Agenda packet — Solana Beach City Council, February 9, 2022 (part 1 of 4)

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH

SOLANA BEACH CITY COUNCIL, SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT

AGENCY, PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY, AND HOUSING AUTHORITY AGENDA
Joint REGULAR Meeting
Wednesday, February 09, 2022 * 6:00 p.m.

Teleconference Location Only-City Hall/Council Chambers, 635 S. Highway 101, Solana Beach, California This meeting will be conducted in accordance with California Government Code sections 54953(e) and 54954.3 and other applicable law.

MEETING LOCATION WILL NOT BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
Be advised that due to the COVID-19 pandemic in-person participation will not be allowed, there will be no members of the public in attendance at Council Meetings. Alternatives to in-person attendance for viewing and participating in City Council meetings are being provided under provided below.

AGENDA MATERIALS
A full City Council agenda packet including relative supporting documentation is posted online www.cityofsolanabeach.org Closed Session Agendas are posted at least 72 hours prior to regular meetings and at least 24 hours prior to special meetings.

WATCH THE MEETING
• Live web-streaming: Meetings web-stream live on the City’s website on the City’s Public Meetings webpage. Find the large Live Meeting button.
• Live Broadcast on Local Govt. Channel: Meetings are broadcast live on Cox Communications - Channel 19 / Spectrum (Time Warner)-Channel 24 / AT&T U-verse Channel 99. • Archived videos online: The video taping of meetings are maintained as a permanent record and contain a detailed account of the proceedings. Council meeting tapings are archived and available for viewing on the City’s Public Meetings webpage.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
o Written correspondence (supplemental items) regarding an agenda item at an open session meeting should be submitted to the City Clerk’s Office at [email protected] with a) Subject line to include the meeting date b) Include the Agenda Item # as listed on the Agenda. o Correspondence received after the official posting of the agenda, but before 3:00 p.m. (or 3 hrs. prior to the meeting start time) on the meeting day, will be distributed to Council and made available online along with the agenda posting. All submittals received before the start of the meeting will be made part of the record.
o Written submittals will be added to the record and not read out loud. o The designated location for viewing supplemental documents is on the City’s website www.cityofsolanabeach.org on the posted Agenda under the relative Agenda Item.

OR
Verbal Comment Participation: If you wish to provide a live verbal comment during the meeting, attend the virtual meeting via your computer or call in.

Before Meeting
o Alert Clerk’s Office. We ask that you alert us that you will joining the meeting to speak. Please email us at [email protected] to let us know which item you will speak on. This allows our Staff to manage speakers more efficiently.
o Watch the Meeting and Make a Public Comment
You can watch the meeting on the Live Meeting button on the Public Meetings page OR on TV at the stations provided above OR on the zoom event:

Link: https://cosb-org.zoom.us/j/82272925698
Webinar ID: 822 7292 5698
If you cannot log on or need to use a phone for audio quality, use one of these call-in numbers (toll free):
888 475 4499 (Toll Free) or 833 548 0276 (Toll Free)
- Join/Log-In to the meeting at least 15 minutes prior to the start time so that the City Clerk can verify that you are ready to speak before the meeting begins.
- Audio Accessibility: If your computer does not have a microphone or you have sound issues, you can call-in from a landline or cell phone and use it as your audio (phone # is provided once you log-in to Zoom, see above). If you call in for better audio, mute your computer's speakers to eliminate feedback so that you do not have two audios when you are speaking.

Solana Beach City Council Regular Meeting Agenda February 09, 2022 Page 2 of 8 During Meeting:
o During each Agenda Item and Oral Communications, attendees will be asked if they would like to speak. Speakers are taken during each agenda item.
o Speakers will be asked to raise their hand (zoom icon under participants can be clicked or on the phone you can dial *9) if they would like to be called on to speak during each item. We will call on you by your log in name or the last 4 digits of your phone #. When called on by the meeting organizer, we will unmute so you may provide comments for the allotted time. Allotted speaker times are listed under each Agenda section.
o Choose Gallery View to see the presentations, when applicable.

SPECIAL ASSISTANCE NEEDED - AMERICAN DISABILITIES ACT TITLE 2 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, persons with a disability may request an agenda in appropriate alternative formats as required by Section 202. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the City Clerk’s office (858) 720-2400 [email protected] at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.

CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
Lesa Heebner, Mayor
Kelly Harless
Deputy Mayor
David A. Zito
Councilmember
District 1
Jewel Edson
Councilmember
District 3
Kristi Becker
Councilmember
Gregory Wade
City Manager
Johanna Canlas
City Attorney
Angela Ivey
City Clerk
SPEAKERS:

See Public Participation on the first page of the Agenda for publication participation options.

READING OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:

Pursuant to Solana Beach Municipal Code Section 2.04.460, at the time of introduction or adoption of an ordinance or adoption of a resolution, the same shall not be read in full unless after the reading of the title, further reading is requested by a member of the Council. If any Councilmember so requests, the ordinance or resolution shall be read in full. In the absence of such a request, this section shall constitute a waiver by the council of such reading.

CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL:

CLOSED SESSION REPORT:

FLAG SALUTE:

PROCLAMATIONS/CERTIFICATES: Ceremonial
None at the posting of this agenda
PRESENTATIONS: Ceremonial items that do not contain in-depth discussion and no action/direction. • Black History Month
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:

Note to Public: Refer to Public Participation for information on how to submit public comment.

This portion of the agenda provides an opportunity for members of the public to address the City Council on items relating to City business and not appearing on today’s agenda by joining the virtual meeting online to speak live, per the Public Participation instructions on the Agenda.

Solana Beach City Council Regular Meeting Agenda February 09, 2022 Page 3 of 8 Pursuant to the Brown Act, no action shall be taken by the City Council on public comment items.

No written correspondence may be submitted in lieu of public speaking. Council may refer items to the City Manager for placement on a future agenda. The maximum time allotted for each speaker is THREE MINUTES (SBMC 2.04.190).

COUNCIL COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS / COMMENTARY:

An opportunity for City Council to make brief announcements or report on their activities. These items are not agendized for official City business with no action or substantive discussion.

A. CONSENT CALENDAR: (Action Items) (A.1. - A.5.)
Note to Public: Refer to Public Participation for information on how to submit public comment.

Items listed on the Consent Calendar are to be acted in a single action of the City Council unless pulled for discussion.

Any member of the public may address the City Council on an item of concern by submitting written correspondence for the record to be filed with the record or by joining the virtual meeting online to speak live, per the Public Participation instructions on the Agenda. The maximum time allotted for each speaker is THREE MINUTES (SBMC 2.04.190).

Those items removed from the Consent Calendar by a member of the Council will be trailed to the end of the agenda, while Consent Calendar items removed by the public will be discussed immediately after approval of the Consent Calendar.

A.1. Minutes of the City Council.

Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Approve the Minutes of the December 8, 2021 City Council Meetings.

Item A.1. Report (click here)
Posted Reports & Supplemental Docs contain records up to the cut off time, prior to the start of the meeting, for processing new submittals. The final official record containing handouts, PowerPoints, etc. can be obtained through a Records Request to the City Clerk’s Office.

A.2. Register Of Demands. (File 0300-30)
Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Ratify the list of demands for January 08, 2022 – January 21, 2022.

Item A.2. Report (click here)
Posted Reports & Supplemental Docs contain records up to the cut off time, prior to the start of the meeting, for processing new submittals. The final official record containing handouts, PowerPoints, etc. can be obtained through a Records Request to the City Clerk’s Office.

A.3. General Fund Budget Adjustments for Fiscal Year 2021/2022. (File 0330-30) Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Receive the report listing changes made to the Fiscal Year 2021/2022 General Fund Adopted Budget.

Item A.3. Report (click here)
Posted Reports & Supplemental Docs contain records up to the cut off time, prior to the start of the meeting, for processing new submittals. The final official record containing handouts, PowerPoints, etc. can be obtained through a Records Request to the City Clerk’s Office.

Solana Beach City Council Regular Meeting Agenda February 09, 2022 Page 4 of 8 A.4. Local Emergency Teleconferencing. (File 0240-25)
Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Adopt Resolution 2022-015 authorizing remote teleconference meetings of the legislative bodies of the City for the period of February 10, 2022 through March 12, 2022 pursuant to the new provisions of the Brown Act.

Item A.4. Report (click here)
Posted Reports & Supplemental Docs contain records up to the cut off time, prior to the start of the meeting, for processing new submittals. The final official record containing handouts, PowerPoints, etc. can be obtained through a Records Request to the City Clerk’s Office.

A.5. Conflict of Interest Code Update. (File 0440-00)
Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Adopt Resolution 2022-010 adopting an amended Solana Beach Conflict of Interest Code.

Item A.5. Report (click here)
Posted Reports & Supplemental Docs contain records up to the cut off time, prior to the start of the meeting, for processing new submittals. The final official record containing handouts, PowerPoints, etc. can be obtained through a Records Request to the City Clerk’s Office.

B. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (B.1. – B.3.)
Note to Public: Refer to Public Participation for information on how to submit public comment.

Any member of the public may address the City Council on an item of concern by submitting written correspondence for the record to be filed with the record or by registering to join the virtual meeting online to speak live, per the Public Participation instructions on the Agenda. The maximum time allotted for each speaker is THREE MINUTES (SBMC 2.04.190).

An applicant or designee(s) for a private development/business project, for which the public hearing is being held, is allotted a total of fifteen minutes to speak, as per SBMC 2.04.210. A portion of the fifteen minutes may be saved to respond to those who speak in opposition. All other speakers have three minutes each.

After considering all of the evidence, including written materials and oral testimony, the City Council must make a decision supported by findings and the findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Solana Beach City Council Regular Meeting Agenda February 09, 2022 Page 5 of 8 B.1. Public Hearing: 135 South Sierra Ave., Applicant: Las Brisas Homeowners Association, Case: CUP20-004. (File 0600-40)
Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Conduct the Public Hearing: Open the Public Hearing, Report Council Disclosures, Receive Public Testimony, and Close the Public Hearing.

2. Find this the Proposed Project exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to 2022 State California CEQA Guidelines §15269 as emergency conditions exist onsite.

3. Adopt Resolution 2022-013 conditionally approving a Conditional Use Permit Modification to construct a return wall that would consist of a drilled pier/caisson design with structural concrete between piers, extend from the top of the southern terminus of the existing seawall to the top of the bluff, and would be covered with hand sculpted, colored shotcrete to match the adjacent natural bluff at 135 S. Sierra Avenue, Solana Beach.

Item B.1. Report (click here)
Posted Reports & Supplemental Docs contain records up to the cut off time, prior to the start of the meeting, for processing new submittals. The final official record containing handouts, PowerPoints, etc. can be obtained through a Records Request to the City Clerk’s Office.

B.2. Public Hearing Continued: 211 Ocean St., Applicant: Blakely, Case: DRP21- 004/ SDP21-004. (File 0600-40)
The proposed project meets the minimum zoning requirements under the SBMC, may be found to be consistent with the General Plan and may be found, as conditioned, to meet the discretionary findings required as discussed in this report to approve a DRP and SDP. Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Conduct the continued Public Hearing: Report Council Disclosures, Receive Public Testimony, and Close the Public Hearing.

2. Find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and

3. If the City Council makes the requisite findings and approves the project, adopt Resolution 2021-128 conditionally approving a DRP, SDP, and SDP Waiver to demolish a single-family residence, construct a replacement two-story, single-family residence with an attached two-car garage, and perform associated site improvements at 211 Ocean Street, Solana Beach.

Item B.2. Report (click here)
Posted Reports & Supplemental Docs contain records up to the cut off time, prior to the start of the meeting, for processing new submittals. The final official record containing handouts, PowerPoints, etc. can be obtained through a Records Request to the City Clerk’s Office.

Solana Beach City Council Regular Meeting Agenda February 09, 2022 Page 6 of 8 B.3. Public Hearing: 661-781 South Nardo Ave. and 821 Stevens Ave., Applicant:

H.G. Fenton, Case: DRP MOD 20-002. (File 0600-40)
The proposed Project meets the minimum objective requirements under the SBMC, can be found to be consistent with the General Plan and the LCP LUP, and may be found, as conditioned, to meet the discretionary findings required to approve a DRP Modification and SDP waiver. Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Conduct the Public Hearing: Open the Public Hearing, Report Council Disclosures, Receive Public Testimony, Close the Public Hearing.

2. Adopt Resolution 2022-006 conditionally approving a DRP Modification and SDP waiver for the Solana Highlands project modifications described herein, a residential community and affordable senior housing project previously approved on December 17, 2018, at 661-781 South Nardo Avenue and 821 Stevens Avenue, Solana Beach.

Item B.3. Report (click here)
Posted Reports & Supplemental Docs contain records up to the cut off time, prior to the start of the meeting, for processing new submittals. The final official record containing handouts, PowerPoints, etc. can be obtained through a Records Request to the City Clerk’s Office.

C. STAFF REPORTS: (C.1. – C.3.)
Note to Public: Refer to Public Participation for information on how to submit public comment.

C.1. Fiscal Year 2020-21 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR). (File 0310-11)
Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Accept and file the City of Solana Beach Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) for the Fiscal Year July 1, 2020 – June 30, 2021.

2. Accept and file the Communication of Internal Control Related Matters identified in an Audit letter.

3. Accept and file the Auditor’s Communication with Those Charged with Governance letter.

Item C.1. Report (click here)
Posted Reports & Supplemental Docs contain records up to the cut off time, prior to the start of the meeting, for processing new submittals. The final official record containing handouts, PowerPoints, etc. can be obtained through a Records Request to the City Clerk’s Office.

Solana Beach City Council Regular Meeting Agenda February 09, 2022 Page 7 of 8 C.2. Citywide Traffic Calming Measures. (File 0860-45)
Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Validate the North Highway 101 Engineering and Traffic Speed Survey performed by STC Traffic.

2. Adopt Resolution 2022-012 determining that upon the basis of the Engineering and Traffic Speed Survey, that North Highway 101, between Cliff Street and the northern city limit, the speed limit shall be 35 miles per hour, which is the most appropriate speed to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and is reasonable and safe.

3. Consider and provide direction to Staff on implementing the three proposed traffic calming measures at San Mario, South Sierra, and Santa Helena.

Item C.2. Report (click here)
Posted Reports & Supplemental Docs contain records up to the cut off time, prior to the start of the meeting, for processing new submittals. The final official record containing handouts, PowerPoints, etc. can be obtained through a Records Request to the City Clerk’s Office.

C.3. SANDAG 2021 Annual Report. (File 0150-55)
Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Receive the report of SANDAG’s 2021 Annual Report.

Item C.3. Report (click here)
Posted Reports & Supplemental Docs contain records up to the cut off time, prior to the start of the meeting, for processing new submittals. The final official record containing handouts, PowerPoints, etc. can be obtained through a Records Request to the City Clerk’s Office.

WORK PLAN COMMENTS:

Adopted June 23, 2021
COMPENSATION & REIMBURSEMENT DISCLOSURE:

GC: Article 2.3. Compensation: 53232.3. (a) Reimbursable expenses shall include, but not be limited to, meals, lodging, and travel. 53232.3 (d) Members of a legislative body shall provide brief reports on meetings attended at the expense of the local agency “City” at the next regular meeting of the legislative body.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS: Council Committees
REGIONAL COMMITTEES: (outside agencies, appointed by this Council) a. City Selection Committee (meets twice a year) Primary-Heebner, Alternate-Edson b. Clean Energy Alliance (CEA) JPA: Primary-Becker, Alternate-Zito c. County Service Area 17: Primary- Harless, Alternate-Edson d. Escondido Creek Watershed Authority: Becker /Staff (no alternate). e. League of Ca. Cities’ San Diego County Executive Committee: Primary-Becker, Alternate-Harless. Subcommittees determined by its members. f. League of Ca. Cities’ Local Legislative Committee: Primary-Harless, Alternate-Becker g. League of Ca. Cities’ Coastal Cities Issues Group (CCIG): Primary-Becker, Alternate-Harless h. North County Dispatch JPA: Primary-Harless, Alternate-Becker i. North County Transit District: Primary-Edson, Alternate-Harless j. Regional Solid Waste Association (RSWA): Primary-Harless, Alternate-Zito Solana Beach City Council Regular Meeting Agenda February 09, 2022 Page 8 of 8 k. SANDAG: Primary-Heebner, 1st Alternate-Zito, 2nd Alternate-Edson. Subcommittees determined by its members.
l. SANDAG Shoreline Preservation Committee: Primary-Becker, Alternate-Zito m. San Dieguito River Valley JPA: Primary-Harless, Alternate-Becker n. San Elijo JPA: Primary-Zito, Primary-Becker, Alternate-City Manager o. 22nd Agricultural District Association Community Relations Committee: Primary-Edson, Primary-Heebner
STANDING COMMITTEES: (All Primary Members) (Permanent Committees) a. Business Liaison Committee – Zito, Edson.
b. Fire Dept. Management Governance & Organizational Evaluation – Harless, Edson c. Highway 101 / Cedros Ave. Development Committee – Edson, Heebner d. Parks and Recreation Committee – Zito, Harless
e. Public Arts Committee – Edson, Heebner
f. School Relations Committee – Becker, Harless
g. Solana Beach-Del Mar Relations Committee – Heebner, Edson

CITIZEN COMMISSION(S)
a. Climate Action Commission: Primary-Zito, Alternate-Becker ADJOURN:

Next Regularly Scheduled Meeting is February 23, 2022
Always refer the City’s website Event Calendar for Special Meetings or an updated schedule.

Or Contact City Hall 858-720-2400
www.cityofsolanabeach.org

AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
§
I, Angela Ivey, City Clerk of the City of Solana Beach, do hereby certify that this Agenda for the February 09, 2022 Council Meeting was called by City Council, Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency, Public Financing Authority, and the Housing Authority of the City of Solana Beach, California, was provided and posted on February 03, 2022 at 4:00 p.m. on the City Bulletin Board at the entrance to the City Council Chambers. Said meeting is held at 6:00 p.m., February 09, 2022, in the Council Chambers, at City Hall, 635 S. Highway 101, Solana Beach, California.

Angela Ivey, City Clerk * City of Solana Beach, CA
CITIZEN CITY COMMISSION AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS:

Regularly Scheduled, or Special Meetings that have been announced, are posted on each Citizen Commission’s Agenda webpage. See the Citizen Commission’s Agenda webpages or the City’s Events Calendar for updates.
o Budget & Finance Commission
o Climate Action Commission
o Parks & Recreation Commission
o Public Arts Commission
o View Assessment Commission
}

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH

SOLANA BEACH CITY COUNCIL, SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY,

PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY, AND HOUSING AUTHORITY

MINUTES
Joint – Closed Session
Wednesday, December 8, 2021  5:00 p.m.

