConaughey. I live in El Ninos Beach neighborhood. I really appreciate the council taking the time to stop and look at this and stop this from moving forward. I have to agree with or disagree on a multitude of levels with the last speaker, except for the fact is that the decisions of the council, I believe, were based upon inaccurate information that was given to you. So I do not fault the Council with this. I do agree that they could be broken up and that we could finish the bluff, we could fix the sidewalks, install the handrails and get our park back. Second, I believe that we need to take the time and do a feasibility study on the bluff and really take a look at some of our alternatives with costs and benefit to help the Council to make an informed decision. This means considering all of the erosion control options. Unfortunately, due to budget challenges, we had lost some of the key folks that had been involved originally with this project in the initial discussions. I believe that there was vital information that was lost and that did not get communicated to the new focal people. Let's not be in a hurry. Our City Council has spearheaded a lot of new and great ideas. There has not always been the most popular choices from plastic bags to bike lanes and parklets. But let's also be honest too. Those were easy fixes. If they didn't work out, we could repaint. We can move a pot. This is not the same thing. This, unfortunately, is something that's going to be with us forever. And we don't want to regret it. So please, please us, do the right thing and let's stop and look at all of our options on the bluff. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Alex Monti. I live at First Street in Molino. In Bluff Park, and like many of my neighbors in Bluff Park, I'm in favor of finishing the project. Under the current design, experts have drawn attention to the risk involved in removing the shot created at this point. Well, if as a result, we maintain the shot create and the other remediation methods which have already been used in place, and add yet another erosion control by a technical restraint system we heard about. We are. Changing our bluff into a showroom of erosion control techniques available for other people to select from. And this is not what we're looking for. We do not want to become a showroom for others. We have made, we believe, the right decisions, given the fact that we live in a seismically active area and. We are weeks from completing the. Project. I ask that you maintain the project. In place and completed. As designed. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good evening. I have a handout for you folks because I'm a slow speaker. So if I get cut off, I'd like you to finish reading my comments. They continued. Mayor, vice mayor. Soon to be mayor, council members and staff. My name was having this single hardest and I lived in the Black Park Historic District. As long time residents, my husband and I are equally disappointed and frustrated with the chain of events leading up to the current state of affairs. Since the mid 1970s, many of us in the neighborhood have been requesting that the erosion issue that the projects with the park condition be addressed. In the year 2000, many give us participated in said it sponsored to workshops came monthly with the impression natural solution was to be implemented. There was never anything said about Shaqiri on page ten of the 2000 report. Ken Public entities such as the Park Association and the Alameda Speech Association were listed as parties of consultation. I do not recall any additional public hearings, workshops or presentations regarding this topic to any neighborhood association in a specific purpose of caring for a local coastal development. Permanent here of five 1412 regarding the Bixby Park left portion also also only also listed on the same page, known regulatory agencies such as the U.S. Corps, Army Corps of Engineers, California Coastal Commission, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services were listed as being anticipated to be involved. My question is, were they? I'm page 34. The 2010 crime failed to report. It stated that the city has selected so I want a chart crate facing page 38 report talks about the need for what appears to be a complicated drainage system which without which lead to adventure loss facing along with greater damage to the bluff has the drainage system currently installed at the over appropriate chart proving it is my experience so eager that once city works with public organizations, the outcomes are infinitely better. Third recommendation to separate out the completion of part from activations but fair approach and stabilization projects make sense to me. Give the park. I'm going to let you finish. I'm going to let you finish up. I want to you know that I know the last paragraph, so I just couldn't finish it. I think if. And it gives back to the to those who want to use it in a timely manner. And if there's no time to come up with a more appropriate solution to the black problem, using a cost benefit analysis of the alternatives available for observation and control to. This will be a legacy of yours for future generations. Thank you. Thank you, Helen. Next speaker, please. Hi. Sorry. I turned to be too loud. My name is Jenny, and I'm a resident of the edge of the second and sixth District. And I just wanted to start out by saying thank you to the first, second, fourth and sixth District for park improvements and green initiatives. In my neighborhood, we just got trees put in along 10th. Last year we had Craftsman Park installed and there's ongoing redevelopment and fixes at MacArthur Park. I've been a very active member of the O.C. seven neighborhood Group since it founded