Long Beach, CA
File #: 14-0485    Version: 1 Name: CM - Bluff Erosion Stabilization Presentation D2,3
Type: Agenda Item Status: Approved
File created: 6/17/2014 In control: City Council
On agenda: 7/1/2014 Final action: 7/1/2014
Title: 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)
Sponsors: City Manager
Attachments: 1. 070114-R-25sr&att.pdf
Related files: 07-1005, 14-0313, 10-1339, 10-1338, 10-1251, 14-1054
TITLE
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)

DISCUSSION
On July 9, 2013, the City Council adopted Plans and Specifications No. R-6959 for the Ocean Boulevard (Bluff) Erosion and Enhancement Phase 2 Project (Project) and awarded the construction contract to Drill Tech Drilling & Shoring, Inc.

On April 29, 2014, the City Council voted to: delay the Project for 45 days and directed staff to: (1) conduct an engineering analysis (peer review) of the Bluff; (2) consider other alternatives to Bluff stabilization, other than shotcrete; (3) advise the Council on community improvements to the Bluff that do not involve shotcrete; and (4) report the results of staff's analysis and stabilization alternatives to the City Council and online to the public.

On May 13, 2014, the City Manager provided the Mayor and City Council an update on efforts taken as a result of the City Council's direction (attached). On May 14, 2014, a peer-review committee consisting of three independent geotechnical engineering firms, Leighton Consulting, Inc., Group Delta Consultants, Inc., and Earth Mechanics, Inc., began their examination of the original geotechnical studies, and to examine the available options to determine if the selected method was the preferred method for bluff stabilization at Ocean Boulevard. The report has been completed and is attached.

The peer-review committee has identified feasible geotechnical alternatives to shotcrete for areas that do not currently have the shotcrete treatment; however, these alternatives must be further evaluated and professionally designed by an experienced engineer and landscape architect. The committee does not recommend the removal of shotcrete to implement these biotechnical alternatives. As detailed on page 12 in the peer-review report, removal of shotcrete may impact the inte...

Click here for full text