Teleconference Location Only-City Hall/Council Chambers, 635 S. Highway 101, Solana Beach, California This meeting will be conducted in accordance with Government Code sections 54953(e) and 54954.3 and other applicable law.

CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
Lesa Heebner, Mayor
Kristi Becker
Deputy Mayor
Kelly Harless
Councilmember
David A. Zito
Councilmember
District 1
Jewel Edson
Councilmember
District 3
Gregory Wade
City Manager
Johanna Canlas
City Attorney
Angela Ivey
City Clerk
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL:

Mayor Heebner called the meeting to order at 5:02 p.m.

PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS (ONLY): None
CLOSED SESSION:

1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a),(d)(1)
National Prescription Opiate Litigation
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio Case No. 1-17-md-02804

2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2)
Two (2) Potential case(s).

3. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.8
Property: APN: 263-352-03,04,05,06 and 07 and 263-342-02 City Negotiator: City Manager Gregory Wade and City Attorney Johanna Canlas Negotiating Parties: Matt Tucker, North County Transit District Under negotiation: Lease Price and Terms
ACTION: For Item 1., by a vote of 5-0, Council directed the City Manager to execute any and all forms and/or agreements to effectuate the City’s participation in the settlement.

ADJOURN:

Mayor Heebner adjourned the meeting at 5:58 p.m.

Megan Bavin, Deputy City Clerk Council Approved:

Present: Lesa Heebner, Kristi Becker, Kelly Harless, David A. Zito, Jewel Edson

Absent: None
Also

Present:

Gregory Wade, City Manager
Johanna Canlas, City Attorney
1·
I J

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH

SOLANA BEACH CITY COUNCIL, SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT

AGENCY, PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY, AND HOUSING AUTHORITY

MINUTES
Joint REGULAR Meeting
Wednesday, December 8, 2021 * 6:00 p.m.

See Public Participation on the first page of the Agenda for publication participation options.

READING OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:

CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL:

Mayor Heebner called the meeting to order at 6:17pm

Present: Lesa Heebner, Kristi Becker, Kelly Harless, David A. Zito, Jewel Edson

Absent: None
Also

Present:

Greg Wade, City Manager
Johanna Canlas, City Attorney
Angela Ivey, City Clerk
Dan King, Assistant City Manager
Mo Sammak, City Engineer/Public Works Dir.

Ryan Smith, Finance Dir.

Joseph Lim, Community Development Dir.

CLOSED SESSION REPORT:

Johanna Canlas, City Attorney, reported that Council voted 5/0 to direct the City Manager to take part in the National Prescription Opiate litigation and execute any and all forms and/or agreement to participate in the national settlement.

FLAG SALUTE:

Solana Beach City Council Regular Meeting Minutes December 8, 2021 Page 2 of 10 APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

Motion: Moved by Deputy Mayor Becker and second by Councilmember Zito to approve.

Approved 5/0. Ayes: Heebner, Becker, Harless, Zito, Edson. Noes: None. Motion carried unanimously.

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: No Speakers
Note to Public: Refer to Public Participation for information on how to submit public comment.

This portion of the agenda provides an opportunity for members of the public to address the City Council on items relating to City business and not appearing on today’s agenda by having submitted written comments for the record to be filed with the record or by registering to join the virtual meeting online to speak live, per the Public Participation instructions on the Agenda.

Comments relating to items on this evening’s agenda are taken at the time the items are heard.

Pursuant to the Brown Act, no action shall be taken by the City Council on public comment items.

Council may refer items to the City Manager for placement on a future agenda. The maximum time allotted for each speaker is THREE MINUTES (SBMC 2.04.190).

COUNCIL COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS / COMMENTARY:

An opportunity for City Council to make brief announcements or report on their activities. These items are not agendized for official City business with no action or substantive discussion.

A. CONSENT CALENDAR: (Action Items) (A.1. - A.7.)
Note to Public: Refer to Public Participation for information on how to submit public comment.

Items listed on the Consent Calendar are to be acted in a single action of the City Council unless pulled for discussion.

A.1. Minutes of the City Council.

Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Approve the Minutes of the October 13, 2021 City Council Meeting.

Approved Minutes: https://www.ci.solana-beach.ca.us/index.asp?SEC=F0F1200D-21C6-4A88-8AE1-0BC07C1A81A7&Type=B_BASIC Motion: Moved by Councilmember Edson and second by Deputy Mayor Becker to approve. Approved 5/0. Ayes: Heebner, Becker, Harless, Zito, Edson. Noes: None. Motion carried unanimously.

A.2. Register Of Demands. (File 0300-30)
Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Ratify the list of demands for October 23, 2021– November 5, 2021.

Motion: Moved by Councilmember Edson and second by Deputy Mayor Becker to approve.

Approved 5/0. Ayes: Heebner, Becker, Harless, Zito, Edson. Noes: None. Motion carried unanimously.

Solana Beach City Council Regular Meeting Minutes December 8, 2021 Page 3 of 10 A.3. General Fund Budget Adjustments for Fiscal Year 2021/2022. (File 0330-30) Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Receive the report listing changes made to the Fiscal Year 2021/2022 General Fund Adopted Budget.

Item A.3. Report (click here)
Posted Reports & Supplemental Docs contain records up to the cut off time, prior to the start of the meeting, for processing new submittals.

The final official record containing handouts, PowerPoints, etc. can be obtained through a Records Request to the City Clerk’s Office.

Motion: Moved by Councilmember Edson and second by Deputy Mayor Becker to approve.

Approved 5/0. Ayes: Heebner, Becker, Harless, Zito, Edson. Noes: None. Motion carried unanimously.

A.4. Local Emergency Teleconferencing. (File 0240-25)
Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Adopt Resolution 2021-137 authorizing remote teleconference meetings of the legislative bodies of the City for the period of December 10, 2021 through January 7, 2022 pursuant to the new provisions of the Brown Act.

Item A.4. Report (click here)
Posted Reports & Supplemental Docs contain records up to the cut off time, prior to the start of the meeting, for processing new submittals.

The final official record containing handouts, PowerPoints, etc. can be obtained through a Records Request to the City Clerk’s Office.

Motion: Moved by Councilmember Edson and second by Deputy Mayor Becker to approve.

Approved 5/0. Ayes: Heebner, Becker, Harless, Zito, Edson. Noes: None. Motion carried unanimously.

A.5. This item was left blank.

A.6. State Homeland Security Program Grant 2020. (File 0240-60) Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Adopt Resolution 2021-132:
a. Accepting $12,679 in federal funds from a 2020 State Homeland Security Program (SHSP) grant awarded to the City of Solana Beach for the purchase of a vortex rescue system kit and structural firefighting turnouts. b. Authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to sign and submit the required California Governor's Office of Emergency Services FY 2020 Standard Assurances for Cal OES Federal Non-Disaster Grant Programs. c. Approving an appropriation of $12,679 to the Federal Grant revenue account and the Minor Equipment expenditure account for the Fire Department both in the Public Safety Special Revenue fund. d. Authorizing the City Treasurer to amend the FY 2021/22 Adopted Budget accordingly.

Item A.6. Report (click here)
Posted Reports & Supplemental Docs contain records up to the cut off time, prior to the start of the meeting, for processing new submittals. The final official record containing handouts, PowerPoints, etc. can be obtained through a Records Request to the City Clerk’s Office.

Motion: Moved by Councilmember Edson and second by Deputy Mayor Becker to approve. Approved 5/0. Ayes: Heebner, Becker, Harless, Zito, Edson. Noes: None.

Motion carried unanimously.

Solana Beach City Council Regular Meeting Minutes December 8, 2021 Page 4 of 10 A.7. Assistance for Firefighters Grant (AFG) Application Approval. (File 0390-32) Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Adopt Resolution 2021-133:
a. Authorizing the City of Solana Beach Fire Department to be included in the FY 2021 Assistance to Firefighters Grant regional application for SCBAs (Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus) submitted by the City of Vista. b. Authorizing the Fire Chief, or his designee, to sign a Memorandum of Understanding, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, between the six agencies (City of Vista, City of Encinitas, City of Del Mar, City of Solana Beach, North County Fire Protection District, and Rancho Santa Fe Protection District) with respect to the regional application for SCBAs once all participating organizations are authorized to apply.

Item A.7. Report (click here)
Posted Reports & Supplemental Docs contain records up to the cut off time, prior to the start of the meeting, for processing new submittals. The final official record containing handouts, PowerPoints, etc. can be obtained through a Records Request to the City Clerk’s Office.

Motion: Moved by Councilmember Edson and second by Deputy Mayor Becker to approve. Approved 5/0. Ayes: Heebner, Becker, Harless, Zito, Edson. Noes: None.

Motion carried unanimously.

B. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (B.1.)
Note to Public: Refer to Public Participation for information on how to submit public comment.

B.1. Schedule of User Fees and Charges Update. (File 0390-23) Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Conduct the Public Hearing: Open the Public Hearing, Report Council Disclosures, Receive Public Testimony, Close the Public Hearing.

2. Adopt Resolution 2021-136 updating the Schedule of Fees and Charges effective January 1, 2022.

Greg Wade, City Manager, introduced the item.

Ryan Smith, Finance Director, presented a Powerpoint (on file).

Mayor Heebner opened the public hearing.

Solana Beach City Council Regular Meeting Minutes December 8, 2021 Page 5 of 10 Motion: Moved by Councilmember Zito and second by Deputy Mayor Becker to close the public hearing. Approved 5/0. Ayes: Heebner, Becker, Harless, Zito, Edson. Noes: None.

Motion carried unanimously.

Motion: Moved by Deputy Mayor Becker and second by Councilmember Harless to approve. Approved 5/0. Ayes: Heebner, Becker, Harless, Zito, Edson. Noes: None.

Motion carried unanimously.

C. STAFF REPORTS: (C.1. – C.6.)
Note to Public: Refer to Public Participation for information on how to submit public comment.

C.1. Solana 101 Final Landscape Plan. (File 0600-40)
Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Adopt Resolution 2021-138 approving the final landscape plan for the Solana 101 Project.

This item was moved to the December 15, 2021 Council Meeting.

C.2. Chamber of Commerce Visitor Center Agreement. (File 0130-90) Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Adopt Resolution 2021-139, authorizing the City Manager to execute an Agreement between the City and the Solana Beach Chamber of Commerce in an amount up to $30,000 for operation of the Visitor Center and the development of visitor serving advertising/outreach.

2. If approved by Council, appropriate up to an additional $15,000 in the Coastal Area Business & Visitor Assistance Fund to the Contributions to Agencies account.

3. Authorize the City Treasurer to amend the FY 2021/22 Adopted Budget accordingly.

Greg Wade, City Manager, introduced the item.

Dan King, Assistant City Manager, presented a Powerpoint (on file).

Jamie Johnson, Chamber of Commerce CEO, spoke about the role of the visitor’s center, expanding and updating their website, making the website a one stop shop for both the local community and non-locals, and providing metrics regarding website hits, walk-ins, QR Code tracking, and social media outreach.

Solana Beach City Council Regular Meeting Minutes December 8, 2021 Page 6 of 10 Motion: Moved by Councilmember Zito and second by Councilmember to approve.

Approved 5/0. Ayes: Heebner, Becker, Harless, Zito, Edson. Noes: None. Motion carried unanimously.

C.3. COVID Temporary Use Permit Policy for Outdoor Dining. (File 0230-20) Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Adopt Resolution 2021-135 extending the COVID-19 Temporary Use Permit (TUP) Policy for Outdoor Dining through March 30, 2022.

Greg Wade, City Manager, introduced the item.

Joseph Lim, Director of Community Development, presented a Powerpoint (on file).

Council and Staff discussed the timeline of the extension and that it was specifically for dining.

Council discussed allowing dining in public parking places, outdoor dining in private parking spaces, specified conditions related to outdoor dining, sidewalk dining, applying existing parking standards, size limits of outdoor dining areas, limitations when adjacent to residential areas, parking issues, complaints from citizens related to lack of parking, and a timeline of a proposed ending date of the extension.

Councilmember Harless stated that she did not oppose an extension of the Temporary Use Permit, that it would allow businesses to recoup their investment in outdoor dining spaces, but that she wasn’t in favor of it as a permanent policy, that there should be a point where the existing parking standards should apply, and that it affected residential parking and was an imposition on residential areas that are near restaurants.

Motion: Moved by Councilmember Edson and second by Deputy Mayor Becker to limit to dining uses only and direct staff to extend the Covid-19 Temporary Use Permit for Outdoor Dining through Monday, September 5, 2022. Approved 4/1. Ayes: Heebner, Becker, Zito, Edson. Noes: Harless. Motion carried.

C.4. Adopt (2nd Reading) Ordinance 518 regarding Implementation of Solar Energy, Building Decarbonization and Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Requirements. (File 0600-05)
Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Adopt Ordinance 518 (2nd Reading) amending Title 15 of the Solana Beach Municipal Code to adopt amendments to the 2019 California Building Code and California Green Building Code to implement Solar Energy, Building Decarbonization and Electric Vehicle Infrastructure requirements for new construction.

Solana Beach City Council Regular Meeting Minutes December 8, 2021 Page 7 of 10 Item C.4. Report (click here)
Item C.4. Supplemental Docs (updated 12-8-21 at 3pm)
Posted Reports & Supplemental Docs contain records up to the cut off time, prior to the start of the meeting, for processing new submittals. The final official record containing handouts, PowerPoints, etc. can be obtained through a Records Request to the City Clerk’s Office.

Johanna Canlas, City Attorney, introduced the item.

Shelah Ott stated that she was with the San Diego Green New Deal Alliance and that she supported the Ordinance.

Karinna Gonzales stated that she was with Integrated Building Solutions, that she urged the Council to follow Encinitas and adopt an all-electric building ordinance with minimal exceptions, that cities need to lead and pursue solutions that decrease dependency on fracked methane gas, that she appreciated the amendments made at the last meeting to lower thresholds and removal of exemptions, and that she supported the adoption of the Ordinance.

Staff and Council said that this topic had been discussed for some time and they had received a lot of public input from residents and experts in the field.

Councilmember Edson stated that there was not enough consideration for building electrification on remodels, that someone who had been saving to remodel their home might not be able to afford to add solar, and that she did not support the inclusion of remodels in the Ordinance.

Motion: Moved by Councilmember Zito and second by Deputy Mayor Becker to approve.

Approved 4/1. Ayes: Heebner, Becker, Harless, Zito. Noes: Edson. Motion carried.

C.5. Adopt (2
nd Reading) Ordinance 521 Providing Regulations Concerning Two-Unit Residential Development in Single-Family Residential Zones and Providing Regulations Concerning Urban Lot Split Subdivisions in Single-Family Residential Zones. (File 0600-95) Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Adopt Ordinance 521 (2nd Reading) adding Section 17.20.040(R) and Section

16.48 to the Solana Beach Municipal Code and amending Chapter 17.12 and Section 17.20.020 of the Solana Beach Municipal Code to allow two-unit residential developments and urban lot split subdivisions in single-family residential zones.

Item C.5. Report (click here)
Item C.5. Supplemental Docs (updated 12-8-21 at 3pm)
Posted Reports & Supplemental Docs contain records up to the cut off time, prior to the start of the meeting, for processing new submittals. The final official record containing handouts, PowerPoints, etc. can be obtained through a Records Request to the City Clerk’s Office.

Johanna Canlas, City Attorney, introduced the item.

Shawna McGarry (time donated by Brian Lannutii), presented a powerpoint (on file), and stated that she is part of Progress Solana, that they want to promote a City that has a wide range of housing options and sizes, that she would like to see middle sized housing through SB 9 compliance with state law, that if the Ordinance passes to revisit it in the Solana Beach City Council Regular Meeting Minutes December 8, 2021 Page 8 of 10 new year, that people can’t afford to live in the City with the rising rent and housing prices, that now rentals sit empty or have become vacation rentals, that a solution could be to build contemporary duplexes, that the issues with the Ordinance are size limits and grading limits, that SB 9 doesn’t override CC&RS, and that she welcomed an opportunity to work with the City and improve the policy.

Kristin Brinner, continued presenting the powerpoint (on file) and said that the City’s proposed cap of 825 sq. ft. was too small and doesn’t take any local context into account, that it doesn't seem logical to limit someone to less than 50% of the square footage of housing area, that more flexibility is needed so people can build homes for families, that to address neighbor's privacy concerns there could be objective guidelines that allow increased square footage by taking into account the number of units, the lot size and setbacks to look at adding active guidelines to make it more feasible for homeowners rather than developers to take advantage of this opportunity, and requested that if the Ordinance is implemented that Council revisit it in the new year.

Jonathon Goodmacher continued presenting the powerpoint (on file) and said that it seemed like it was a rushed process and not much notice was given to residents, that there needed to be more public input, that the Ordinance contradicts the General Plan, that on a slightly sloped lot, one hundred cubic yard grading limit would be very difficult to stay within, that limiting this to certain areas or zones of the City would prohibit someone like him from being able to split their lot.

Heidi Dewar stated that she knows a number of families that have had to move because they couldn't afford to buy in the City, that SB 9 may not be the perfect solution but the City has made it overly restrictive with regards to height, grading, and size, and that it will likely result in fewer additional family sized homes, that she urged the City to revisit this issue and to find creative solutions that would increase housing opportunities.

Cindi Clemons said that she supported the Ordinance, that it is within the law, that it will protect the city while giving homeowners an opportunity to expand housing on their single-family lots and provide for more reasonably priced housing options.

Jill MacDonald stated that the Ordinance was the best alternative at the moment to the bill, that the bill limits local control of zoning and development with a one size fits all decree, that it makes no mention of either affordable or moderate or low income housing, that regulation of the process to implement SB 9 is the best opportunity for the City to remain the place that she loves to live in.

Tracy Richmond said that he supported the Ordinance as presented, that he supported providing more affordable housing but SB 9 doesn’t address affordability, that it’s a mirage that’s being used to basically destroy local control of all zoning and housing, that it’s a challenge for the City to maintain the essence of the community but still comply with the SB 9 mandates, that density gives value to development, that the Ordinance was attempting to maintain a small beach town character without crowding the neighborhoods, that it’s a goal to make housing more affordable, that size limitations like the ones in Ordinance 521 were essential because otherwise developers would simply buy up the real estate lots and then maximize the size of the units and the ultimate result would be less affordable housing.

Solana Beach City Council Regular Meeting Minutes December 8, 2021 Page 9 of 10 Gary Martin stated that he supported the ordinance as prepared, that it’s important that the City has affordable moderate size and moderate income housing, and that eliminating parking would be a tremendous mistake.