in 2012, and I've been a member of Surfrider since the mid 1990s. I'm going to try not to repeat everybody else's concerns, but I have a few things that I want to bring up that I haven't heard yet. Just talking about the green initiatives. One of the biggest things, the last big group that was here that spoke, they were really pushing the tourism and the aquatic capital of the world or the West Coast or the city slogan. It was really, really important to them. I was disappointed to see them leave. The more of them didn't stay for this issue because we are talking about the same area. But I just want to present is this a postcard that we'd really be proud to see? Welcome to Long Beach. And we've got to pay a bluff. The L.A. River, they're huge initiatives, part of L.A. County to unpaved because it's more natural, it's healthier, it provides more greenspace, it reduces runoff. All the other things that we're talking about, wetlands and dune restoration here, do we really want to have a pay bluff? We keep talking about the price, how expensive it is. We have one single quote that was 9.8 million to 1.5 million. Is it really going to be cheaper in 20 years? Do we really expect it to have a 20 year lifespan? What are the additional costs? What if it fails underneath? That was an address the last time we did discuss it. And also if there's any upkeep and repainting and also replanting because we haven't discussed whether there's an irrigation system as part of it and what if that fails underneath. Also, anything that's cemented will increase the runoff and the erosion of the beach. So there may be additional costs. I know that was a consideration with the local coastal plan when we were talking about putting in parts tonight an additional 167,000 in restaurant, restroom improvements and other path related expenses were approved. We're going to be building things that people are going to walk along the path and look at at a concrete barrier. And as a resident of Long Beach, a fifth generation Californian, I support everybody else that is asked to separate the park and the restoration. Projects there from. The bluff. It makes sense if we're looking at a redesign in re slope implemented in 18 to 24 months. That doesn't sound unreasonable considering that this plan has been 16 years in the making. Thank you very much. Thank you, Speaker. Good evening, Vice Mayor Garcia and members of the Council. My name is Kobe Sky. I'm a registered civil engineer in California who works in environmental engineering for the county of Los Angeles. And I'm a resident of the second District. I won't repeat some of the great comments that were already presented about how important this issue is. Obviously, people are very passionate because this is the heart of our city. It's so important to our economic development and our enjoyment of our beach. So I'll just focus on what we hope to take away from this issue, and that is that we definitely need more transparency and information sharing with the residents so that they can participate in this process. I think that you've heard from residents in Long Beach and in the area that have amazing expertize that they can learn and provide and they want to share. And we've had several cases recently where we don't have the full information about a project until it's moved along to close to the end of the process. And then residents are alarmed and concerned and there is definitely a better way where we can engage, are great resources in this city and have them participate and be happy with the product. And I know that a lot of of you like that model better. And this is a great opportunity for us. We have work that we can have the company finish to get our park back while taking the time to, you know, essentially get this right or as right as we can, given the resources we have. So I hope the city council will do that tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name's Survivor, and I live in Belmont Heights. I'm an environmental consultant and I've worked on Coastal Act enforcement for many years, and I have experience with coastal farming projects up and down the coast. So I offer to help the community as a volunteer by researching the documentation leading up to this project, as well as suggesting other cities to contact about cost effective alternatives to shore crude. As I told you in April, it was clear to me at the beginning that mistakes were made in choosing this short, crude alternative. I know from experience the Coastal Commission would never approve this project, and I confirmed in consultation with Mel Nutter that contrary to what the community and the engineers were told, your local coastal program does allow grading and beach fill for this specific site. I have to tell you, it's somewhat unusual for LCP is to be that specific. So it's troubling. The city management misinterpreted the law and eliminated the cheapest and best answer alternative from the beginning. And now in the peer review, I discovered something else in my research that I've been reluctant to share with the community, but I think you need to know what it is before we make a decision. After months of repeated requests, city management of city management has been unable to produce a coastal development permit for this project. They've given us a notice for a zoning administrator hearing in 2009 to adopt the CDP. But there's no record of the hearing nor the CGP under consideration. We got conditions of approval with reference to the CTP and project drawings, but not the CTP on the drawings. We got communication from the Coastal Commission about the CTP, but it didn't include the CTP. Really, I think we've got an every scrap of paper about the creepy except the permit itself and the approved