HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1995 0419 CC REG ITEM 11KITEM �•�
PLEASE REFER TO THE MOORPARK REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY AGENDA PACKET FOR THE AGENDA REPORT
FOR THIS ITEM
0016-1
AGENDA REPORT
MOORPARK REDEVELOPMENT
TO: Redevelopment Agency Boa-d
From: Dirk Lovett, Assistant C _t,,,, Hn i -nee
ITEM _
AGENCY No
Date: April ?, 1995 Meeting o,- �-�j � i l 19, 1995)
Subject: Consideration of remedia_ -f,ai t Wicks
Detention Basin.
BACKGROUND
WICKS ROAD SETTLEMENT
/� 11
Cam:
/ L ��
Road and adj�,cent
On September 23, 1994 the Engineering Department was made aware of
some apparent new cracks along the southerly shoulder of Wicks
Road. Engineering Staff anci their Geologist immediately
investigated the cracks and potholed to determine if the cracks
were of a superficial nature of o:r]d potentially pose a threat to
the street or adjacent property. Bot.r. the City Engineer and the
consultant Ge,Aogist shared the pa_rci..n that recent settlement has
occurred and � hats f,irther ins e� t .g,;rt i.:m was necessary to determine
the cause an:-1 extent of r ae ,F. ]E�iis nt, alon4 with remedial
measures.
On November 30, 1994, the Ci -t cf Moorpark authorized A.G.I.
Geotechnical to perform a geotechnical investigation of the
distress and develop solutions. As a result, a report discussing
the apparent cause along with ieir.e,_La". r<nd permanent solutions was
provided to the Engineering DEp,tt'meat f review.
In addition, ,chile performing a i_:tfEr -n investigation, relating
to substandard housing at thf -, 5 r ,,r ,his same slope, the City
Engineering Department disc• c�r�.�c: that some non- approved
excavations have- taken place_ th( ce which pose additional
potential hazard: rc both the s',, - ,' the homes below.
DETENTION BASIN
The subject detention basin, __ocated between Wicks Road and Everett
Street (See Exhibit 1) , was c, )nstruct.ed by the Army Corps of
Engineering some fifty year Research determined that no
additional history or plans -,f hF, - ; >r,': >truction .:are available at
the City or Cc;unty. In years tyre basin drained onto Everett
Street belov� 7'.a an undergroi t,_xn that outlets through a
retaining way_ . ^he pipe syst ens obstructed and water
backs up in the basin afte > i;,, �_i. it can evaporate or
percolate into; the soil . Since ;_;ararneters of the basin
are unknown here are risk:, it c with water backing up
including water breaching the t_ 1 -hi- oasin anc adverse impacts
due to increased hydrostatic �rF;.�,r� tiwooerties below.
1 00007
Wicks Road currently serves, :)r iaL, the potential to serve, 21 lots
(10 of which are vacant, 10 of have single family homes, and
1 which supports 18 separate dw(-lling !;nits) . The SP -10 property,
to the north and east, has a pots ?ntial for the development of
between 154 and 231 homes. It: i;, possible that Wicks Road may
necessarily be extended to pr�>,Tidel a secondary access to that
development at some time in the :',rt 1F= i,efer to Exhibit 1 ).
This report provides option., ic:vantages, disadvantages, and
preliminary cost estimates f -ar �o''; -}i,- settlement and detention
basin problems, .
DISCUSSION
WICKS ROAD SETTLEMENT
There is no
indication that the-
)hser -ed
settlement
cracks were
caused
by an
incipient landsli-3t.
Rather
it is the
geologist's
opinion
that
the distress is die
to >ver
watering
and lack of
support
of the
poorly consolidated
<,houder
material.
It was also
observed that
the fill mater:._a- r
the slope was not
compacted to
current
standard:. and is subjE,cr .
, -,-ot on.
and surficial
failures.