Johanna Canlas, City Attorney, stated that SB 9 affords any local government to adopt a local ordinance within the confines of the bill, that objective standards were being presented that include height and size and that are all within the purview of what SB 9 said the City could do, that SB 9 applies to single-family zones, that MR Zones aren’t a single family zone, that it has some allowances for reduced parking, that the City is entirely within the coastal zone and the city has an obligation to provide for those who don’t live by the beach to come to the beach so parking is required to ensure that parking under the Coastal Act is recognized, that it’s not reducing anything but allowing for additional development that wouldn’t have been allowed under SB 330 in 2018, that there is no downsizing as you can now have more units, if you choose to, or continue to go through the discretionary process that is in place, that the standards are necessary and appropriate, that the setbacks are consistent with what is in SB9, and the City allows for attached units as required by SB 9.

Mayor Heebner stated that the City was a high land value city and is entirely in the coastal zone, that Ordinance 521 complies with and implements the law as stated in SB 9, that it allows for two 825 sq. ft. units up to 16 ft. in height on each lot, that it allows for up to one hundred cubic yards of grading and a 10 ft. separation between units for fire safety reasons, that Ordinance 521 applies to single family residential zones, that these zones do not allow multifamily units and are subject to SB 9 with its focus being on single- family zones, that Ordinance 521 requires at least one parking space per unit and coastal zone visitors’ access to the beach is legally required, that SB 9 states that nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act, that offering one parking space per unit seems entirely reasonable, that the best hope for housing for moderate income households as a result of SB 9 is adopting the 825 sq. ft. in hopes that the smaller size might result in a moderate price tag, that the assumption that the requested modifications to the Ordinance would facilitate the building of moderately priced homes is a false argument, that dense housing lowers prices is unsupportable, that the City has made efforts to encourage developers to build affordable units, that the City enacted an inclusionary policy that requires developers to set aside 15% of all units to be affordable, that the policies of SB 9 will spur gentrification by speculative buyers, that lot size does not ensure a low house price, that it creates the best opportunity to provide some moderately priced homes at 825 sq. ft., that currently properties in most zones can add an accessory dwelling unit.

She said that she did not agree with those who are advocating for changing the Ordinance to allow for larger homes which would have no reasonable expectation to produce affordable units, and that she supports Ordinance 521 as written.

Councilmember Zito said that there was a significant RHNA objective to be met, that Ordinance 521 will help the City meet RHNA within the context of the uniqueness of our town, and that SB 9 wasn’t well written for Solana Beach, and that this was the best effort to meet state mandates and the City’s Housing Element.

Deputy Mayor Becker stated that she supported the objectives of Ordinance 521, that Solana Beach City Council Regular Meeting Minutes December 8, 2021 Page 10 of 10 addressing and creating affordable housing was a priority, that she supported keeping the square footage to 825 sq. ft., that more affordable housing is needed rather than more expensive housing, and that a one size fits all zoning regulation was not ideal.

Councilmember Harless stated that she believes the City has found the best balance with Ordinance 521 and that building more and bigger is not going to make it more affordable.

Councilmember Edson stated that she supports the Ordinance, that she feels it speaks to the intent of SB 9 and the intent of the City to create more affordable housing.

Motion: Moved by Mayor Heebner and second by Councilmember Zito to approve.

Approved 5/0. Ayes: Heebner, Becker, Harless, Zito, Edson. Noes: None. Motion carried unanimously.

C.6. Annual Deputy Mayor Appointment. (File 0410-85)
Recommendation: That the City Council

1. Review and consider designation of the 2022 Deputy Mayor for a term of December 8, 2021 to December 14, 2022.

Item C.6. Report (click here)
Posted Reports & Supplemental Docs contain records up to the cut off time, prior to the start of the meeting, for processing new submittals. The final official record containing handouts, PowerPoints, etc. can be obtained through a Records Request to the City Clerk’s Office.

Motion: Moved by Deputy Mayor Becker and second by Councilmember Edson to appoint Kelly Harless. Approved 5/0. Ayes: Heebner, Becker, Harless, Zito, Edson. Noes: None.

Motion carried unanimously.

COMPENSATION & REIMBURSEMENT DISCLOSURE: Councilmember Edson attended the American Public Transportation Conference in Orlando on behalf of the North County Transportation District and that City paid for her lodging.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS: Council Committees
REGIONAL COMMITTEES: (outside agencies, appointed by this Council) STANDING COMMITTEES: (All Primary Members) (Permanent Committees)

CITIZEN COMMISSION(S)
ADJOURN:

Mayor Heebner adjourned the meeting at 9:06 p.m.

Megan Bavin, Deputy City Clerk Approved: _____________
CITY COUNCIL ACTION: ____________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM # A.2.

STAFF REPORT

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Gregory Wade, City Manager
MEETING DATE: February 9, 2022
ORIGINATING DEPT: Finance
SUBJECT: Register of Demands
BACKGROUND:

Section 3.04.020 of the Solana Beach Municipal Code requires that the City Council ratify a register of demands which represents all financial demands made upon the City for the applicable period.

DISCUSSION:

Staff certifies that the register of demands has been reviewed for accuracy, that funds are available to pay the above demands, and that the demands comply with the adopted budget.

CEQA COMPLIANCE STATEMENT:

Not a project as defined by CEQA.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The register of demands for January 8, 2022 through January 21, 2022 reflects total expenditures of $970,870.14 from various City sources.

Register of Demands- 01/08/21 through 01/21/22
Check Register-Disbursement Fund (Attachment 1) $ 743,506.63 Retirement Payroll January 12, 2022 4,192.00
Council Payroll January 13, 2022 5,686.34
Federal & State Taxes January 13, 2022 385.43
Net Payroll January 7, 2022 173,451.89
Federal & State Taxes January 7, 2022 43,647.85
TOTAL $ 970,870.14
February 9, 2022
Register of Demands

Page 2 of 2 ends

WORK PLAN:

N/A
OPTIONS:
• Ratify the register of demands.
• Do not ratify and provide direction.

DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council ratify the above register of demands.

CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Department Recommendation.
________________________
Gregory Wade, City Manager
Attachments:

1. Check Register – Disbursement Fund
Page: 1 of 7
City of Solana Beach
Register of Demands
1/8/2022 - 1/21/2022
Department
Vendor Description
Check/EFT
Number Amount
100 - GENERAL FUND
ICMA PLAN 302817 ICMA PD 01/13/21 9000404 $5,344.82
ICMA PLAN 302817 Payroll Run 1 - Warrant M15 9000409 $28,688.09 SOLANA BEACH FIREFIGHTERS ASSOC Payroll Run 1 - Warrant M15 9000411 $813.50 SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT. CR TOW FEE/STAFF/OVERTIME-OCT 101168 ($174.71) ICMA RHS 801939 Payroll Run 1 - Warrant M15 9000410 $2,137.48 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL DEC 21 LIFE&ADD/SUPP LIFE/LTD 9000412 $1,297.43 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL DEC 21 LIFE&ADD/SUPP LIFE/LTD 9000412 $301.65 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL DEC 21 LIFE&ADD/SUPP LIFE/LTD 9000412 $1,564.75

ROB MCPHEE
STERLING HEALTH SERVICES, INC. STERLING FSA INITIAL FUNDING DEPOSIT 101174 $3,350.00 WILLIAM FARLOW RFND-OVERPAYMENT DENTAL BENIFITS-NOV/DEC 21 101192 $68.20 TOTAL GENERAL FUND $44,906.44
1005250 - LEGAL SERVICES
NIELSEN MERKSAMER REDSTRCT PROF SVC-NOV 101164 $2,192.00 BURKE WILLIAMS & SORENSEN 96-0033/PROF SRVC 101147 $1,140.00 BURKE WILLIAMS & SORENSEN 96-0038/PROF SRVC 101147 $529.00 BURKE WILLIAMS & SORENSEN RETAIN-OCT 21 101147 $11,250.00 BURKE WILLIAMS & SORENSEN 96-0001/PROF SRVC 101147 $4,760.00 BURKE WILLIAMS & SORENSEN 96-0001.03/PROF SRVC 101147 $2,740.00 BURKE WILLIAMS & SORENSEN 96-0006/PROF SRVC 101147 $736.00 BURKE WILLIAMS & SORENSEN 96-0014/PROF SRVC 101147 $1,201.00 BURKE WILLIAMS & SORENSEN 96-0019/PROF SRVC 101147 $1,960.00 BURKE WILLIAMS & SORENSEN 96-0021/PROF SRVC 101147 $360.00 BURKE WILLIAMS & SORENSEN 96-0019/PROF SVC NOV 21 101194 $900.00 BURKE WILLIAMS & SORENSEN 96-0033/PROF SVC NOV 21 101194 $1,020.00 BURKE WILLIAMS & SORENSEN 96-0037.001/PROF SVC NOV 21 101194 $160.00 BURKE WILLIAMS & SORENSEN 96-0038/PROF SVC NOV 21 101194 $3,585.00 BURKE WILLIAMS & SORENSEN RETAIN-NOV 21 101194 $11,250.00 BURKE WILLIAMS & SORENSEN 96-0001/PROF SVC NOV 21 101194 $3,140.00 BURKE WILLIAMS & SORENSEN 96-0001.003/PROF SVC NOV 21 101194 $800.00 BURKE WILLIAMS & SORENSEN 96-0002/PROF SVC NOV 21 101194 $161.00 BURKE WILLIAMS & SORENSEN 96-0006/PROF SVC NOV 21 101194 $1,380.00 BURKE WILLIAMS & SORENSEN 96-0014/PROF SVC NOV 21 101194 $748.50 TOTAL LEGAL SERVICES $50,012.50
1005300 - FINANCE
THE ARTINA GROUP CHECKS-500 101200 $227.54
TOTAL FINANCE $227.54
1005350 - SUPPORT SERVICES
STAPLES CONTRACT & COMMERCIAL 2972102821/2976020391-TISSUE/KCUP CLNR 101199 $42.01 Page: 2 of 7
STAPLES CONTRACT & COMMERCIAL 2972102821/2976020391-TISSUE/KCUP CLNR 101199 $8.61 ROB MCPHEE REIMB-BANKING FEE-NEW SYSTEM ERROR 9000407 $12.00 TOTAL SUPPORT SERVICES $62.62
1005400 - HUMAN RESOURCES
KIMBERLY POWERS 2021 EE APPRECIATION LUNCHEON PHOTO BOOTH 101166 $500.00 TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES $500.00
1005450 - INFORMATION SERVICES
COX COMMUNICATIONS INC 0013410039730701-12/19/21-01/18/21 101195 $310.66 AT&T CALNET 3 9391012278-09/24/21-10/23/21 101193 $3,013.64 AT&T CALNET 3 9391012278-11/24/21-12/23/21 101193 $3,024.20 AT&T CALNET 3 9391012282-11/24/21-12/23/21 101193 $21.67 TOTAL INFORMATION SERVICES $6,370.17
1005590 - PARKING ENFORCEMENT
WEX FLEET UNIVERSAL AUTO FUEL-12/08/21-01/07/22 101191 $151.34 TOTAL PARKING ENFORCEMENT $151.34
1006110 - LAW ENFORCEMENT
SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT. LAW ENFORCEMENT-OCT 101168 $390,625.33 SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT. CR TOW FEE/STAFF/OVERTIME-OCT 101168 ($4,025.58) SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT. CR TOW FEE/STAFF/OVERTIME-OCT 101168 $2,080.79 TOTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT $388,680.54
1006120 - FIRE DEPARTMENT
SIGTRONICS CORPORATION HEADSET REPAIR 101171 $410.65
SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005512-000-11/02-12/31 101198 $621.07 NAPA AUTO PARTS INC BATTERY/ANIT FREEZE 101163 $272.45
ACE UNIFORMS & ACCESSORIES PANTS/SHIRT/EMB/BELT-MITCHELL 101141 $889.58 VERIZON WIRELESS-SD 962428212-1-11/29/21-12/28/21 101201 $617.75 SOUTH COAST EMERGENCY VEHICLE SVC ICP BAR/PSV/HOB 101173 $388.62 SOUTH COAST EMERGENCY VEHICLE SVC SEAT CUSHION 101173 $541.32 FIRE ETC. TURNOUT CLEANER 101157 $396.52
REGIONAL COMMS SYS, MS 056 - RCS CAP CODE-NOV 101167 $32.50 WEX BANK AUTO FUEL/CR EXEMPT TAX-NOV 101190 $1,993.16
WEX BANK AUTO FUEL/CR EXEMPT TAX-NOV 101190 ($99.57)
WESTERN EXTRICATION SPECIALISTS INC EXTRCTN EQUIPMENT 101189 $2,091.78 WEX FLEET UNIVERSAL AUTO FUEL-12/08/21-01/07/22 101191 $438.50 AFECO INC TURNOUT CLEAN/REPAIR-BARRON 101172 $472.70
AFECO INC TURNOUT CLEANING-SIBERELL 101172 $26.50
TOTAL FIRE DEPARTMENT $9,093.53
1006130 - ANIMAL CONTROL
HABITAT PROTECTION, INC DEAD ANIMAL REMOVAL-NOV 101165 $145.00 TOTAL ANIMAL CONTROL $145.00
1006150 - CIVIL DEFENSE
AT&T CALNET 3 9391012275-11/24-12/23 101145 $166.16
TOTAL CIVIL DEFENSE $166.16
1006170 - MARINE SAFETY
VERIZON WIRELESS-SD 962428212-1-11/29/21-12/28/21 101201 $152.04 Page: 3 of 7
WEX FLEET UNIVERSAL AUTO FUEL-12/08/21-01/07/22 101191 $560.30 TOTAL MARINE SAFETY $712.34
1006510 - ENGINEERING
UNDERGROUND SVC ALERT OF SOCAL INC CA ST REGLRTY-DEC 101186 $54.29 UNDERGROUND SVC ALERT OF SOCAL INC DIG ALERT-DEC 101186 $52.90 WEX FLEET UNIVERSAL AUTO FUEL-12/08/21-01/07/22 101191 $135.39 TOTAL ENGINEERING $242.58
1006520 - ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
MISSION LINEN & UNIFORM INC LAUNDRY-PW 101162 $13.62
MISSION LINEN & UNIFORM INC LAUNDRY-PW 101162 $12.59
MISSION LINEN & UNIFORM INC LAUNDRY-PW 101162 $12.58
AFFORDABLE PIPELINE SERVICES INC H-STORM DRAIN MAINT 101142 $1,140.00 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 011695-000/005506-014 101198 $239.08 WEX FLEET UNIVERSAL AUTO FUEL-12/08/21-01/07/22 101191 $393.85 TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES $1,811.72
1006530 - STREET MAINTENANCE
MISSION LINEN & UNIFORM INC LAUNDRY-PW 101162 $23.35
MISSION LINEN & UNIFORM INC LAUNDRY-PW 101162 $21.56
MISSION LINEN & UNIFORM INC LAUNDRY-PW 101162 $21.56
DIXIELINE LUMBER CO INC PAINT REMOVAL/GLOVES 101154 $79.92 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 011695-000/005506-014 101198 $124.27 SDG&E CO INC UTILITIES-11/01-12/08 101169 $549.59
SDG&E CO INC UTILITIES-11/06-12/08 101169 $862.57
JOSHUA BLEA MILEAGE-12/29 & 12/31 101146 $28.00
TRAFFIC SUPPLY, INC SINAGE 101176 $369.07
TRAFFIC SUPPLY, INC SINAGE/BOLTS 101176 $483.67
WEX FLEET UNIVERSAL AUTO FUEL-12/08/21-01/07/22 101191 $356.93 TOTAL STREET MAINTENANCE $2,920.49
1006540 - TRAFFIC SAFETY
SDG&E CO INC UTILITIES-11/01-12/08 101169 $523.13
SDG&E CO INC UTILITIES-11/06-12/08 101169 $1,136.65
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION COST SHARE AGMT - I-5 TRAFFIC SIGNALS-07/21-09/21 101153 $86.38 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION COST SHARE AGMT - I-5 TRAFFIC SIGNALS-07/21-09/21 101153 $134.30 REDFLEX TRAFFIC SYSTEMS, INC RED LIGHT CAMERA-DEC 9000406 $7,158.00 AT&T CALNET 3 9391012279-11/24-12/23 101145 $47.95
TOTAL TRAFFIC SAFETY $9,086.41
1006550 - STREET CLEANING
SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 011695-000/005506-014 101198 $72.99 CLEAN STREET STREET SWEEPING-DEC 101151 $3,871.45
TOTAL STREET CLEANING $3,944.44
1006560 - PARK MAINTENANCE
MISSION LINEN & UNIFORM INC LAUNDRY-PW 101162 $16.54
MISSION LINEN & UNIFORM INC LAUNDRY-PW 101162 $15.27
MISSION LINEN & UNIFORM INC LAUNDRY-PW 101162 $15.28
SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 12/02/21-12/31/21 101198 $287.19 Page: 4 of 7
SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 12/02/21-12/31/21 101198 $713.38 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 11/02/21-12/31/21 101198 $98.86 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 11/02/21-12/31/21 101198 $74.42 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 11/02/21-12/31/21 101198 $393.12 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 11/02/21-12/31/21 101198 $103.54 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 11/02/21-12/31/21 101198 $130.83 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 11/02/21-12/31/21 101198 $85.33 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 11/02/21-12/31/21 101198 $74.42 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 11/02/21-12/31/21 101198 $136.20 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 11/02/21-12/31/21 101198 $276.72 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 11/02/21-12/31/21 101198 $1,096.37 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 11/02/21-12/31/21 101198 $126.50 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 11/02/21-12/31/21 101198 $74.42 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 11/02/21-12/31/21 101198 $196.77 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 11/02/21-12/31/21 101198 $135.67 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 11/02/21-12/31/21 101198 $92.55 NAPA AUTO PARTS INC CLEANER WAX 101163 $32.85
AA FARNSWORTH'S BACKFLOW SERVICES BACKFLOW ANNUAL TEST 101139 $458.55 AA FARNSWORTH'S BACKFLOW SERVICES BACKFLOW REPAIR KIT/LABOR 101139 $128.00 JOSHUA BLEA MILEAGE-12/29 & 12/31 101146 $56.00
ABEL PEREZ MILEAGE-12/22 & 12/27 101140 $7.84
WEX FLEET UNIVERSAL AUTO FUEL-12/08/21-01/07/22 101191 $73.85 TOTAL PARK MAINTENANCE $4,900.47
1006570 - PUBLIC FACILITIES
SEASIDE HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING HVAC MAINT-OCT-CH 101170 $245.00 DIXIELINE LUMBER CO INC DRILL BIT/BOLTS/ANCHORS 101154 $16.44 DIXIELINE LUMBER CO INC DRILL BIT/BOLTS/WASHERS/ANCHOR 101154 $12.96 DIXIELINE LUMBER CO INC SOCKET EXTENSION/MULTI PRPS RESPIRATIOR 101154 $57.94 DIXIELINE LUMBER CO INC DRAIN CLEANER 101154 $9.01
DIXIELINE LUMBER CO INC SCRAPER/PUTTY KNIFE/FIBERGLASS FILLER 101154 $27.41 DIXIELINE LUMBER CO INC KEY RING/BLANK KEY/QUICK SNAP 101154 $11.98 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 11/02/21-12/31/21 101198 $422.22 SDG&E CO INC UTILITIES-11/01-12/08 101169 $1,690.85
SDG&E CO INC UTILITIES-11/06-12/08 101169 $5,412.07
ABEL PEREZ MILEAGE-12/22 & 12/27 101140 $7.84
CINTAS CORPORATION NO. 2 FIRST AID SUPPLIES-CH 101150 $60.91 CINTAS CORPORATION NO. 2 FIRST AID SUPPLIES-PW 101150 $54.41 CALIFORNIA OFFICE CLEANING, INC JANITORIAL/CUSTODIAL SVC AT CITY FACILITIES-DEC 101148 $7,850.00 CALIFORNIA OFFICE CLEANING, INC JANITORIAL/CUSTODIAL SVC AT CITY FACILITIES-DEC 101148 $150.00 CALIFORNIA OFFICE CLEANING, INC JANITORIAL/CUSTODIAL SVC AT CITY FACILITIES-NOV 101148 $7,850.00 CALIFORNIA OFFICE CLEANING, INC JANITORIAL/CUSTODIAL SVC AT CITY FACILITIES-NOV 101148 $150.00 WEX FLEET UNIVERSAL AUTO FUEL-12/08/21-01/07/22 101191 $123.08 WEST COAST ARBORISTS, INC. REE MAINTENANCE 11/16-11/30 101188 $420.00 SYMONS FIRE PROTECTION QTR 4 INSPECTION 101175 $690.00
Page: 5 of 7
TOTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES $25,262.12
1007110 - GF-RECREATION
AMERICAN BUSINESS FORMS VETERANS DAY CEREMONY PROGRAMS 101143 $48.48 WEX FLEET UNIVERSAL AUTO FUEL-12/08/21-01/07/22 101191 $76.07 JOHN BLACK REIMB-TREE LIGHTING 101159 $71.10
JAMIE LALLY REIMB-TREE LIGHTING 101158 $28.45
TOTAL GF-RECREATION $224.10
1205460 - SELF INSURANCE RETENTION
EVAN MASON FY21 GYM REIMB 101160 $399.61
TOTAL SELF INSURANCE RETENTION $399.61
1355200 - ASSET REPLACEMENT-CTY MNGR
TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 20-216-02 IMPLMNTN HR 101185 $6,400.00 TOTAL ASSET REPLACEMENT-CTY MNGR $6,400.00
1356170 - ASSET REPLACEMENT-MARN SFTY
SAN DIEGO OCEAN ENTERPRISES, INC. OE Dive Gear 101196 $660.46 TOTAL ASSET REPLACEMENT-MARN SFTY $660.46
1605360 - OPEB OBLIGATION
MIDAMERICA CITYSOLANAG5-JAN 22 9000405 $6,450.00
MIDAMERICA CTYSOLANAG5-DEC 21 9000405 $6,593.00
TOTAL OPEB OBLIGATION $13,043.00
2026510 - GAS TAX-ENGINEERING
UT SAN DIEGO - NRTH COUNTY NOTICE-BID 2022-01 101187 $310.33 TOTAL GAS TAX-ENGINEERING $310.33
2037510 - HIGHWAY 101 LANDSC #33
SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 11/02/21-12/31/21 101198 $826.10 SDG&E CO INC UTILITIES-11/06-12/08 101169 $2,846.47
TOTAL HIGHWAY 101 LANDSC #33 $3,672.57
2047520 - MID 9C SANTA FE HILLS
SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 005979-029-10/16/21-12/15/21 101198 $681.84 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 12/02/21-12/31/21 101198 $529.61 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 12/02/21-12/31/21 101198 $349.75 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 12/02/21-12/31/21 101198 $513.97 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 12/02/21-12/31/21 101198 $61.56 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 12/02/21-12/31/21 101198 $338.02 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 12/02/21-12/31/21 101198 $408.40 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 12/02/21-12/31/21 101198 $510.06 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 12/02/21-12/31/21 101198 $85.02 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 12/02/21-12/31/21 101198 $147.58 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 12/02/21-12/31/21 101198 $529.61 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 12/02/21-12/31/21 101198 $701.65 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 12/02/21-12/31/21 101198 $443.59 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 12/02/21-12/31/21 101198 $451.41 TOTAL MID 9C SANTA FE HILLS $5,752.07
2077550 - MID 9H SAN ELIJO #2
SAN ELIJO HILLS II HOA FY22 MID PAYMENT JULY 101197 $6,550.00 SAN ELIJO HILLS II HOA FY22 MID PAYMENT - AUGUST 101197 $6,550.00 Page: 6 of 7
SAN ELIJO HILLS II HOA FY22 MID PAYMENT SEPT 101197 $6,550.00 SAN ELIJO HILLS II HOA FY22 MID PAYMENT - OCT 101197 $6,550.00 SAN ELIJO HILLS II HOA FY22 MID PAYMENT - NOV 101197 $6,550.00 SAN ELIJO HILLS II HOA FY22 MID PAYMENT DEC 101197 $6,550.00 TOTAL MID 9H SAN ELIJO #2 $39,300.00
2087580 - COASTAL RAIL TRAIL MAINT
SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 12/02/21-12/31/21 101198 $2,774.71 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 11/02/21-12/31/21 101198 $117.34 TOTAL COASTAL RAIL TRAIL MAINT $2,892.05
2117600 - STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT
SDG&E CO INC UTILITIES-11/01-12/08 101169 $8,450.75
TOTAL STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT $8,450.75
2196110 - COPS PROGRAM
SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT. LAW ENFORCEMENT-OCT 101168 $12,500.00 TOTAL COPS PROGRAM $12,500.00
2206510 - TRANS DEVELOP ACT (TDA)
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL, INC 19-193-03 9382 LSF CORR-NOV 101161 $6,750.00 TOTAL TRANS DEVELOP ACT (TDA) $6,750.00
2286510 - TRANSNET EXTENSION-CIP
CHEN RYAN ASSOCIATES 21-202-01 9538 SAFE RT SCH-NOV 101149 $4,585.69 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL, INC 19-193-03 9382 LSF CORR-NOV 101161 $750.00 TOTAL TRANSNET EXTENSION-CIP $5,335.69
2466510 - PER CAPITA GRANT FUND-CIP
CHEN RYAN ASSOCIATES 21-202-01 9538 SAFE RT SCH-NOV 101149 $13,757.07 TOTAL PER CAPITA GRANT FUND-CIP $13,757.07
2706120 - PUBLIC SAFETY- LAW ENFORCEMENT
ENTERPRISE RENT A CAR STRKTM-10/30-11/23-PESTER 101155 $1,108.97 VERIZON WIRELESS-SD 962428212-1-11/29/21-12/28/21 101201 $114.03 ERIC PHILLIPS REIMB-CFAA-DIXIE FIRE-PHILLIPS 101156 $1,621.55 AMR CSA17.22 FLUCELVAX 101144 $413.95
AMR CSA17.22-LIFEBAND/PED SENSORS 101144 $1,746.36
TOTAL PUBLIC SAFETY- LAW ENFORCEMENT $5,004.86
5097700 - SANITATION
MISSION LINEN & UNIFORM INC LAUNDRY-PW 101162 $9.73
MISSION LINEN & UNIFORM INC LAUNDRY-PW 101162 $8.99
MISSION LINEN & UNIFORM INC LAUNDRY-PW 101162 $8.99
AFFORDABLE PIPELINE SERVICES INC I-SEWER CLEANING 101142 $425.00 AFFORDABLE PIPELINE SERVICES INC C-SEWER CLEANING-8,334 101142 $4,167.00 AFFORDABLE PIPELINE SERVICES INC C-SEWER CLEANING-44,797 101142 $22,398.50 AFFORDABLE PIPELINE SERVICES INC J SEWER CLEANING 101142 $575.00 AFFORDABLE PIPELINE SERVICES INC 0-STORM DRAIN MAINT 101142 $1,140.00 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT 011695-000/005506-014 101198 $717.24 AT&T CALNET 3 9391012277-11/24-12/23 101145 $15.63
WEX FLEET UNIVERSAL AUTO FUEL-12/08/21-01/07/22 101191 $147.70 Page: 7 of 7
TOTAL SANITATION $29,613.78
6527820 - SUCCESSOR AGENCY
COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH, & WHATLEY PC SDCOE CONSORTIUM-NOV 101152 $293.88 BURKE WILLIAMS & SORENSEN 97-0003/PROF SRVC 101147 $180.00 BURKE WILLIAMS & SORENSEN 97-0003/PROF SVC NOV 21 101194 $20.00 COMPUTERSHARE CORPORATE TRUST FY22 TAR BOND 2017 ADMIN FEE 9000403 $4,000.00 TOTAL SUCCESSOR AGENCY $4,493.88
6718510 - BARBARA UNDERGROUNDING-DS
COMPUTERSHARE CORPORATE TRUST BARB BOND INT 03/02/22 9000408 $26,750.00 TOTAL BARBARA UNDERGROUNDING-DS $26,750.00
6728520 - PACIFIC UNDERGROUNDING-DS
COMPUTERSHARE CORPORATE TRUST PACIFIC BOND INT 03/02/22 9000408 $9,000.00 TOTAL PACIFIC UNDERGROUNDING-DS $9,000.00
REPORT TOTAL: $743,506.63
COUNCIL ACTION:
______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM # A.3.