drawings. Further, if this permit was issued in December of 2009, why did the city have Clint and Felder finish a report on the alternatives in 2010? Look, if there was irregularities in the permit or the permit can't be found, the city may be vulnerable to a cease and desist order, but it's important to see exactly what was what was permitted. Before you. Decide what to do now. And here's a really important point. The community is offering to work with the city management in a constructive and cooperative effort to fix both phase one and phase two. I think you should take them up on that offer. Don't do it just because there's a. Potential for an enforcement action and a cease and desist order. Do it because the community is genuine in their quest to find. Solutions. To it, because it's the right thing to do. Do it because this project can be a proud legacy. From this generation to the next. You can restore and beautify the natural bluffs. You didn't have to arm of the bluffs and then try to make them look natural. Natural solutions were available, available in 2009, and those alternatives are still available now. I think you've got to wrap it up. Okay. I'm going to quit there. Thank you. Thank you so much. Next speaker. Hi. Thank you. Council and Vice Mayor. My name is Roger Faruqi. I live in the Bluff Park community in the neighborhood. I work for a large general contracting company in Los Angeles. I'm very familiar with building large projects that involve doing slope stabilization and have examined the reports on the project and read them very carefully. It's very apparent to me that there are a couple of solutions to this. One is to regrade and one is to come up with some kind of structured solution to it. In my opinion, I had heard in when this project was being restarted or done something about two and a half years ago, I was pretty excited that we were actually going to do something with it. I walk the park on a regular basis and it's very disturbing to me that it had gotten to the delirious, dilapidated condition that it was in. It was very frustrating for me to walk into one of the most prime parks in the whole city and have it be so in bad disrepair. And it was obvious to me that one of the reasons it was in disrepair is that there's not a great foundation for it. We needed to do something to stabilize the slope there, either regrade it or reinforce it. I think that's been pretty clear in all of the reports, including the peer report recently done, that those that needed to be done in order to be able to maintain a park there. It's my belief that the solution that was put forth is a reasonable one. The we have a lot of people here that want to villainize concrete on the face of that or short creek. I want to point out that the reason that is a bluff and the nature of it is, is that there are loosely or in the original report, KLINEFELTER describes it as weakly cemented soils. What we basically have there is a bluff with very weak concrete on it, naturally. And all we're doing is making it stronger. I want to make that point. It's very frustrating to me that we've gotten that this has been delayed, that we're spending extra money with it. I really want to see the park finished. I think you should implement the program that you have put in place. Finish the park if you'd like to restudy regrading it. You can certainly grade over the top of this stabilization and it'll certainly be very strong if that was done. Anyway, I'm done. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker. And before we speak, is there any other speakers? I'm going to cut off the speakers list. Casey None. To the gentleman behind, you'll be the last speaker. Good evening. My name is Alan Ross. I've lived in the bluff now for six years, so I'm kind of a newcomer to all of this. But I'm not a partizan, as so many people here. I'm just someone who sat back and watched you. You had two reports. You acted on them. You built what you've built. I'm not going to sit here and say that. I think the shot is the most esthetically beautiful thing I've ever seen. But it's okay and it seems to work. I haven't heard one thing tonight that would indicate that it doesn't work. You stopped the project, you spent money. You had engineers come in and look at it again. And I didn't hear one word that says what you did doesn't work. So as a resident, I would like to see you finish this project. We're being told that it would be $11 million to take this out. And someone suggested that Mr. Parkin could cleverly renegotiate the terms and get it cheaper. I don't want to see you spend $8 million or $7 million to do this. Take your money. Spend it on something worthwhile. But you've you've run this project all the way to the end. No one is saying it doesn't work. And I think you should finish it. Thank you. Thank you. Your last speaker on the item. Sir. Good evening. My name is Andrew Virtue. I'm a resident of Belmont Plaza, adjacent to the bluff. I've lived in Long Beach since 1989, and I'm a professional landscape designer based here in Long Beach, California. And I use the bike path a lot in the bluff. And I have to say I hate the shot create. I think it's ugly, but as many people do. But I also can see the potential practicality of of it as some the last people have said, considering the fragile crumbling nature of a bluff and bluffs do tend to crumble down into the ocean over time. So I I'm not going to offer any expertize as far as whether or not the shark creed is the best idea. I do like the idea of exploring whether there are other solutions for the remaining area that hasn't yet been covered with concrete. But I have one piece of very practical advice, I think, which is Ice Plant addressing one of the earlier people who spoke about what