Two repair options have been re:-I.7mmendt�.d by the geologist and are
being submitted herein for thF, �'��i�- _- pproval_:
Remedial Repair
The remedial ,solution
involves l,.1irn..nat-ng
the existing irrigation
system
on the
south side
of W- -A.�
Road, the sealing of cracks,
grading
of the
southerly
shoulder t_
redirect water away from the
slope,
placement
of jute
mesh and
3rought tolerant vegetation on
the slope,
an(!
the installati.or
:- >lc >ugh/ retaining wall at the
toe of
slope.
Iehicles
shoal a'.;
;revented from driving or
parking
on -hF
sho al der at
th ;. ; - �
r
Advantages:
The advantage of the remeci , a , vroi -, is the cost savings in
comparison to a permanent s( t r:
Disadvantages:
a. Remedial repair does not
settlement should water from
water line break) intrude int
b. The possibility of future
Utility rupture (water o:c
acceleratF- settlement or
property below.
c. Continued maintenance anc
im inat t:, the possibility of future
anz soirce (irrigation, rain, or
le s i1.
se- dement increases the risk of
has water line break could
'a ise a mud f low onto the
ri1j.
2 "008
Permanent Repair
A permanent solution involves t: removal and recompaction of the
existing fill (see Exhibit 2),, ns!.allation of soil stabilization
measures suer. as geotextile:,, st,&ilization material (soil
cement) , and /or placement of j! rnesf, replacement of the road
section, and i -i ti l i ty relocat.i,,n:
Advantages:
The permanent solution wou. reduce -he possibility of future
settlement and, as such, any __otent.i� =.i utility ruptures.
Disadvantages:
a. The permanent solution i, erg expensive.
b. Detouring and maintainin_,f local traffic will be difficult
and inconvenient to resident; i* 'he and of the road.
With either option the street ar;. houlcier repairs would be within
the City's 50 foot right - of - -o, y Red ,airs to the slope would
encroach onto private pro,3et, requiring construction and
maintenance easements.
DETENTION BASIN
Two repair options have been and are being submitted
herein for the Agency "s approval
Storm Drain Only
This solution entails replacemF-r.t )f -he existing standpipe and
storm drain pipe and connection the :xisting storm drain system
in Everett Street.
Advantages:
The benefit of the storm- drai;i ;nil >p..on is the cost savings.
Disadvantages:
a. Periodic maintenance would r�qui:ed.
b. This repair does not facit.� future widening of Wicks
Road.
Storm Drain and Fill -In Basin
This option involves the fill nor in ci the retention basin and
installing a storm drain systeri from Wd (,ks road to the existing
storm drain on Evere--t Street.
Advantages:
3 66009
a. Additional land will be Wade usable and Wicks Road could be
widened in the future wi,'ac,.jt t fi( installation of large
retaining walls.
b. Street and drain maint:en -::.c lli.� to debris and erosion in
the basin, will be reduced.
Disadvantages:
The major disadvantage of tn. optio>i is the large construction
cost.
It should be noted that the deter:tion basin is located on property
owned by adjacent residents. Ther_efDre the property would have to
be purchased by the City or ) c is trlicl- i:-)n easement would have to
be obtained.
With either option the it is n(>t. known %✓hether the capacity of the
Everett Street storm drain bel, will handle the increased load
when the basin drainage is tied di, -ect .y into the Everett drain.
Hydrological calculations will 1-)E- rF qul rF,d prior to any connection.
FISCAL IMPACT
The following cost preliminary >st es ._imates have been developed
on rough pre - design assumption -.s ; r ,t -i c.ssion purposes only.
WICKS ROAD SETTLEMENT COSTS
Remedial Repair
Engineering $4,500
Construction $25,000
Inspection & Admi ri trar -ion $4,000
Subtotal $33,500
25% contingency_. S8 500
Total $42,000
note: Periodic maintenance a:�)ciate with crack sealing and
shoulder grading would be minima' i( a: nor been included.