STAFF REPORT

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Gregory Wade, City Manager
MEETING DATE: February 9, 2022
ORIGINATING DEPT: Finance
SUBJECT: Report on Changes Made to the General Fund Adopted Budget for Fiscal Year 2021/22
BACKGROUND:

Staff provides a report at each Council meeting that lists changes made to the current Fiscal Year (FY) General Fund Adopted Budget.

The information provided in this Staff Report lists the changes made through January 26, 2022.

DISCUSSION:

The following table reports the revenue, expenditures, and transfers for 1) the Adopted General Fund Budget approved by Council on June 23, 2021 (Resolution 2021-092) and 2) any resolutions passed by Council that amended the Adopted General Fund Budget.

Action Description Revenues Expenditures
Transfers
from GF Net Surplus
Reso 2021-092 Adopted Budget 22,694,100 (20,222,560) (916,100) (1) $ 1,555,440 Reso 2021-086 Crossing Guards 121,540 (48,984) - 1,627,996 Reso 2021-096 FY22 MOU - (950) - 1,627,046
Reso 2021-103 Landscaping Maintenance Services - (40,000) - 1,587,046 Reso 2021-125 Street Maintenance and Repairs Project - - (200,000) (2) 1,387,046 (1) Transfers to: 150,100
Debt Service for Public Facilities 150,100
Transfer to: 766,000
City CIP Fund 766,000
(2) Transfer to: 200,000
City CIP Fund 200,000
Action Description Revenues Expenditures
Transfers
from GF Net
Reso 2021-124 FY21 Surplus- PARS Contribution (455,000) - (455,000)

GENERAL FUND - ADOPTED BUDGET PLUS CHANGES
As of January 26, 2022
General Fund Operations
General Fund Unreserved Balance
.. ..
..
..

February 9, 2022
General Fund Budget Changes -FY 2022

Page 2 of 2 ends

CEQA COMPLIANCE STATEMENT:

Not a project as defined by CEQA
FISCAL IMPACT:

N/A
WORK PLAN:

N/A
OPTIONS:
∙ Receive the report.
∙ Do not accept the report
DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council receive the report listing changes made to the FY 2021-2022 General Fund Adopted Budget.

CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Department Recommendation
_________________________________
Gregory Wade, City Manager
COUNCIL ACTION:
______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM # A.4.

STAFF REPORT

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Gregory Wade, City Manager
MEETING DATE: February 9, 2022
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager’s Department/City Attorney’s Office SUBJECT: City Council Consideration and Potential Adoption of Resolution 2022-015 Authorizing Continued Remote
Teleconference Meetings of the Legislative Bodies of the City for the Period of February 10, 2022 through March 12, 2022 Pursuant to the Brown Act and Continuing
Emergency
BACKGROUND:

On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19, the illness caused by the novel coronavirus, a pandemic, pointing at that time to over 118,000 cases of COVID-19 in over 110 countries and territories around the world and the sustained risk of further global spread. This was preceded by declarations of emergency by both the County of San Diego and State of California on February 14, 2020, and March 4, 2020, respectively, followed by a federal emergency declaration on March 13, 2020, as a result of the threat posed by COVID-19. On March 16, 2020, pursuant to Section 2.28.060(A)(1) of the Solana Beach Municipal Code (SBMC), the Director of Emergency Services/City Manager proclaimed a state of local emergency in the City of Solana Beach due to COVID-19, which was ratified by the City Council through adoption of Resolution 2020-036.

Since that time, there have been numerous Orders and Guidance by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) and the Health Officer of the County of San Diego to curtail the spread of COVID-19. On March 17, 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order No. N-29-20, suspending the Ralph M. Brown Act’s requirements for teleconferencing during the COVID-19 pandemic provided that notice and accessibility requirements are met, the public members are allowed to observe and address the legislative body at the meeting, and that a legislative body of a local agency has a procedure for receiving and swiftly resolving requests for reasonable accommodation February 9, 2022
Continued Emergency Teleconferencing

Page 2 of 6 ends

for individuals with disabilities, as specified. Pursuant to Executive Order No. N-29-20, the City Council and City Commissions have meet by remote teleconferencing following applicable requirements, preserving and nurturing public access and participation in meetings while preserving public health and safety.

On June 11, 2021, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-08-21 to roll back certain provisions of his COVID-19-related Executive Orders and to clarify that other provisions remained necessary to help California respond to, recover from and mitigate the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Paragraph 42 of Executive Order N-08-21 waived and set forth certain requirements related to public meetings of local legislative bodies and specified that it would be valid through September 30, 2021.

On September 16, 2021, Governor Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 361 (AB 361), which pertains to the same subject matter as Paragraph 42 of Executive Order N-08-21, which took effect immediately pursuant to an urgency clause, and which amended the Brown Act, in Government Code section 54953(e)(1)(B), to allow local legislative bodies to continue meeting by teleconference during a gubernatorial proclaimed state of emergency if the local legislative body determines, by majority vote, that as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.

On October 13, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution 2021-120 authorizing remote teleconference meetings of the legislative bodies of the City for the period of October 13, 2021 through November 12, 2021 pursuant to the new provisions of the Brown Act.

If the state of emergency remains active, or state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, in order to continue to remote teleconference, Government Code section 54953(e)(3) requires that every thirty (30) days, the City Council make the following findings by majority vote:
(A) The legislative body has reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency.
(B) Any of the following circumstances exist:
(i) The state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person.
(ii) State or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing.

On November 10, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution 2021-127 authorizing continued teleconference meetings of the legislative bodies of the City for the period of November 10, 2021 through December 10, 2021 pursuant to the new provisions of the Brown Act. On December 8, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution 2021-137 authorizing continued teleconference meetings through January 7, 2022. On December 15, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution 2021-141 authorizing continued February 9, 2022
Continued Emergency Teleconferencing

Page 3 of 6 ends

teleconference meetings through January 14, 2022. On January 12, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution 2022-008 authorizing continued teleconference meetings through February 11, 2022.

The item before the City Council is to consider and adopt Resolution 2022-015 (Attachment 1) reconsidering the circumstances of the state of local emergency and authorizing remote teleconference meetings of the legislative bodies of the City for the period of February 10, 2022 through March 12, 2022 pursuant to the new provisions of the Brown Act and in light of the continuing direct impact on the ability of the members to meet safely in person.

DISCUSSION:

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to spread rapidly throughout the State and County and is impacting the health and welfare of the City of Solana Beach. Updated as of August 13, 2021, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention still recommends staying at least six (6) feet from other people. The California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health’s COVID-19 Prevention Emergency Temporary Standards were updated on June 17, 2021 and are still in effect.

Those workplace standards place an ongoing requirement on employers to assess workplace hazards and implement controls to prevent transmission of disease, noting that there may be circumstances in which employers determine that physical distancing is necessary in their workplace.

A strain of COVID-19, known as SARS-CoV-2 Delta Variant (Delta Variant), which is 70% more likely to be spread, has also been identified in the County of San Diego. This strain was originally identified in the United Kingdom. Since persons contracting this strain in the County have had no history of travel, this highly contagious strain is community based. The Delta Variant is highly transmissible in indoor settings, breakthrough cases are becoming more common and hospitalizations have increased throughout San Diego County. On July 28, 2021, the California Department of Public Health issued guidance for the use of face coverings stating that the Delta Variant is two times as contagious as early COVID-19 variants, leading to increasing infections, the Delta Variant accounts for over 80% of cases sequenced, and cases and hospitalizations of COVID-19 are rising throughout the state. In short, COVID-19 continues to threaten the health and lives of City residents.

According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), an even newer strain of COVID-19, known as Omicron, has emerged. On November 24, 2021, this new variant B.1.1.529, was reported to the World Health Organization (WHO). On November 26, 2021, WHO named B.1.1.529 Omicron and classified it as a Variant of Concern (VOC). On November 30, 2021, the United States designated Omicron as a Variant of Concern. On December 1, 2021, the first confirmed U.S. case of Omicron was identified.1
1 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/omicron-variant.html February 9, 2022
Continued Emergency Teleconferencing

Page 4 of 6 ends

On December 13, 2021, the CDPH issued updated Guidance for the Use of Face Coverings requiring masks to be worn by all individuals in all indoor public settings, irrespective of vaccine status, for the period of December 15, 2021 through January 15, 2022, and recommending surgical masks or higher-level respirators. CDPH issued this new measure to bring an added layer of mitigation as the Omicron variant, is detected across California, the United States, and the world and is likely to spread more easily than the original SARS-CoV-2 virus and the Delta variant. CDPH additionally found this new measure would bring additional protection to individuals, families and communities during the holidays when more travel occurs, and time is spent indoors.