could be put in the planter pockets that would actually cover the concrete. And it's very unsexy. It's very odd. Glamorous. It's not fashionable, but it actually can grow to up to 160 feet in diameter from a single plant. We see it all over Southern California. It's not native, unfortunately, but it really does do the job of covering slopes. It will grow in foggy, salty, coastal conditions. It will tolerate hot, scalding sun on a concrete bluff. And it's the only plant that I know of in the world. It's actually Latin name is Capo Broadus at Dulles. It's an ugly name for sort of an ugly plant, but it really will cover a hot, scalding hot bluff that's covered in concrete. And if the shark remains and if that's what has to be there in order to keep the bluff from falling down, even though it's not a native, it's not exciting, it's not glamorous and it's not fashionable. I think it's very practical and we should look at what actually grows versus some of the earlier landscaping projects that were done, exotic things that were put on the hillside that all failed. And we ended up with a crisscross of white PVC, plastic irrigation pipes and a lot of weeds adjacent to the staircases. And the unglamorous ice plant is one of the few things that really will grow and hopefully would cover some of the concrete. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes the public comment. I have a couple of councilmembers, Councilmember DeLong and Councilman Bishopsgate. Thank you. After our last speaker, somebody needs to get Gordon on Advil or adult beverage, one or the other. But, you know, to my colleagues, let me just say that, you know, you're going to miss me while I'm gone when you don't have these stimulating and exciting projects before you on a regular basis. Start with that. You know, as you know, we've you know, obviously, it's been a bit of a divisive issue in the community, particularly recently, I think just this evening. We have experts on both sides that recommended completely different approaches. And accordingly, I think that some compromise is in order here and to try and thread the needle and see if we can make everybody as happy as possible or at least equally unhappy. As we go forward and we'll find out the outcome. You know, certainly looking back and hindsight being 2020, I do agree. I think that a different approach clearly could have been taken with this project or just even starting with something simple like finish phase one before moving on to phase two, because we really don't know how this will end up looking like. But had we finished phase one, finished the irrigation, finish, the landscaping, it might look just great. And we wouldn't be here tonight because the community would be looking at it and saying, yeah, you know, that that that actually turned out okay. Let's continue on that with that process. But unfortunately, we don't know that. So what I'm going to recommend is my motion is very similar to the staff's second alternative. And what that is, is that, first of all, to move forward expeditiously with the work on the top park portion of the bluff and any other infrastructure improvements regarding the railings, sidewalks, etc., let's get that finished as quickly as we possibly can. Secondly, as you know, although the the peer review studies do support shot create is a viable option for bluff stabilization. We've we've heard that several times, particularly from the peer review committee. They've also indicated that other options are viable as well, potentially. So we would ask staff that on the portions that have not been shot created to go look whether it's geo grid or whatever those other appropriate alternatives are, let's take a look at that and see if there's a better solution on a going forward basis. In regards to the shot create, I think we should finish what we started with. I do agree with the gentleman whether we can negotiate down from 10 million to 9 million or 7 million. It's still a tremendous amount of money for the city to do that. Again, I think we could have done it differently perhaps in the beginning, but sometimes you are where you are. So I think we need to finish with the short creek. We need to finish getting it stained. We need to get the irrigation here. We get it. We need to get it landscaped. I will also ask staff that as the alternatives are being considered, meet with the local bluff part and Neighborhood Association and perhaps others to keep them updated. The progress so that as we move forward, this is a project that the community feels that they're a partner in every step of the way. And in addition to the city council and that's my motion. Second Councilmember Chips Lipski. One of my concerns is the I think it point's been brought up twice tonight. And I have this city attorney and city manager on this is to the difficulty that residents had when they asked. They did a public records request and lo and behold, there's a missing permit, which obviously, if we didn't have it permit, it could . Subject. The city to have an enforcement action, and we may have to take the Shot Creek out anyway. So I would ask what happened with the permit? Why hasn't it been able to be disclosed in the public records? Do we do we have a permit that you could share with us tonight? Give copies to everybody? Eric Lopez We do we do have a local coastal permit on file. That's that clearly lays out the special conditions of approval. That permit has been provided. We can distribute copies and put a copy of it on the website as well. Eric and. In all due respect, I have their packet that they received as a public records request. It's not in the packet. They wouldn't have stood here and made these allegations if they had received that. Councilmember It's in the