Permanent Repair
Design Engineeri,, $15,000
Construction $250,000
Inspection & Administrat-ion $38,000
Subtotal $303,000
25% contingency- _ $76,000
TOTAL $379,000
4 0001'0
DETENTION BASIN COSTS
Storm Drain Only
Engineering $6,000
Construction $35,000
Inspection & Administration $6,000
Subtotal $47,000
25% contingenc-y_ _ 512,000
Total $59,000
Storm Drain and Fill -in Basin
Preliminary Geot�-chrjic'al $11,000
Design Engineeri,? $19,000
Construction $640,000
Geotechnical Inspection $30,000
Inspection & Adm nistra ion 520,000
:subtotal $720,000
25% cot naen _— — $180,000
Total $900,000
FUNDING
There are no available contribut ion:, tc aid in these repairs from
previous developers on Wicks Road. Historically, developers have
not paid for improvements to Wi:"ks Road other than constructing
improvements along their property fwIcrtage ; ;.
The necessary work under either ])tier may be funded by Gas Tax or
Redevelopment Agency funds . ity Manager recommends
Redevelopment Agency funds. Fij he. i i.• recommended that the
appropriation for construction JeteYrEd until the earlier of the
bid award or a ioptior� of the �(
CONCLUSION
Wicks Road Settlement
It is the Geologist's opinion the observed road distress is
due to excessive water from irri.gat_cn aid rain on poorly compacted
soil material on the shoulder, signs of an incipient landslide
have been observed however compa ~.._(> o, the supporting road fill
are not up to 'uirent standards ci_ i�iact�e. The permanent solution
to the road ement would rFC {.:_:F the removal and recompaction
of a large of the hi L'. sir 1 I cud section at a very high
cost.
Even though the road shoulder ha- been �.00rly constructed and the
slope fill is not up to current ,t.andarcls, less expensive remedial
measures could be effectively 10111zed. The remedial measures do
not eliminate the risk of futurE settlement or surficial slope
instabilities but would impel -, t lot ?ntirely stop the adverse
distress. The remedial repai_r� r 17 ~-e continued maintenance
5
00011
and monitoring but would effective;,, extend the usable life of the
road until such time that the City, either decides to widen the road
or sees the need foj the more per U r :- ePair.
Detention Basin
An effective solution to the ex_sring bstructed drain line would
be to install an engineered ep_acement drain system, to be
connected directly into the EverFt' SL-tEet storm drain below. This
would serve the minimum needs o" a`,�t -.
An alternative, and much iitorf -- -�,per,;jve, option would be to
entirely fill in the basin, ex—ilding the storm drain discussed
above to Wicks Road, This alt_rna w�)ild decrease maintenance to
Wicks Road and the storm dr 111] a:, facilitate any future
widening need,, for the road.
RECOMMENDATION (Roll Call Vote)
cc
C
Due to the large disparity in co,, E, the immediate effectiveness of
the lesser options, and the ak >1: t >f the City to undertake the
more permanent and expensive r i,, it any later time without
significant cast waste due an', k �:)er,_ armed as part of the lesser
option work, staff would re�c,iin. 11 It he AgE,ncy approve the
following:
Staff recommends the appropz, ition �f $11,500.00 from bond
construction proceeds for th(- Ie ign of repaij to Wicks Road
($4,500.00), and the adjacer_t basin drain replacement
($6,000.00), with a contingen,:y rir .�JO
Steve Kueny, City Manager
Ken Gilbert,. Director of Pub_i
84.460
00 12
R- E M o v,- L- .41\1 �-o ivt pAcTlo M
r
� ••• ' • •• QaIQ
•.
le' • Qai
z •
Qal Oaf
L
M
w
a
N
f,9
MOORPARK
Lujwitwkw
EXNIBIti
A�
5
Q
O�
�SP
li
18 RS 43
POINDEXTER SUED. V_j 5 MR 5
4 M 7 '
1, 36 P 19
1/2
mmm =� _T_lw A ffA LW'w A-
(� AREA OF �F-FTLEMENT /DlISTRtSS
DETENTION BASF(
PCTENTIAL PROPEVFIES
SERYED R,Y wiCI<S k o P\ D