CDPH reported that since Thanksgiving, the statewide seven-day average case rate has increased by 47% and hospitalizations have increased by 14%. While the percentage of Californians fully vaccinated and boosted continues to increase, we continue to have areas of the state where vaccine coverage is low, putting individuals and communities at greater risk for COVID-19. Given the current hospital census, which is at or over capacity, even a moderate surge in cases and hospitalizations could materially impact California's health care delivery system within certain regions of the state. Other states and countries with similar vaccination rates that have relaxed masking requirements are seeing surges in COVID-19 cases and increasing stress in their healthcare systems.

On December 9, 2021, the CDC reported that we do not yet know how easily Omicron spreads, the severity of illness it causes, or how well available vaccines and medications work against it. The holiday season, with attendant increases in indoor gatherings, travel and exposure to COVID-19, has only recently come to an end and increased cases as a result of the holiday season are likely be time delayed. On January 3, 2022, the County of San Diego Health and Human Services Agency issued an Order of the Health Officer requiring isolation of persons diagnosed with, or likely to have COVID-19 to slow the spread of COVID-19 and prevent the healthcare system in San Diego County from being overwhelmed. On January 6, 2022, the WHO said a record 9.5 million cases of COVID-19 were tallied the week before, marking a 71 percent weekly surge that amounted to a “tsunami” as the Omicron variant sweeps worldwide.2
On January 17, 2022, the WHO emphasized the risk posed by possible new variants stating: “It’s dangerous to assume that Omicron will be the last variant…. On the contrary, globally, the conditions are ideal for more variants to emerge.” The WHO also warned that it is too early for governments to drop their guard with so many people unvaccinated.3
Hospitalization rates continue to be concerning amid record-breaking spikes both globally and locally. On January 19, 2022, the County of San Diego reported that hospitalizations went up from 1,103 to 1,328, representing a 276% increase in confirmed hospitalizations over the past 30 days (up from a 201% increase the previous 2 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/6/who-record-weekly-jump-in-covid-19-cases-but-fewer-deaths 3 https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/01/24/world/omicron-covid-vaccine-tests February 9, 2022
Continued Emergency Teleconferencing

Page 5 of 6 ends

week). During the same time, intensive care unit (ICU) patients in the County went up from 171 to 199, representing a 109% increase in confirmed ICU patients over the past 30 days (up from a 76% increase the previous week). There were 32 Community Outbreaks in the County reported over the previous 7 days. The COVID-19 Case Rate (with a 7-day lag) increased again 196.4 to 346.0. 81,791 COVID-19 cases were reported in the County between January 9 and January 15, 2022, a 12.9% increase from the prior week’s 72,467 reported cases. Since January 4, 2022, daily COVID-19 cases in the County exceeded 9,000 cases on four days with a high of 14,437 cases on January 9, 2022 and the lowest number of cases in a day last week was 7,460 cases on January 16, 2022. The County is continuing to expand regional COVID-19 testing to meet the increased demand brought on by the rapid spread of the Omicron variant.

There has also been a recent surge of COVID-19 cases in the City of Solana Beach.

Since December 22, 2022, there have been 590 cases reported in the City making up

42.3% of all cases reported in the City throughout the pandemic. In the week before January 19, 2022, 124 new cases were reported in the City, while 38.7% more new cases (172) were reported in the City the previous week. Last week, another 85 cases were reported in Solana Beach bringing the total COVID-19 cases in the City to 1,395 cases (up from 1,310 the week before).

The Omicron and Delta variants have caused, and will continue to cause, conditions of imminent peril to the health safety of persons within the City that are likely beyond the control of services, personnel, equipment and facilities of the City and there is a risk of new variants emerging. In other words, the local emergency continues and as a result, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.

All meetings of the City’s legislative bodies are open and public, as required by the Brown Act (California Government Code §§54950 – 54963), so that any member of the public may attend, participate and watch the City’s legislative bodies conduct their business. The recently amended Brown Act, Government Code section 54953(e)(1)(B), allows local legislative bodies to continue meeting by teleconference during a gubernatorial proclaimed state of emergency if the local legislative body determines, by majority vote, that as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees and every thirty (30) days thereafter finds by a majority vote under Government Code section 54953(e)(3) that after reconsidering the circumstances of the state of emergency, it continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person.

Resolution 2022-015 (Attachment 1) would make the necessary findings under Government Code section 54953(e)(3) and authorize the City’s legislative bodies to meet by remote teleconferencing within the requirements of applicable law. To continue to meet by remote teleconference, Council will be required to revisit the Resolution within thirty (30) days and find that the state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person pursuant to Government Code section 54953(e)(3).

February 9, 2022
Continued Emergency Teleconferencing

Page 6 of 6 ends

CEQA COMPLIANCE STATEMENT:

The proposed City Council action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Sections: 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment); 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378); and 15061(b)(3), because the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Because there is no possibility that the Resolution may have a significant adverse effect on the environment, the action is exempt from CEQA.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There are no direct fiscal impacts related to the adoption of the Resolution.

WORKPLAN:

N/A
OPTIONS:
• Approve Staff recommendation.
• Approve Staff recommendation with modifications consistent with the Brown Act. • Do not approve Staff recommendations and resume in person meetings. • Provide direction / feedback.

DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution 2022-015 authorizing remote teleconference meetings of the legislative bodies of the City for the period of February 10, 2022 through March 12, 2022 pursuant to the new provisions of the Brown Act.

CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Department Recommendation.
_______________________________
Gregory Wade, City Manager/Director of Emergency Services

1. Resolution. 2022-015
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION 2022-015

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING

CONTINUED REMOTE TELECONFERENCE MEETINGS

OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODIES OF THE CITY OF SOLANA
BEACH FOR THE PERIOD OF FEBRUARY 10, 2022
THROUGH MARCH 12, 2022 PURSUANT TO THE BROWN

ACT AND CONTINUING EMERGENCY
WHEREAS, the City of Solana Beach (“City”) is committed to preserving and nurturing public access and participation in meetings of the City Council and the City’s commissions; and
WHEREAS, all meetings of the City’s legislative bodies are open and public, as required by the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Government Code §§54950 – 54963), so that any member of the public may attend, participate and watch the City’s legislative bodies conduct their business; and
WHEREAS, the Brown Act, Government Code section 54953(e), makes provisions for remote teleconferencing participation in meetings by members of a legislative body, without compliance with the requirements of Government Code section 54953(b)(3), subject to the existence of certain conditions; and WHEREAS, the recently amended Brown Act, Government Code section 54953(e)(1)(B), allows local legislative bodies to continue meeting by teleconference during a gubernatorial proclaimed state of emergency if the local legislative body determines, by majority vote, that as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees; if the state of emergency remains active; and if every thirty (30) days, the local legislative body finds by a majority vote under Government Code section 54953(e)(3) that after reconsidering the circumstances of the state of emergency, it continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person; and
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom declared a state of emergency due to the Coronavirus (“COVID-19”) pandemic, which remains in effect; and WHEREAS, on March 16, 2020, the City Manager, acting as the Director of Emergency Services, did proclaim the existence of a local state of emergency within the City, pursuant to Section 2.28.060(A)(1) of the Solana Beach Municipal Code and Section 8625 of the California Emergency Services Act (California Government Code §§8550 et. seq.), as a result of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, which was ratified by the City Council on March 19, 2020 through the adoption of Resolution 2020-036; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution 2020-036, the local emergency was deemed to continue to exist until its termination is proclaimed by the City Council of the City of Resolution 2022-015
Continued Emergency Teleconferencing

Page 2 of 6 ends

Solana Beach and the local emergency does continue to exist; and WHEREAS, COVID-19 continues to threaten the health and lives of City residents; and
WHEREAS, the SARS-CoV-2 Delta Variant (Delta Variant) is highly transmissible in indoor settings, breakthrough cases are becoming more common and hospitalizations have increased throughout San Diego County; and
WHEREAS, on July 28, 2021, the California Department of Public Health issued guidance for the use of face coverings stating that the Delta Variant is two times as contagious as early COVID-19 variants, leading to increasing infections, the Delta Variant accounts for over 80% of cases sequenced, and cases and hospitalizations of COVID-19 are rising throughout the state; and
WHEREAS, updated as of August 13, 2021, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention recommends staying at least six (6) feet from other people; and WHEREAS, the California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health’s COVID-19 Prevention Emergency Temporary Standards were updated on June 17, 2021, are still in effect and place an ongoing requirement on employers to assess workplace hazards and implement controls to prevent transmission of disease, which may include circumstances in which employers determine that physical distancing is necessary in their workplace; and WHEREAS, on October 13, 2021, the City Council held a regular meeting for the purpose of determining, by majority vote, whether as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees, made such a determination and adopted Resolution 2021-120 authorizing remote teleconference meetings of the legislative bodies of the City for the period of October 13, 2021 through November 12, 2021 pursuant to the new provisions of the Brown Act; and WHEREAS, on November 10, 2021, the City Council reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency and adopted Resolution 2021-127 authorizing continued teleconference meetings of the legislative bodies of the City for the period of November 10, 2021 through December 10, 2021 pursuant to the new provisions of the Brown Act; and
WHEREAS, according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a new strain of COVID-19, known as Omicron, has emerged; and WHEREAS, on November 24, 2021, this new variant B.1.1.529, was reported to the World Health Organization (WHO); and
Resolution 2022-015
Continued Emergency Teleconferencing

Page 3 of 6 ends

WHEREAS, on November 26, 2021, WHO named B.1.1.529 Omicron and classified it as a Variant of Concern (VOC); and
WHEREAS, on November 30, 2021, the United States designated Omicron as a Variant of Concern; and
WHEREAS, on December 1, 2021, the first confirmed U.S. case of Omicron was identified; and
WHEREAS, on December 8, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution 2021-137 authorizing continued teleconference meetings through January 7, 2022; and WHEREAS, on December 9, 2021, the CDC reported that we do not yet know how easily Omicron spreads, the severity of illness it causes, or how well available vaccines and medications work against it; and
WHEREAS, on December 13, 2021, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) issued updated Guidance for the Use of Face Coverings requiring masks to be worn by all individuals in all indoor public settings, irrespective of vaccine status, for the period of December 15, 2021 through January 15, 2022, and recommending surgical masks or higher-level respirators. CDPH issued this new measure to bring an added layer of mitigation as the Omicron variant, is detected across California, the United States, and the world and is likely to spread more easily than the original SARS-CoV-2 virus and the Delta variant. CDPH additionally found this new measure would bring additional protection to individuals, families and communities during the holidays when more travel occurs, and time is spent indoors; and
WHEREAS, CDPH reported that since Thanksgiving, the statewide seven-day average case rate has increased by 47% and hospitalizations have increased by 14%.

While the percentage of Californians fully vaccinated and boosted continues to increase, we continue to have areas of the state where vaccine coverage is low, putting individuals and communities at greater risk for COVID-19. Given the current hospital census, which is at or over capacity, even a moderate surge in cases and hospitalizations could materially impact California's health care delivery system within certain regions of the state. Other states and countries with similar vaccination rates that have relaxed masking requirements are seeing surges in COVID-19 cases and increasing stress in their healthcare systems; and
WHEREAS, on December 15, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution 2021- 141 authorizing continued teleconference meetings through January 14, 2022; and WHEREAS, on January 3, 2022, the County of San Diego Health and Human Resolution 2022-015
Continued Emergency Teleconferencing

Page 4 of 6 ends

Services Agency issued an Order of the Health Officer requiring isolation of persons diagnosed with, or likely to have COVID-19 to slow the spread of COVID-19 and prevent the healthcare system in San Diego County from being overwhelmed; and WHEREAS, the holiday season, with attendant increases in indoor gatherings, travel and exposure to COVID-19, has only recently come to an end and increased cases as a result of the holiday season are likely be time delayed; and WHEREAS, on January 6, 2022, the WHO said a record 9.5 million cases of COVID-19 were tallied the week before, marking a 71 percent weekly surge that amounted to a “tsunami” as the Omicron variant sweeps worldwide; and WHEREAS, on January 17, 2022, the WHO emphasized the risk posed by possible new variants stating: “It’s dangerous to assume that Omicron will be the last variant…. On the contrary, globally, the conditions are ideal for more variants to emerge.” The WHO also warned that it is too early for governments to drop their guard with so many people unvaccinated; and
WHEREAS, hospitalization rates continue to be concerning amid record-breaking spikes; and
WHEREAS, on January 19, 2022, the County of San Diego (County) reported that hospitalizations went up from 1,103 to 1,328, representing a 276% increase in confirmed hospitalizations over the past 30 days (up from a 201% increase the previous week); and WHEREAS, during the same time, intensive care unit (ICU) patients in the County went up from 171 to 199, representing a 109% increase in confirmed ICU patients over the past 30 days (up from a 76% increase the previous week); and WHEREAS, on January 19, 2022, the County reported there were 32 Community Outbreaks in the County reported over the previous 7 days; and WHEREAS, on January 19, 2022, the County reported that the COVID-19 Case Rate (with a 7-day lag) increased again 196.4 to 346.0; and WHEREAS, 81,791 COVID-19 cases were reported in the County between January 9 and January 15, 2022, a 12.9% increase from the prior week’s 72,467 reported cases; and
WHEREAS, since January 4, 2022, daily COVID-19 cases in the County exceeded 9,000 cases on four days with a high of 14,437 cases on January 9, 2022 and the lowest number of cases in a day last week was 7,460 cases on January 16, 2022; and Resolution 2022-015
Continued Emergency Teleconferencing

Page 5 of 6 ends

WHEREAS, the County is continuing to expand regional COVID-19 testing to meet the increased demand brought on by the rapid spread of the Omicron variant; and WHEREAS, there has also been a recent surge of COVID-19 cases in the City of Solana Beach. Since December 22, 2022, there have been 505 cases reported in the City making up 38.6% of all cases reported in the City throughout the pandemic; and WHEREAS, in the week before January 19, 2022, 124 new cases were reported in the City, while 38.7% more new cases (172) were reported in the City the previous week. This brings the total COVID-19 cases in the City to 1,310 cases (up from 1,186 the week before); and
WHEREAS, the Omicron and Delta variants have caused, and will continue to cause, conditions of imminent peril to the health safety of persons within the City that are likely beyond the control of services, personnel, equipment and facilities of the City and there is a risk of new variants emerging; and
WHEREAS, the state of emergency remains active.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California, does find and resolve as follows:

1. That the above recitations are true and correct and incorporated herein as findings.

2. That the City Council has reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency.

3. That the state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members of the City’s legislative bodies and the public to meet safely in person.

4. That the meetings of the legislative bodies of the City of Solana Beach, including the City Council, standing committees and citizen commissions, shall continue to meet by remote teleconferencing in compliance with applicable law.

5. That the City Manager and Staff are hereby authorized and directed to take all actions necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Resolution including, conducting open and public meetings in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e) and other applicable provisions of the Brown Act.

Resolution 2022-015
Continued Emergency Teleconferencing

Page 6 of 6 ends

6. That this Resolution shall take effect on February 10, 2022, and shall be effective until the earlier of (a) March 12, 2022 or (b) such time as the City Council adopts a subsequent resolution in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e)(3) to extend the time during which the legislative bodies of the City may continue to teleconference without compliance with Government Code section 54953(b)(3).

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of February, 2022, at a regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
ABSENT: Councilmembers
______________________________
LESA HEEBNER, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
_______________________________ _______________________________ JOHANNA N. CANLAS, City Attorney ANGELA IVEY, City Clerk CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
_____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM # A.5.

STAFF REPORT

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Gregory Wade, City Manager
MEETING DATE: February 9, 2022
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Clerk’s Department
SUBJECT: City Council Consideration of Resolution 2022-010 Updating the City’s Conflict of Interest Code
BACKGROUND:

The City’s Conflict of Interest Code, which is the legal instrument requiring those individuals holding designated positions to disclose their financial interests, requires a new adoption when necessary updates are triggered.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 87306, state law requires every agency to amend its Conflict of Interest Code “when change is necessitated by changed circumstances, including the creation of new positions and relevant changes in the duties assigned to existing positions” and/or review annually for updates in or by October.

This item is before Council to consider adoption of Resolution 2022-010 (Attachment 1) reviewing and adopting the proposed updates to the Solana Beach Conflict of Interest Code amending certain position titles.

DISCUSSION:

The past addition or modifications of job titles has triggered an update to the City’s Conflict of Interest Code.

Pursuant to Government Code 87306, any amendments to the code must be submitted to the code reviewing body, the City Council, within 90 days once the need for an amendment has become apparent.

CEQA COMPLIANCE STATEMENT: N/A
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
February 9, 2022
Local Conflict of Interest Code Update

Page 2 of 2 ends

WORK PLAN: N/A
OPTIONS:
∙ Approve Staff recommendation.
∙ Deny Staff recommendation and provide direction.

DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution 2022-010 adopting an amended Solana Beach Conflict of Interest Code.

CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Department recommendation.

Gregory Wade, City Manager
Attachments:

1. Resolution 2022-010 with Exhibit A (Conflict of Interest Code) RESOLUTION 2022-010

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING AN

UPDATED CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 87300, the Political Reform Act (PRA) requires all local governmental agencies to adopt conflict of interest codes applicable to every officer, employee, member or consultant of the agency whose position entails the making, or participating in the making, of decisions which may foreseeably have a material financial effect on any financial interest, and the Code requires such designated employees to disclose and disqualify themselves from making, participating in, or attempting to influence such decisions; and WHEREAS, the City adopted a Conflict of Interest Code that incorporated Fair Political Practices Commission Reg. 18730 by reference with Resolution 1987-11 and last updated the Code in 2018; and
WHEREAS, State Law requires local Conflict of Interest Codes to be amended when changed circumstances arise such as the creation of new positions or relevant changes in the duties assigned to existing positions; and WHEREAS, the City occasionally modifies job titles as necessary thereby requiring amendments to the City’s current Conflict of Interest Code, as noted on Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, local government agencies are required by Government Code Section 87311 to amend the code according to procedures that guarantee to officers, employees, members, consultants, and residents of the jurisdiction adequate notice and a fair opportunity to present their views.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California, does resolve as follows:

1. The above recitations are true and correct.

2. That the City’s Conflict of Interest Code be amended due to reclassification of designated employee positions resulting in modified titles.

Resolution 2022-010
Conflict of Interest Code Update

Page 2 of 2 ends

3. That the Solana Beach City Council and Public Financing Authority of the City of Solana Beach do hereby adopt the attached Conflict of Interest Code, Exhibit A.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of February 2022, at a regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers –
NOES: Councilmembers –
ABSENT: Councilmembers –
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers –
______________________________
LESA HEEBNER, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
________________________________ _______________________________ JOHANNA N. CANLAS, City Attorney ANGELA IVEY, City Clerk Adopted ________, 20XX Page 1 of 4

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH

CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
The Political Reform Act of 1974 (Government Code Sections 81000 et. seq.) requires local government agencies to adopt and promulgate conflict of interest codes. The Fair Political Practices Commission has adopted a regulation (2 Cal. Code of Regs. Section 18730) that contains the terms of a standard conflict of interest code and may be incorporated by reference in an agency’s code. After public notice and hearing, the standard code may be amended by the Fair Political Practices Commission to conform to amendments in the Political Reform Act.