incident. The projects are construction specifications and it was. It was out. It was you may have it, but was it provided as part of the request for the Public Records Act? Response is apparently not. I'm not sure if it was provided, but we do have it and we can provide it. Mr.. And who who's responsible for responding and Public Records Act requests. I believe the channel through the city manager's office. Okay, Mr. West. So the reason they didn't get a copy of this. I didn't see that public records request. We certainly will get back to you and see whether we got it and why it wasn't provided and whether it was or not. Well, but if if we could if we could indulge just for a moment with Mr. Nutter, since he has talked with the Coastal Commission as well, they apparently don't have a copy either. Well, you've heard we have a copy and well. You may have a copy, but we've got some serious allegations. And I really understand the public coming and saying, listen, you approved it. Get going, finish it off. But if there are some serious allegations being made here tonight that this may be unpermitted work and that the shot was not presented and that decisions were made, so if they didn't get a copy and most of the commission doesn't have it, then can we get a response about what's going on here? Yes, we have we have the permit. Will you have at the council? We have we have the permit. And the issue that you're talking about is whether or not a pre was sent and whether we responded appropriately to the APRA. I don't know that and we will investigate that immediately tomorrow. Well, Mr. Russell, I'll get you a copy of it because you need a copy. We'll get them a copy. As well, sir. Well, if the council. Would indulge, could Mr. Nutter just because he was cut off, he was handling things, could he just comment about his interactions about this issue? Because this these are serious allegations, folks. This goes to the heart of the argument that the residents are arguing about is you made a decision and apparently the documentation isn't there. Could Mr. Nutter address what he was told? If you have a question, Mr. Nutter. Could you could you address what you were told? Yes. I was told that staff could not at the city council at City Hall find anything other than the initial application and a notice of the hearing for December 21st, 2009. As I tried to explain in my earlier comments, I was able to obtain some additional information from the Coastal Commission, which, in fairness to your staff, does indicate some of the conditions that apparently were attached to that permit. But but that's the scary. Part of it. Is that one of the one of the points was that there were approved plans. Haven't seen them. Don't know where they are. And I'm a little concerned that if all we're going to see are a series of conditions that reference some other documents that actually reflect what the project has described to the zoning administrator was in December of 2009 that we don't have a complete picture package, and I'm not sure whether Mr. Lopez is referring to a few pages of conditions that reference approved plans that we have not seen. And I don't know whether he's got those. So in addition to the permit, are the plans available? We'll certainly look tomorrow and see what's been provided and what's been asked for. Yes. So we're talking about a plan. Well, because the plans the plans are very important about the permit, because the plans set out what was requested, obviously, in the permit. And so all I can say, they will investigate tomorrow. I'm not sure who Mr. Nutter talked to or what staff members replied. All I can say is we're taking this in. We're writing notes. We're paying attention. We'll respond tomorrow. Okay. Well, then I'd like to make a substitute motion that we we lay this over for the new city council so that the appropriate documentation can be provided to the council. Cape motion dies. Councilman Alonzo. Told you. Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. I wanted to thank the community for coming out and certainly engaging us in this effort. It is certainly worthwhile. I think most of you that are here in the audience were part of the initial group that came forward with your concerns and having read and reviewed what the peer review group has come forward with, and I appreciate that process as well, where you were involved in ensuring that the selection of the group was amenable and agreeable to those of you that are very interested. I am in agreement with Councilmember DeLong, who had articulated, while this is not perhaps the most esthetically pleasing option, we have spent money going down this road. It is an option that was validated by a group of experts as an option that's acceptable. I do wish we had finished our phase one, as Mr. DeLong said, prior to multitasking and and starting. But I think that in in earnest is because we wanted to complete this project long overdue as as quickly as possible and ensure that we revealed progress along the path. But having said that, I will support continuing with what we have right now and looking at the alternatives as the motion, such as the motion called for looking at alternatives for the remainder of the project. I have a question for staff, Mr. City Manager or or your designee in terms of the contractor that's currently doing the work would. Perhaps as a city attorney. QUESTION Do we have to take any extra measures for considering alternatives for the remainder of the project? Well, the consideration. Of. The remainder, I guess it depends. I mean, the depending on what the alternative that the council wants to go forward with, could either one be a change order to an existing agreement with our existing contractor? Or if it's such a significant