Therefore, the terms of 2 California Code of Regulations Section 18730 and any amendments to it duly adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission are hereby incorporated by reference. This regulation and the attached Appendix designating positions and establishing disclosure requirements shall constitute the Conflict of Interest Code for the City of Solana Beach.

Individuals holding designated positions shall file their statements with the City Clerk’s Office, which will retain the statements and make the statements available for public inspection and reproduction. (Gov. Code Section 81008.)
.

Adopted ________, 20XX Page 2 of 4

APPENDIX
Disclosure Categories
Individuals holding designated positions must report their interests according to the following disclosure category(ies) to which their position has been assigned.

Category 1: All Sources
Interests in real property (not including primary residence) located within the City or within two miles of the City; and investments and business positions in business entities, and income, including loans, gifts, and travel payments from all sources.

Category 2: Agency Specific
Interests in real property (not including primary residence) located within the City or within two miles of the City; investments and business positions in business entities doing business with the City and/or located in San Diego County; and income, including but not limited to loans, gifts, and travel payments, from sources in San Diego County, and/or from sources outside the County whose economic position may be affected by decisions or recommendations made by the agency at all levels.

Category 3: Department Specific
Interests in real property (not including primary residence) located within the City or within two miles of the City; investments and business positions in business entities located in San Diego County; and income, including loans, gifts, and travel payments from sources whose economic position may be affected by the decisions or recommendations made by the department to which the filer is assigned duties.

Category 4: Property/Facilities Entitlement
Interests in real property (not including primary residence) located within the City or within two miles of the City; investments and business positions in business entities located in San Diego County; and income, including loans, gifts, and travel payments from sources that are of the type to request an entitlement to use agency property or facilities, including, but not limited to: a license; a facilities use permit; or a vendor permit.

Category 5: Commission/Consultant Specific
Interests in real property (not including primary residence) located within the City or within two miles of the City; investments and business positions in business entities doing business with the City and/or located in San Diego County; and income, including but not limited to loans, gifts, and travel payments, from sources in San Diego County, and/or from sources outside the County, whose economic position may be affected by the decisions or recommendations of the designated commission or consultant.

Adopted ________, 20XX Page 3 of 4
The following designated positions, when active, file according to the assigned categories associated with their title.

Designated Positions Disclosure Categories
Legislative Bodies other than City Council:

Public Financing Authority Officers/Members ................................1 Housing Authority ...........................................................................1 Successor Agency for the Redevelopment Agency.......................1 Oversight Board to the Successor Agency for the
Redevelopment Agency .................................................................1 City Staff:

Deputy City Manager/Dir. Of Admin Services................................2 Assistant City Manager ..................................................................2 Assistant to the City Manager ........................................................2 Deputy City Attorney(s) ..................................................................2 Senior Management Analyst………………………………………….3
Management Analyst......................................................................3 Human Resources Director............................................................3 Human Resources Manager ..........................................................3 Senior Human Resources Analyst .................................................3 City Clerk........................................................................................1 Deputy City Clerk ...........................................................................3 Network Systems Engineer ...........................................................3 Information Technology Manager ..................................................3 Recreation Manager.......................................................................3, 4 Community Services Coordinator ……………………………..........3
Finance Director.............................................................................3 Finance Manager ...........................................................................3 Senior Accountant..........................................................................3 Community Development Director .................................................2 Principal Planner ............................................................................3 Assistant Planner ...........................................................................3 Associate Planner ..........................................................................3 Junior Planner ................................................................................3 Senior Planner................................................................................3 City Engineer/Public Works Director..............................................2 Senior Civil Engineer......................................................................3 Principal Civil Engineer ..................................................................3 Associate Civil Engineer.................................................................3 Assistant Civil Engineer .................................................................3 Public Works Operations Manager ................................................3 Building Inspector...........................................................................3 Public Works Inspector...................................................................3 Environmental Programs Manager ................................................3 Building Officials.............................................................................3 Permit Technician...........................................................................3 Code Compliance Officer ...............................................................3, 4 Sr. Code Compliance Officer .........................................................3, 4 Parking Control Officer...................................................................3 Code Enforcement Specialist.........................................................3 Code Compliance Specialist ..........................................................3 Deputy Fire Chief/Fire Marshal ......................................................3, 4 Fire Chief/Public Safety Director....................................................2 Fire Battalion Chief.........................................................................2 Fire Prevention Specialist...............................................................3 Marine Safety Captain....................................................................2 Marine Safety Lieutenant ...............................................................3 Non-City Employees:

Budget and Finance Commission Members ..................................2 Climate Action Commission Members ..........................................2 Adopted ________, 20XX Page 4 of 4
Parks and Recreation Commission Members................................5 Public Arts Commission Members .................................................5 View Assessment Commission Members......................................5 Consultants ....................................................................................5 I. Consultants shall be included in the list of designated positions and shall disclose in accordance with the disclosure requirements in this code if the consultant, pursuant to a contract either (Reg.18701(2)):

1. Makes a governmental decision whether to:
• Approve a rate, rule or regulation;
• Adopt or enforce a law;
• Issue, deny, suspend, or revoke a permit, license, application, certificate, approval, order, or similar authorization or entitlement; • Authorize the agency to enter into, modify, or renew a contract provided it is the type of contract which requires agency approval;
• Grant agency approval to a contract which requires agency approval and in which the agency is a party to the specifications for such a contract; • Grant agency approval to a plan, design, report study, or similar item; • Adopt, or grant agency approval of, policies, standards, or guidelines for the agency, or for any subdivision of the agency; or

2. Serves in a staff capacity and in that capacity participates in making governmental decisions as defined in Regulation 18702.2; or performs substantially the same functions as a position specified in the agency’s Conflict of Interest Code.

II. The Department Head of the department for which the consultant provides primary services, with the approval of the City Attorney, may determine in writing that a particular consultant, although a “designated position,” is hired to perform a range of duties that is limited in scope and thus is not required to fully comply with the disclosure requirements described in this paragraph. The written determination shall include a description of the consultant’s duties and, based upon that description, a statement of the extent of disclosure requirements. The written determination is a public record and shall be retained for public inspection in the office of the City Clerk.

Non-Designated Positions
The following positions are not covered by this conflict of interest code because those individuals holding these positions must file under Government Code Section 87200. These positions are listed for informational purposes only:
• City Councilmembers
• City Manager
• City Attorney
• City Treasurer
• Consultants involved in the investment of public funds* *Pursuant to 2 California Code of Regulations section 187014(b), “other public officials who manage public investments” means, members of boards and commissions, including pension and retirement boards or commissions, or of committees who exercise the responsibility for the management of public investments; high level officers and employees who exercise primary responsibility for the management of public investments, such as chief or principal investment officers or chief financial managers. This category shall not include officers and employees who work under the supervision of the chief or principal investment officers or the chief financial managers; and individuals who pursuant to a contract with a state or local government agency, perform the same or substantially all the same functions that would otherwise be performed by the public officials.

CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM # B.1.

STAFF REPORT

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Gregory Wade, City Manager
MEETING DATE: February 9, 2022
ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Development Department
SUBJECT: Request for a Conditional Use Permit for the
Construction of a Bluff Retention Device at 135 S. Sierra Avenue, Solana Beach. Case No: CUP 17-17-27;
Applicant: Las Brisas Homeowners Association
Resolution 2022-013.

BACKGROUND:

The Applicant, the Las Brisas Homeowners Association, is requesting the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct a Bluff Retention Device (BRD) consisting of a return wall that would extend from the top of the southern terminus of the existing seawall to the top of the bluff approximately 60 feet. The shotcrete wall would be constructed with a drilled pier/caisson design with structural concrete between piers. Exposed areas of the wall would be covered with hand sculpted, colored shotcrete to match the natural bluff surface and color. Areas of failed mid to upper bluff to the north of the wall will be reconstructed with geogrid and soil and covered with a hydroseed application that would utilize drought resistant, salt tolerant native species. The return wall would encapsulate and restore the bluff to an acceptable factor of safety for the existing residential structures onsite at 135 S. Sierra Avenue. The project would also allow public pedestrian access and public agency vehicle access near the top of the bluff that is currently closed.

This issue before the City Council is whether to approve, approve with conditions or deny the Applicant’s request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) as contained in Resolution 2022-013 (Attachment 1).

DISCUSSION:

The existing approximately 2.19-acre property is developed with two four-story and one three-story condominium buildings, a one-story clubhouse, a swimming pool, a tennis court and associated underground utilities, retaining walls and vehicular and pedestrian hardscape and landscaping. At the closest point, the separation between the foundation of the February 9 ,2022
CUP20-004 mod.

Las Brisas HOA

Page 2 of 11 ends

westernmost condominium building (building 3) and the coastal bluff edge is approximately 27 feet.

The lower coastal bluff is protected by an existing Bluff Retention Device (BRD)/seawall that is approximately 120 feet long and 35 feet high that is restrained with three rows of 75-foot-long tiebacks and covered by hand-sculpted and colored shotcrete. Above the wall, geogrid reinforced fill was placed on top of the BRD to an approximate elevation of 45 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) to create a transition between the top of the BRD and the upper bluff.

The City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit to construct the BRD/Seawall in 2004 with the adoption of Resolution 2004-171.

In 2010, a significant failure occurred along the section of lower coastal bluff beginning at the southern terminus of the Las Brisas seawall and extending south approximately 70 feet across the unprotected bluff face along the Surfsong Condominium Association property line.

Undercut depths in the failure area had reached depths of 5 to 8 feet. The failure occurred along a joint at the base of the undercut area. According to the application, this failure resulted in a loss of 5 to 8 feet in depth of the coastal bluff adjacent to the Surfsong property.

The failure exposed approximately 7 to 8 feet of the southern end of the Las Brisas seawall.

In 2010, the Applicant requested and received approval of a Development Review Permit to construct a new segment of seawall that was an 8 foot long, 2.5 foot wide and 35 foot tall lateral return wall at the south end of the existing 120 foot long, 35 foot high seawall under an Emergency Permit. The Emergency Permit was issued by the California Coastal Commission as it was found to be the least amount of work necessary to restore the design parameters of the existing seawall and assure the factor of safety for the blufftop residences remains consistent with that provided by the seawall.

After the completion of the work, the Applicant was required to submit monitoring reports annually for the first three years and then every three years for the life of the BRD. In the 2012 monitoring report, it was noted that the exposure of the clean sand lens had expanded to the north and behind the seawall approximately seven feet north of the Las Brisas southern property line. The report indicated that this concern could expand further with time and on-going monitoring was advised. In the 2015 report, there was minor progression of erosion at the northern end of the seawall at the level of the exposed clean sand lens.

In 2019, there was a significant failure immediately south of the existing seawall. This failure has undergone progressive headward retreat since that time which has impacted a recorded easement for public agency vehicles, including emergency vehicles. As a result, public pedestrian access from Fletcher Cove across the Las Brisas Property into a public open space area on the adjacent Surfsong Condominium property to the south has been closed.

As indicated in the geotechnical reports provided by the Applicant and reviewed by the City’s third-party geotechnical engineer, the proposed project would fully encapsulate the Las Brisas Property and return the property to a level of safety that would allow the City to reopen the rear of the property to pedestrian and public agency vehicular access. Project plans have been provided in Attachment 2.

February 9 ,2022
CUP20-004 mod.

Las Brisas HOA

Page 3 of 11 ends

The proposed project design is consistent with portions of Figure 3 and Figure 5, Appendix B included as Attachment 3 in the City’s Certified Land Use Plan (LUP) which depicts the City’s preferred engineered solution for a coastal bluff experiencing active lower, mid and upper bluff erosion.

This CUP application is before the City Council because the bluff area located below and along the project site has been determined to meet the criteria of imminent failure. The generally accepted factor of safety calculation for purposes of determining bluff stability and the potential for imminent failure is a factor of safety of 1.2 or less. The factors of safety onsite range from 1.021 to 1.19, thus meeting the criteria for imminent failure.

The existing conditions are the result of several factors including, but not limited to, recent failures immediately adjacent to these properties and the exposure of the clean sand lens which both result in undermining of the existing seawall. Las Brisas was advised that this will be a reoccurring issue due to the continued failure of the exposed clean sand lens at the southerly terminus.

Table 1, below, demonstrates the existing factor of safety versus the factor of safety with proposed project improvements under both static and seismic conditions. A factor of safety equal to or less than 1.0 represents a slope that is structurally failing whereby the bluff top principal structures are considered in “imminent danger” from potential bluff collapse and/or failure.

TABLE 1 - FACTOR OF SAFETY
Structure Distance to bluff
edge
Existing:

Static
Factor of Safety
With Project:

Static and Seismic
Factor of Safety
Public
Easement/Public
Agency Vehicle
Access:
0-10 feet 1.021 1.5/1.1
Las Brisas
Condominium
Building 3:
27 feet 1.19 1.5/1.1
Solana Beach Local Coastal Program
A consistency finding with the City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Plan (LUP) is required for the proposed project. The City’s LUP policies were certified to be consistent with Coastal Act Section 30235 which states: Revetments, breakwaters, groins, harbor channels, seawalls, cliff retaining walls, and other such construction that alters natural shoreline processes shall be permitted when required to serve coastal-dependent uses or to protect February 9 ,2022
CUP20-004 mod.

Las Brisas HOA

Page 4 of 11 ends

existing structures or public beaches in danger from erosion, and when designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply.

Applicable City policies from the City’s Certified LUP (as amended) are listed below followed by a discussion of how the project complies or has been conditioned to comply with the City’s applicable and relevant LUP policies.
• Certified LUP Policy 4.26 (irrigation controls for bluff properties) • Certified LUP Policy 4.27 (use of drought resistant landscaping) • Certified LUP Policy 4.28 (stormwater runoff)
• Certified LUP Policy 4.32 (use of preferred engineering designs) • Certified LUP Policy 4.38 (aesthetics)
• Certified LUP Policy 4.39 (payment of mitigation fees) • Certified LUP Policy 4.45 (bluff retention device design) • Certified LUP Policy 4.49 (findings)
• Certified LUP Policy 4.50 (impact mitigation fees)
• Certified LUP Policy 4.54 (shoreline protection device maintenance) • Certified LUP Policy 4.55 (coordination among neighbors) • Certified LUP Policy 4.58 (development on the bluff)
Policy 4.26: With respect to bluff properties only, the City will require the removal or capping of any permanent irrigation system within 100 feet of the bluff edge in connection with issuance of discretionary permits for new development, redevelopment, or shoreline protection, or bluff erosion, unless the bluff property owner demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, or the CCC if the project is appealed, that such irrigation has no material impact on bluff erosion (e.g., watering hanging plants over hardscape which drains to the street).
• Project Compliance with Policy 4.26: The project has been conditioned to require the removal or capping of any permanent irrigation system within 100 feet of the bluff edge.

Policy 4.27: Require all bluff property landscaping for new development to consist of native, non-invasive, drought-tolerant, fire-resistant, and salt-tolerant species. • Project Compliance with Policy 4.27: After the return wall has been constructed, a reinforced soil slope (RSS) would be constructed to repair the mid and upper bluff.

The RSS would consist of geotextile grids that would be pinned to the slope with hand driven mechanical anchors and covered with soil and a hydroseed application that would utilize drought resistant, salt tolerant native species. The proposed hydroseed mix (Attachment 4) has been reviewed by the City’s third-party landscape architect and have been found to be consistent with this policy.

Policy 4.28: All storm water drain systems that currently drain or previously drained towards the west over the bluff shall be capped. These systems should be redesigned to drain directly, or through a sump system, and then pumped to the street in compliance with SWP 2007-0001 and consistent with SUSMP requirements. This policy shall be implemented as a February 9 ,2022
CUP20-004 mod.

Las Brisas HOA

Page 5 of 11 ends

condition of approval for all discretionary permits issued for bluff properties or within 5 years of adoption of the LCP, whichever is sooner.
• Project Compliance with Policy 4.28: The project has been conditioned to require that all storm water drain systems that currently drain towards the west over the bluff be capped.

Policy 4.32: When bluff retention devices are unavoidable, encourage applicants to pursue preferred bluff retention designs as depicted in Appendix B of the LUP when required to protect an existing principal structure in danger from erosion. All future bluff retention device applications should utilize these designs as the basis of site-specific engineering drawings to ensure consistency with the LUP.
• Project Compliance with Policy 4.32: The project has been designed to be consistent with a mixture of the engineering requirements of Figure 3 and Figure 4 of LUP Appendix B.

Policy 4.38: Maximize the natural, aesthetic appeal and scenic beauty of the beaches and bluffs by avoiding and minimizing the size of bluff retention devices, preserving the maximum amount of unaltered or natural bluff face, and minimizing encroachment of the bluff retention device on the beach, to the extent feasible, while ensuring that any such bluff retention device accomplishes its intended purpose of protecting existing principal structures in danger from erosion.
• Project Compliance with Policy 4.38: The project has been designed to be the minimum size required to stabilize the bluff and protect the existing bluff top structures (Building 3) and the City infrastructure. An alternatives analysis was prepared for the proposed project and is contained in Attachment 5.

Policy 4.39: Provide for reasonable and feasible mitigation for the impacts of all bluff retention devices which consists of the payment of Sand Mitigation Fees and Public Recreation Fees to the City or other assessing agency.
• Project Compliance with Policy 4.39: The project has been conditioned to mitigate for all impacts related to sand supply and public recreation through the payment of impact mitigation fees.

Policy 4.45: The City has adopted preferred bluff retention solutions (see Appendix B) to streamline and expedite the City permit process for bluff retention devices. The preferred bluff retention solutions are designed to meet the following goals and objectives:
(1) Locate bluff retention devices as far landward as feasible; (2) Minimize alteration of the bluff face;
(3) Minimize visual impacts from public viewing areas; , (4) Minimize impacts to adjacent properties including public bluffs and beach area; and,
(5) Conduct annual visual inspection and maintenance as needed.

February 9 ,2022
CUP20-004 mod.

Las Brisas HOA

Page 6 of 11 ends

The bluff property owner’s licensed Civil or Geotechnical Engineer must examine the device for use in the specific location and take responsibility for the design as the Engineer of Record.

The Bluff Property Owner shall arrange for and pay the costs of:
(1) The licensed Geotechnical or Civil Engineer;
(2) The bluff retention device;
(3) A bond to ensure completion of the bluff retention device; (4) Appropriate mitigation; and
(5) All necessary repairs, maintenance, and if needed removal. • Project Compliance with Policy 4.45: The project Applicant has paid for their licensed Geotechnical Engineer and will pay the construction costs for the bluff retention device and will be conditioned to pay the City a bond to ensure completion of the bluff retention device. Sand Supply and Public Recreation Impact Mitigation fees are required to be paid by the Applicant prior to issuance of the construction permit.

The Applicant will be responsible for all necessary future repairs and maintenance.

Policy 4.49: Coastal structures shall be approved by the City only if all the following applicable findings can be made and the stated criteria satisfied. The permit shall be valid until the currently existing structure requiring protection is redeveloped (per definition of Bluff Top Redevelopment in the LUP), is no longer present, or no longer requires a protective device, whichever occurs first and subject to an encroachment/removal agreement approved by the City.
(a) Based upon the advice and recommendation of a licensed Geotechnical or Civil Engineer, the City makes the findings set forth below.
(1) A bluff failure is imminent that would threaten a bluff home, city facility, city infrastructure, and/or other principal structure.
(2) The coastal structure is more likely than not to preclude the need for a larger coastal structure or upper bluff retention structure. Taking into consideration any applicable conditions of previous permit approvals for development at the subject site, a determination must be made based on a detailed alternatives analysis that none of the following alternatives to the coastal structure are currently feasible, including:
• A Seacave/Notch Infill;
• A smaller coastal structure; or
• Other remedial measures capable of protecting the bluff home, city facility, non-city-owned utilities, and/or city infrastructure, which might include or other non-beach and bluff face stabilizing measures, taking into account impacts on the near and long term integrity and appearance of the natural bluff face, and contiguous bluff properties;
(3) The bluff property owner did not create the necessity for the coastal structure by unreasonably failing to implement generally accepted erosion and drainage control measures, such as reasonable management of surface drainage, plantings and irrigation, or by otherwise unreasonably acting or failing to act with respect to the bluff property. In determining whether or not the bluff February 9 ,2022
CUP20-004 mod.

Las Brisas HOA

Page 7 of 11 ends

property owner's actions were reasonable, the City shall take into account whether or not the bluff property owner acted intentionally, with or without knowledge, and shall consider all other relevant credible scientific evidence, as well as, relevant facts and circumstances.
(4) The location, size, design and operational characteristics of the proposed coastal structure will not create a significant adverse effect on adjacent public or private property, natural resources, or public use of, or access to, the beach, beyond the environmental impact typically associated with a similar coastal structure and the coastal structure is the minimum size necessary to protect the principal structure, has been designed to minimize all environmental impacts, and provides mitigation for all coastal and environmental impacts, as provided for in this LCP.
(b) The coastal structure shall meet City Design Standards, which shall include the following criteria to ensure the coastal structure will be:
(1) Constructed to resemble as closely as possible the natural color, texture and form of the adjacent bluffs;
(2) Landscaped, contoured, maintained and repaired to blend in with the existing environment;
(3) Designed so that it will serve its primary purpose of protecting the bluff home or other principal structure, provided all other requirements under the implementing ordinances are satisfied, with minimal adverse impacts to the bluff face;
(4) Reduced in size and scope, to the extent feasible, without adversely impacting the applicant's bluff property and other properties; and
(5) Placed at the most feasible landward location considering the importance of preserving the maximum amount of natural bluff and ensuring adequate bluff stability to protect the bluff home, City facility, or City infrastructure.
(c) Mitigation for the impacts to shoreline and sand supply, public access and recreation and any other relevant coastal resource impacted by the coastal structure is required and shall be assessed in 20-year increments, starting with the building permit completion certification date. Property owners shall apply for a CDP amendment prior to expiration of each 20-year mitigation period, proposing mitigation for coastal resource impacts associated with retention of the coastal structure beyond the preceding 20-year mitigation period and shall include consideration of alternative feasible measures in which the permittee can modify the coastal structure to lessen the coastal structure’s impacts in coastal resources. Monitoring reports to the City and the Coastal Commission shall be required every five years from the date of the CDP issuance until CDP expiration, which evaluate whether or not the coastal structure is still required to protect the existing structure it was designed to protect. The permittee is required to submit a CDP application to remove the authorized coastal structure within six months of a determination that the coastal structure is no longer required to protect the existing structure it was designed to protect.

February 9 ,2022
CUP20-004 mod.

Las Brisas HOA

Page 8 of 11 ends

• Project Compliance with Policy 4.49: An alternatives analysis is included in Attachment 5. Alternatives considered but rejected include: the proposed project, a seawall extension and no project. The City’s third-party geotechnical engineer has confirmed that the project complies with, or has satisfied all of the findings required in, this policy (Attachment 6). Imminent bluff failure potential has been confirmed based on the factors of safety as shown in Table 1 shown previously in this report. The project has been designed consistent with the engineering design requirements of Figure 3 and Figure 4, Appendix B of the LUP. Mitigation has been imposed on the project as a condition of approval.

Policy 4.50: The bluff property owner shall pay for the cost of the coastal structure or Infill and pay a Sand Mitigation Fee and a Public Recreation Fee per LUP Policy 4.39. These mitigation fees are not intended to be duplicative with fees assessed by other agencies. It is anticipated the fees assessed as required by this LCP will be in conjunction with, and not duplicative of, the mitigation fees typically assessed by the CCC and the CSLC for impacts to coastal resources from shoreline protective devices.
• Project Compliance with Policy 4.50: The project will be required to mitigate all sand supply and public recreation impacts through the payment of mitigation fees to the City. The Applicant will also be required to obtain all necessary permits and approvals from the CCC and the CSLC prior to the City issuance of a construction permit.

Policy 4.54: Any bluff retention device shall be reasonably maintained and repaired by the bluff property owner on an “as needed” basis, at the bluff property owner’s expense, in accordance with the implementing ordinances and any permit issued by the City. Any authorized assessing entity in which the project lies shall ensure such payments are reimbursed to the City if the bluff property owner fails to perform such work and the City elects to do so, subject to mandatory reimbursement. However, in all cases, after inspection, it is apparent that repair and maintenance is necessary, including maintenance of the color of the structures to ensure a continued match with the surrounding native bluffs, the bluff property owner or assessing entity shall contact the City or CCC office to determine whether permits are necessary, and, if necessary, shall subsequently apply for a coastal development permit for the required maintenance.
• Project Compliance with Policy 4.54: The project has been conditioned to include a requirement that the proposed project be repaired and maintained as needed for the life of the structure.

Policy 4.55: To achieve a well maintained, aesthetically pleasing, and safer shoreline, coordination among property owners regarding maintenance and repair of all bluff retention devices is strongly encouraged. This may also result in cost savings through the realization of economies of scale to achieve these goals by coordination through an assessing entity. All bluff retention devices existing as of the date of certification of the LCP, to the extent they do not conform to the requirements of the LCP, shall be deemed non-conforming. A bluff property owner may elect to conform his/her/its bluff property or bluff retention device to the LCP at any time if the City finds that an existing bluff retention device that is required to protect existing principal structures in danger from erosion is structurally unsound, is unsafe, February 9 ,2022
CUP20-004 mod.

Las Brisas HOA

Page 9 of 11 ends

or is materially jeopardizing contiguous private or public principal structures for which there is no other adequate and feasible solution, then the City may require reconstruction of the bluff retention device.
• Project Compliance with Policy 4.55: The subject CUP application was collectively submitted by the Las Brisas Condominium Homeowners Association.

Policy 4.58: Development on the bluffs, including the construction of a bluff retention device, shall include measures to ensure that:
• No stockpiling of dirt or construction materials shall occur on the beach; • All grading shall be properly covered and sandbags and/or ditches shall be used to prevent runoff and siltation;
• Measures to control erosion shall be implemented at the end of each day’s work; • No machinery shall be allowed in the intertidal zone at any time to the extent feasible; • All construction debris shall be properly collected and removed from the beach.

Shotcrete/concrete shall be contained through the use of tarps or similar barriers that completely enclose the application area and that prevent shotcrete/concrete contact with beach sands and/or coastal waters.
• Project Compliance with Policy 4.58: Compliance with the requirements of this policy have been included as engineering conditions of approval.

Resolution No. 2022-013 (Attachment 1) contains citations to relevant policies of the City’s LUP as conditions of approval.

Sand Mitigation Fee and Public Recreation Impact Mitigation Fee Deposit As a condition of their 2005 Coastal Development Permit (CDP) to construct the existing seawall below the Las Brisas Condominiums, the Applicant was required to pay a fee of $309,000 for, “the loss of sandy beach area and thus the loss of public recreational impacts” as well as “$22,977.36 for the loss of sand.” The proposed lateral return wall would be constructed to retain the beach sands behind the existing seawall for which mitigation fees were already paid, therefore, no additional mitigation fees are required with this permit.

Compliance with Solana Beach Certified LUP Policies
Staff has evaluated the CUP application taking into account the following factors: (1) the relevant policies of the City’s Certified LUP; (2) the conclusions drawn by the (a) City of Solana Beach’s independent third-party geotechnical consultant CTE, INC. regarding the need for the project and the appropriateness of the proposed bluff stabilization devices and (b) the City of Solana Beach City Engineer conditions of approval; and (3) the Applicant’s geotechnical reports and supplemental alternatives analysis (Attachments 7, 8, and 9).

After evaluating the Coastal Bluff Evaluation and Project Recommendations from TerraCosta Consulting Group, The Bluff Stabilization Engineering Design Report from GeoStabilization International and the Geotechnical Update and Response to comments from GeoSoils, Inc. provided by the Applicant and included in Attachments 7, 8, and 9, and the third-party review February 9 ,2022
CUP20-004 mod.

Las Brisas HOA

Page 10 of 11 ends

findings provided by the City’s geotechnical engineering consultant, CTE, Inc., and the City Engineer, Staff concurs that the proposed project has met the standard of imminent danger.

Without the proposed project to stabilize the bluffs, the prospect of bluff failure could threaten the condominium building 3 and the pedestrian and public agency vehicular access is reasonably foreseeable within the next 12 months according to the factor of safety analysis.

Based on the foregoing information, City Staff finds that the proposed project could be found consistent with applicable LUP policies previously cited.

In addition to the required LUP findings, compliance with the Solana Beach Municipal Code is required to support issuance of a Conditional Use Permit.

Compliance with Solana Beach Municipal Code (SBMC) Findings 17.68.010 (F) a. That the proposed use is in accord with the general plan, the general intent of this title, and the purposes of the zone in which the site is located. b. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
c. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance, unless a variance is granted pursuant to SBMC 17.68.020.

The proposed project is consistent with required finding (a), whereby shoreline protective devices are a structure/use allowed in the City to protect bluff top principal structures in danger of erosion.

The proposed project is consistent with the required finding (b) whereby the proposed project is needed to address an emergency condition whereby bluff failure has been confirmed to be imminent by Construction Testing and Engineering, Inc. (CTE, Inc. who is one of the City’s on call third-party Geotechnical Engineering Firms).

The proposed project is consistent with the required finding (c) whereby the proposed project is consistent with the zoning ordinance which allows shoreline protection.

CEQA COMPLIANCE STATEMENT:

The proposed project qualifies as an emergency repair pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Public Resources Code §§ 21060.3, as evidenced by a licensed geotechnical engineer. Thus, this project is exempt from CEQA per 2022 State CEQA Guidelines §15269(b)(c).

FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
WORK PLAN: N/A
February 9 ,2022
CUP20-004 mod.

Las Brisas HOA

Page 11 of 11 ends

OPTIONS:
• Approve the proposed project and adopt Resolution 2022-013. • Deny the proposed project.
• Provide alternative direction.

DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Conduct the Public Hearing: Open the public hearing, Report Council disclosures, receive public testimony, and close the public hearing.

2. Find the Proposed Project exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to 2022 State California CEQA Guidelines §15269 as emergency conditions exist onsite.

CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Department Recommendation.
______________________________
Gregory Wade, City Manager
Attachments:

1. Resolution 2022-013

2. Proposed Plans

3. LUP Appendix B Figures 3 and 5

4. Proposed Hydroseed Mix

5. Alternatives Analysis

6. CTE, INC. Third-Party Review Letters 1 and 2

7. Coastal Bluff Evaluation and Project Recommendations, TerraCosta Consulting Group

8. Las Brisas Bluff Stabilization Engineering Design Manual, GeoStabilization International

9. Geotechnical Update and Response to Third-Party Geotechnical Review, GeoSoils, Inc.

ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION 2022-013

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION FOR THE

CONSTRUCTION OF A MICROPILE REURN WALL, MID-AND

UPPER-BLUFF RESTORATION AND LANDSCAPING BELOW
135 S. SIERRA AVENUE IN SOLANA BEACH.

APPLICANTS: Las Brisas Homeowners Association
CASE NO.: CUP20-004
WHEREAS, the Applicant, the Las Brisas Homeowners Association (hereinafter referred to as “Applicant”) has submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) pursuant to Title 17 (Zoning) of the Solana Beach Municipal Code (SBMC); and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the Amended Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Plan (LUP) in June 2014 with policies allowing for the construction of shoreline protective devices in the City as allowed by California Coastal Act Section 30235; and WHEREAS, a Coastal Bluff Evaluation and Basis of Design Report prepared by TerraCosta Consulting Group, Project Plans and Structural Calculations prepared by Soils Engineering Construction and supplemental technical materials prepared by GeoSoils, Inc. has been reviewed and confirmed by Geopacifica Geotechnical Consultants (Geopacifica), the City’s third party independent geotechnical consultant, in a letter dated March 14, 2018 indicating the proposed project is required and has been designed consistent with all City requirements; and
WHEREAS, the existing static factors of safety onsite below the pedestrian/vehicular access area and Building 3 of Las Brisas are currently 1.021 and

1.19 respectively; and
WHEREAS, a factor of safety equal to or less than 1.0 represents a slope that is structurally failing whereby the generally accepted factor of safety calculation for purposes of determining bluff stability and the potential for imminent failure is a factor of safety of 1.2 or less the bluff top principal structure (Building 3) and the public agency vehicular access and pedestrian access are considered in “imminent danger” from potential bluff collapse and/or failure; and
WHEREAS, at the duly noticed public hearing held on February 9, 2022, the City Council received and considered evidence concerning the proposed application as received; and
WHEREAS, the public hearing was conducted pursuant to the provisions of Solana Beach Municipal Code Section 17.72.030; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Solana Beach found the proposed project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines § 15269 as a documented geologic emergency exists onsite; and Resolution 2022-013
CUP20-004 Mod.

Las Brisas HOA

Page 2 of 12 ends

WHEREAS, the proposed project will be designed to be located as far landward as possible, contoured, color matched and sculpted to match the surrounding bluff and will be maintained over the life of the structure consistent with the engineering design requirements depicted in Solana Beach Certified LCP LUP Appendix B, Figure 3; and WHEREAS, this decision is based upon the evidence contained in the subject application, testimony of Geopacifica, evidence presented at the hearing and any information the City Council gathered by viewing the site and the area as disclosed at the hearing.

NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California, does resolve as follows:

1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.

2. That the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to 2022 State California CEQA Guidelines 15269.

3. That the request for a Conditional Use Permit Modification to construct a return wall that would consist of a drilled pier/caisson design with structural concrete between piers that would extend from the top of the southern terminus of the existing seawall to the top of the bluff, would be covered with hand sculpted, colored shotcrete to match the adjacent natural bluff, would include and mid and upper bluff reconstruction and landscaping at 135 S. Sierra Avenue is conditionally approved based upon the following Findings and subject to the following Conditions:

4. FINDINGS
A. Compliance with Solana Beach Certified LCP LUP Policy Requirements: A consistency finding with the City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Plan (LUP) is required for the proposed project. The City’s LUP policies were certified to be consistent with Coastal Act Section 30235 which states:

Revetments, breakwaters, groins, harbor channels, seawalls, cliff retaining walls, and other such construction that alters natural shoreline processes shall be permitted when required to serve coastal-dependent uses or to protect existing structures or public beaches in danger from erosion, and when designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply.

Applicable City policies from the City’s Certified LUP (as amended) are listed below. The project complies or has been conditioned to comply with all applicable and relevant City LUP policies including:

Certified LUP Policy 4.26 (irrigation controls for bluff properties); Resolution 2022-013
CUP20-004 Mod.

Las Brisas HOA

Page 3 of 12 ends

Certified LUP Policy 4.27 (use of drought resistant landscaping); Certified LUP Policy 4.28 (stormwater runoff);
Certified LUP Policy 4.32 (use of preferred engineering designs); Certified LUP Policy 4.38 (aesthetics);
Certified LUP Policy 4.39 (payment of mitigation fees); Certified LUP Policy 4.45 (bluff retention device design); Certified LUP Policy 4.49 (findings);
Certified LUP Policy 4.50 (impact mitigation fees);
Certified LUP Policy 4.54 (shoreline protection device maintenance); Certified LUP Policy 4.55 (coordination among neighbors); and Certified LUP Policy 4.58 (development on the bluff).

B. Compliance with Solana Beach Municipal Code (SBMC) Findings 17.68.010:
a. That the proposed use is in accord with the general plan, the general intent of this title, and the purposes of the zone in which the site is located.

The proposed project is consistent with the required finding, whereby shoreline protective devices are a structure/use allowed in the City to protect bluff top principal structures in danger of erosion. b. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

The proposed project is consistent with the required finding, whereby the proposed project is needed to address an emergency condition whereby bluff failure has been confirmed to be imminent by CTE Inc. (Construction Testing and Engineering, Inc. one of the City’s third party geotechnical Engineering firms).
c. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance, unless a variance is granted pursuant to SBMC

17.68.020.

The proposed project is consistent with the required finding, whereby the proposed project is consistent with the zoning ordinance which allows shoreline protection.

5. CONDITIONS
Prior to use or development of the property in reliance on this permit, the Applicant shall provide for and adhere to the following conditions:

A. Community Development Department Conditions:

Resolution 2022-013
CUP20-004 Mod.

Las Brisas HOA

Page 4 of 12 ends

I. Building Permit plans must be in substantial conformance with the plans presented to the City Council on February 9, 2022 and located in the project file with a submittal date of December 21, 2020.

II. The Applicant shall obtain required California Coastal Commission (CCC) approval of a Coastal Development Permit, waiver or exemption as determined necessary by the CCC, prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit.

III. The repairs will be constructed and maintained to incorporate an earth-like appearance which will resemble, as closely as possible, the color and texture of the surrounding bluffs.