change, a departure from what was planned, then there may be a rebid requirement, but until those options come before us, we couldn't give you a concrete answer. Okay. Well, I appreciate the. Thank you. Thank you so much, along. With all my questions been answered. Thank you. Karen Braxton. Thank you. And I want to thank everybody for coming out. Certainly learned more about bluffs than I ever thought. I know tonight. I do have a question regarding the motion. Does it need to be date specific in terms of when the options should come back to the Council? Mr.. Brown. Well, I think there was looking at the presentation for a period of time that said it would take to look at the alternatives. To step one coming in. In 2 to 3 months or something. As I recall, I heard to look at whether there are alternatives that are feasible. So just to clarify, to come back with alternatives on the two areas that have been soil nailed but not shot created. So we would like the ability to talk to the contractor and engage with the community and look at what. The the. Whether it's a bio technical alternative or a landscaping alternative, then get back. To the council. And we're looking for that to be a 2 to 3 month process. Eric 44 The concepts. Yes, we can. We can look at the bio technical alternatives, concepts and engineering within that time frame. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Austin. Mr. City Attorney. That was my question. Is the it does the motion have or does it include or is it a limit? The options that you're asking them to evaluate to the bio technical or is are other options? I'm not clear on what direction the council's giving staff for the areas that are not to be finished with Short Creek. So it would be, as I understood, the peer review report which I have here. Bear with me just a moment. So so the purity report said an available alternative Shot Creek for slope phase production is using prior technical techniques as outlined in Section 3.0. So that's what I'm looking to have addressed. I think that came about and. Will bring will bring those alternatives back to the council at a later date once they've been worked out with the engineers in the community. But I think, as Mr. Lopez says, I think we're looking for as kind of a conceptual as a viable. Does it work? You know, maybe some kind of an order of magnitude in terms of cost to the community to support it as opposed to shock, create and then come back. Yes. Mr. Olson. Joe, anything else? Okay. I have a couple of things. From what I understand, emotion. And you want to just make sure it's clear the motion is one to complete the work at the park, but obviously at the park, anything that can get done as soon as possible. And I think that's obviously been pretty clear that the importance of it, the community certainly wants that. The second is to continue with the current short street project as and part of that one phase and finish the the other portion of the landscaping portion of the other phase that was done initially, correct? Absolutely possible. And then the then the last piece of that is for the areas that have not been completed to evaluate about tactical solutions. Now, could it be evaluated by a technical end or other landscaping or other solutions that are that are possibly out there? Because and maybe I understood this roundabout, but are from what the from the peer review report that are both biotech the goal solutions as well as possible other landscape or other solutions. Or maybe I misinterpreted misinterpreted that. Is that correct? Mr.. LOPEZ The the available alternatives are only the bio technical alternatives. So there's various iterations of these about bio technical techniques that will be explored. But those are what what is feasible. And that's not what I thought I heard. But is there anyone else appear that differently? Yeah. Mr. Vice Mayor, as they talk about in section 3.0, the bio technical techniques, and they give things such as deep root of vegetation, deep root of vegetation and combination of geographic timber grid and life slope grading with a lattice like a river and horizontal table. So I think biochemical techniques is pretty all encompassing. Okay. And that would include landscape options and. Yes. And other types of I want to make sure that we're not limiting to one one type, but we're looking at the a broad range of options that, according to the engineers and others, is all within this bio technical solution group. Okay. So that's that clarifies the motion for me. Can you comment answer the question, Mr. Lopez, on the current shot street section, that's that's I know that we were a few weeks away from completing. How much is the short crit work actually completed? In an area in area three, the shaft work has been fully completed and it just requires the Steyning treatment and area. Two half of the half half of the area has been fully completed, which out create and just require sustaining. The second half still has to expose someone else. Okay, so it's essentially half of the second phase. It still needs complete that we would actually be finishing on the shock route side. It's now because the different areas consist of different length. So it's if we can go back to the to the exhibit and go through the three areas and face to page three. Yeah, no, I think, I think I got it. Yeah I it's different. It's a different so it's not half. So I, I get that piece. Okay. And. I think that is all I had. Any other questions for council? Okay. So we have a motion on the floor from Consumer DeLong and second by Councilmember Lowenthal. Please cast your votes. Vice Mayor Garcia. I'm a yes. Motion carries six one. It was. Okay. Thank you. We'll move to item 2026, correct? Yes. Please click or read item.