IV. The Applicant shall remove or cap any permanent irrigation system within 100 feet of the bluff edge in connection with issuance of discretionary permits for new development, redevelopment, or shoreline protection, or bluff erosion, unless the bluff property owner demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, or the CCC if the project is appealed, that such irrigation has no material impact on bluff erosion (e.g., watering hanging plants over hardscape which drains to the street).

V. All storm water drain systems that currently drain or previously drained towards the west over the bluff shall be capped. These systems should be redesigned to drain directly, or through a sump system, and then pumped to the street in compliance with the current Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) requirements.

VI. Any bluff retention device shall be reasonably maintained and repaired by the bluff property owner on an “as needed” basis, at the bluff property owner’s expense, in accordance with the implementing ordinances and any permit issued by the City. Any authorized assessing entity in which the project lies shall ensure such payments are reimbursed to the City if the bluff property owner fails to perform such work and the City elects to do so, subject to mandatory reimbursement. However, in all cases, after inspection, it is apparent that repair and maintenance is necessary, including maintenance of the color of the structures to ensure a continued match with the surrounding native bluffs, the bluff property owner or assessing entity shall contact the City or CCC office to determine whether permits are necessary and, if necessary, shall subsequently apply for a coastal development permit for the required maintenance.

VII. No stockpiling of dirt or construction materials shall occur on the Resolution 2022-013
CUP20-004 Mod.

Las Brisas HOA

Page 5 of 12 ends

beach.

VIII. All grading shall be properly covered and sandbags and/or ditches shall be used to prevent runoff and siltation.

IX. Measures to control erosion shall be implemented at the end of each day’s work.

X. No machinery shall be allowed in the intertidal zone at any time to the extent feasible.

XI. All construction debris shall be properly collected and removed from the beach. Shotcrete/concrete shall be contained through the use of tarps or similar barriers that completely enclose the application area and that prevent shotcrete/concrete contact with beach sands and/or coastal waters.

XII. Temporary irrigation shall be periodically inspected every six months following planting to ensure planting success and to verify that irrigation is still required. At six month intervals, a report prepared by a licensed landscape architect detailing the status of the vegetation, an assessment on the condition of the temporary irrigation system, and provides supporting information on whether the temporary irrigation is still needed shall be provided to the City.

The City will issue a determination on the status of the temporary irrigation system upon reviewing the report. The City can require the removal of the temporary irrigation system at anytime. The temporary irrigation system may remain active and in place up to a maximum of 24 months at the approval of the City and must be removed once the plants have become established.

XIII. All required plantings will be maintained in good growing condition throughout the life of the project and, whenever necessary, shall be replaced with new plant materials to ensure continued compliance with the landscape plan.

XIV. The temporary irrigation system shall include redundant valve control/shut off valves to prevent any irrigation system leaks/failures.

B. Fire Department Conditions:

I. OBSTRUCTION OF ROADWAYS DURING CONSTRUCTION: All
roadways shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width during construction and maintained free and clear, including the parking of vehicles, in accordance with the California Fire Code and the Solana Beach Fire Department.

Resolution 2022-013
CUP20-004 Mod.

Las Brisas HOA

Page 6 of 12 ends

C. Engineering Department Conditions: Prior to obtaining any building or grading permits pursuant to this project, the Applicants shall:

I. Prior to obtaining any building or grading permits pursuant to this colored concrete seacave infill maintenance project, the Applicant shall:
a. Prepare, execute and record a declaration of restrictions on real property approved by the City Attorney whereby the applicant or the applicant’s successors in interest to the property will construct and maintain the shoreline defense structure in accordance with Conditions of this approval.
b. The declaration of restrictions shall include an agreement by the Applicant to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, and employees from any and all claims, actions, proceedings, damages, judgments, or costs, including attorney’s fees, against the City or its agents, officers, or employees, relating to any claim for damages from any injury to person or property caused by the shoreline defense structure or by its failure.
c. Said declaration of restrictions shall be acknowledged and recorded in the office of the County Recorder.
d. Per Policy 4.49 of the certified LUP, an Encroachment Maintenance and Removal Agreement is required when the
proposed Bluff Retention Device (BRD) is located in whole or in part on public land. In order to determine if an Encroachment Removal Agreement is required for this project, the applicant shall submit an engineering plan clearly showing the property lines, existing topography and the location of the proposed BRD. e. Obtain required California Coastal Commission Permits prior to the issuance of any structure and grading permits or present evidence that an emergency waiver has been granted.
f. Obtain any other permits or emergency waivers, which may be required from State and Federal agencies including the State Lands Commission and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
g. The project shall be designed and shall provide appropriate data to confirm the submitted design to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This shall include, but is not limited to, a geotechnical report.

Resolution 2022-013
CUP20-004 Mod.

Las Brisas HOA

Page 7 of 12 ends

h. The property owners shall post securities to guarantee proper care and use of the Fletcher Cove ramp. No construction materials to be off-loaded on the ramp, at the end of the ramp or any public property including streets and Fletcher Cove Park. No washing of equipment shall occur unless a containment system is properly utilized.
i. For all projects on which equipment is driven on the Fletcher Cove Beach Access Ramp, the access ramp and adjacent
parking lot must be swept daily to remove sand that has been tracked onto the ramp and parking lot. At least once a week, the access ramp and parking lot must be swept with a street sweeper that is capable of cleaning the streets and parking lots of paper, glass, dirt, silt, sand, rocks, litter and miscellaneous debris. The street sweeper shall be equipped with dual gutter brooms, and vacuum equipment may be used. If any sand is tracked outside the parking lot, these areas (including city streets) must also be cleaned weekly with a street sweeper. j. The property owners shall pay all inspection and plan check fees as required by the City.
k. Plans and specifications for the project shall be approved by the City Engineer in addition to approvals from the Director of Planning as may be required, and shall substantially conform to the plans submitted by the Applicant. All bluff stabilization devices shall produce a natural appearing bluff to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Community development director.

Project implementation shall provide a final product mimicking a naturally appearing bluff in terms of colors, textures, forms and angles.
l. A grading/drainage plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer in accordance with the current Grading Ordinance and be submitted to the City Engineer for approval and permit issuance.
m. Plans and specifications for the project shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to submittal to the Engineering Department.
n. The Applicant shall post with the City a Performance Bond equal to the full amount of the work to be completed to guarantee that once started, construction will be completed per approved plans. o. The Applicant shall submit a Certificate of Insurance naming the City of Solana Beach as an additional insured in the amount of Resolution 2022-013
CUP20-004 Mod.

Las Brisas HOA

Page 8 of 12 ends

$2,000,000 on a policy of general liability insurance issued by an insurance company licensed to do business in California, and meeting the requirements established by City Council resolution for insurance companies doing business with the City, covering injuries to persons and property during the construction period. p. The Applicant shall obtain a Special Use (Marine Safety) Permit specifying the conditions governing use of vehicles, use of the boat ramp, and entry upon and use of areas of the public beach for construction equipment and vehicles. Evidence of permit issuance shall be submitted to the City Engineer before issuance of the permit for the project.
q. The Applicant shall have on file evidence from the Captain of Marine Safety and City Engineer, City of Solana Beach, that arrangements have been made to satisfy the following criteria:
i. Prior to usage of the Solana Beach Fletcher Cove ramp or parking lot, a cash deposit, bond or other secured
agreement to cover the following impact charges shall be deposited:
• A six dollars ($6.00) per round trip vehicle charge for all construction related vehicles using the ramp.
• A three dollars ($3.00) per ton fee, or less if approved by the City Council, based on the estimated weight of
the vehicle and load for all vehicles in excess of ¾ ton capacity, excluding any vehicles solely transporting
beach grade replenishment sand.
• A twenty-nine dollars ($29) per day charge for the first 30 days escalating to fifty-five dollars ($55) per day for the 31st and subsequent days charge shall be collected
to encourage a timely completion of all projects, unless otherwise modified for good cause by the City Council
or City Manager.
• Any damage caused to the Solana Beach Fletcher
Cove ramp and parking lot.
ii. At least one City of Solana Beach Lifeguard shall be contracted, at the Applicant’s expense, through the Captain of Marine Safety, to monitor all activities in order to insure full compliance with the conditions of this permit. The lifeguard(s) shall be on duty at all times when any
construction activity takes place. Additional lifeguards may Resolution 2022-013
CUP20-004 Mod.

Las Brisas HOA

Page 9 of 12 ends

be required at the discretion of the Captain of Marine
Safety. In addition to the lifeguard staffing cost, the Applicant shall also pay a Marine Safety equipment use fee of four-dollar and sixty-four cents ($4.64) per hour, based on the number of the number of hours the lifeguards are contracted for the project.
iii. If construction access is from Fletcher Cove Park, precautions shall be taken to avoid damage to the beach access ramp during construction and repairs. If damage to the ramp occurs, it shall be repaired to a condition
equivalent to the condition at the start of construction activity to the satisfaction of the City of Solana Beach City Engineer. All City owned work areas including Fletcher
Cove Park and access ramp shall be videotaped prior to the commencement of the project. The videotape shall
establish the “as-is” condition. In any areas missed by the videotape, the City Engineer will determine “as-is” condition.

If access is from the State Park at the north end of
Solana Beach, precautions shall be taken to avoid
damage to the hard layer of fossiliferous sandstone
that forms the beach surface at the north end of the
coastal bluffs. Such access may necessitate State
approval. Proof of such access shall be provided to
the City Engineer before construction begins.
r. Beach quality sand from the excavation for the proposed project shall be deposited and spread on the beach in front of this site unless unique and/or inappropriate conditions are encountered.

The Applicant should reference this condition to other permitting agencies.
s. An encroachment permit from the Engineering Department is required if a crane, construction materials, etc. are envisioned to be stationed in the public right of way. The City does not guarantee that an encroachment permit will be approved. t. Any grout mixture used on the project that may be visible from the beach or surrounding areas shall be of similar color as the surrounding natural bluffs. Color samples shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to placing the grout.
u. The structure and any exposed construction shall mimic the natural contours, color and texture to the maximum extent practicable, as determined by the City Engineer and Community Development Director.

Resolution 2022-013
CUP20-004 Mod.

Las Brisas HOA

Page 10 of 12 ends

v. A carved, colored and textured facade on the face of the structure matching the adjacent bluff areas shall be constructed.

The façade shall match the contours, both vertically and horizontally, and the texture of the adjacent natural bluffs to the maximum extent feasible. Coastal bluff colored grouting shall be used and shall be submitted to the City Engineer before approval of the plans. A test prism shall be cast and delivered to a testing lab during construction.
w. A qualified, licensed and insured contractor shall perform all required work as outlined by certified/registered engineering geologist or Registered Civil Engineer on the construction plans.

Special and general notes on said plans shall be followed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer or his designee.
x. Lateral pedestrian and Marine Safety vehicular access through the construction area, shall be provided past the site at all times, subject to high tides and safety issues. A 30-foot-wide safety/construction work zone shall be provided during work hours to separate the work zone from the open public beach. y. No construction activities may occur on the beach during the busier recreational season, which is defined as the period between Memorial Day and Labor Day of any year. The
contractor shall obtain approval from the City of Solana Beach Engineering and Marine Safety Departments regarding the use and timing of the Fletcher Cove parking lot and beach access ramp for all construction related access, staging and parking issues if such use becomes required.

II. Prior to Final Inspection of the project, the Applicant shall:
a. Submit certification to the City Engineer from the Geotechnical Engineer and the Civil Engineer of Record for the project that they have inspected the project and certify that it was constructed per the approved plan, specifying the date of the plan.
b. The applicant and/or contractor shall repair any damage caused to the Solana Beach property and facilities, including but not limited to, Fletcher Cove ramp and parking lot to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

III. The Applicant shall provide for and adhere to the following Conditions:

Resolution 2022-013
CUP20-004 Mod.

Las Brisas HOA

Page 11 of 12 ends

a. All development on the site shall substantially conform to the final Conditional Use Permit Plan approved by the City Council. b. The property owner shall be responsible to immediately remove, in perpetuity, any graffiti or other markings should they appear on the project exterior face. If erosion exposes the steel rebar, the Applicant or their successor in interest shall arrange to apply a sculptor-coat of concrete over the exposed steel to match the natural bluff. The property owner shall be responsible for the removal of the structure or any portion thereof.
c. If requested by the City Manager or his designee, the property owner or their successor in interest shall install and maintain signage about unstable bluffs fronting their property.
d. The applicant shall provide “As-Built” plans and all certifications required to the City, before the City will release the performance bond as indicated in condition 1.XII.
e. Pursuant to SBMC Section 7.34.100, Construction hours are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Saturday. No work is allowed on Sunday or holidays unless specifically approved pursuant to SBMC Section 7.34.100.B. Engines shall not be started, no construction-related materials shall be moved, or any other construction-related activities occur outside these hours. Work is not permitted on the beach on Saturdays without the written approval of the City Manager.

6. ENFORCEMENT: Pursuant to SBMC 17.72.120(B) failure to satisfy any and all of the above-mentioned conditions of approval is subject to the imposition of penalties as set forth in SBMC Chapters 1.1.6 and 1.18 in addition to any applicable revocation proceedings.

7. EXPIRATION: The Conditional Use Permit for the project will expire 24 months from the date of project approval unless the Applicant has obtained building/grading permits and commenced construction prior to that date, and diligently pursued construction to completion. An extension of the application may be granted by the City Council.

8. INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT: The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, and employees from any and all claims, actions, proceedings, damages, judgments, or costs, including attorney’s fees, against the City or its agents, officers, or employees, relating to the issuance of this permit including, but not limited to, any action to attack, set aside, void, challenge, or annul this development approval and any environmental document or decision. The City will promptly notify Applicant of Resolution 2022-013
CUP20-004 Mod.

Las Brisas HOA

Page 12 of 12 ends

any claim, action, or proceeding. The City may elect to conduct its own defense, participate in its own defense, or obtain independent legal counsel in defense of any claim related to this indemnification. In the event of such election, Applicant shall pay all of the costs related thereto, including without limitation reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. In the event of a disagreement between the City and Applicant regarding litigation issues, the City shall have the authority to control the litigation and make litigation related decisions, including, but not limited to, settlement or other disposition of the matter. However, the Applicant shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement unless such settlement is approved by Applicant.

9. NOTICE TO APPLICANT: Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020, you are hereby notified that the 90-day period to protest the imposition of the fees, dedications, reservations or other exactions described in this resolution commences on the effective date of this resolution. To protest the imposition of any fee, dedications, reservations or other exactions described in this resolution you must comply with the provisions of Government Code Section 66020.

Generally the resolution is effective upon expiration of the tenth day following the date of adoption of this resolution, unless the resolution is appealed or called for review as provided in the Solana Beach Zoning Ordinance.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California, held on the 9
th day of February 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers –
NOES: Councilmembers –
ABSENT: Councilmembers –
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers –
______________________________
Lesa Heebner, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
_____________________________ _______________________________ JOHANNA N. CANLAS, City Attorney ANGELA IVEY, City Clerk l
i
•
I
l
t
• !
~
!
!

BLUFF STABILIZATION PLANS
i
~
z ?
-,;. ~ ii <..fl, ~ - 'I'll ~
} APPROXIMATE .. $
.PROJECT LOCATION
.LAT: 32.99029
LONG: -117.27413
i ~ (II
C> 2021 Microsoft Corporation C> 2021 ~Tom

VICINITY MAP
(NOT TO SCALE)

LAS BRISAS CONDOMINIUMS

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH, CA

LAS BR/SAS HOA

SHEET INDEX
NO. DESCRIPTION
C-01 COVER SHEET
C-02 GENERAL NOTES
C-03 GENERALNOTES(CONT.)
C-04 EXISTING SITE & ACCESS PLAN
C-05 PROJECT SITE PLAN
C-06 SECTION VIEW - CUTOFF WALL
C-07 CUTOFF WALL DETAILS
C-08 MICROPILE ANCHOR DETAILS
C-09 MICROPILE CAP DETAILS
C-10 SECTION VIEW - RSS SYSTEM
C-11 PHASE II MITIGATION SECTION
C-12 MICROPILE TESTING DETAILS
C-13 DRILL LOGS
11-----------------'T"'""------------~-------------------------,---------------------:~;-==-==;-;.:..-----1 11----~---r--S_'H_E_'E-=-=T,...,,, RE= V:=I=SJ-,-O_N_S_--.-...,....,.-,:----11 PROJECT NAME:
i DATE D E SCRIPTION NO
! 09/01 /21 ISSUED FOR REVIE W IFR
f 10/20/21 ISSUE D FOR PERMIT IFP
! 1--- --+------------+- --t
f
~ 1------+------------+----t SHEET T ITLE:

J t--- --+------------- ------1
• i ----- --+------------+----t

LAS BR/SAS CONDOMINIUMS
1 1--- --+------------+- --t COVERSHEET ~ l------+------------+-------1 I 1---- --+----------------t l ! I-TH- 1-S D_RA_Wl..LNG- IS-FU-RN-ISH- ED- S-DL-ELY_ F_OR- TH_E_US-E 0- F 0- R-IN-CO-NN-EC-TIO..LN-Wl-TH-TH-IS-t--D_RA_W_N-BY-:--~ .... C-H_E_C_KE_D_B_Y_: ---'T"'""D-A-TE-: _______ P_R_O_J- E C_T_N_U_M_B-ER_: _.....,_S_H _E E_T _____ .... ! PROJECT AND THE PROPRIETARY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON IS NOT TO BE j TRANSMITTED TO ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION WITHOUT SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATION BY 6eoSblblllzatlon lntematlonalGD
Phone: 855.579.0536 I Fax: 970.245.7737
www.geostabilization.com
j GEOSTABILIZATION INTERNATIONAL. (GSI). THE DESIGN IS ONLY VALID IF ! '--C-ON-STR_ u_cT-ED- A-ND-SU-PE- RV-ISE-D-BY-GS-1 o_R _1TS-AU-TH-OR- 1ZE_D_su_Bc_oN_TRA_ c_To_R._._ ___ M_A_c ___ _._ ___ J_D_R ___ ..._ __ 1_0_12_0_12_1 __ _._ __ 2_1_0_48_7_C_A_o_1 _ __., ___ c_-_0_1 __ ...... .__ __ .....; ATTACHMENT 2 C75196
4 __
~).;. .,,..,,,/./.:- ,
GENERAL NOTES:
• GSI WILL BE THE LEAD FOR JOB SITE CONDITIONS AND SAFETY DURING CONSTRUCTION HOURS. THE JOB SITE WILL BE KEPT REASONABLY SECURE TO DETER UNAUTHORIZED ENTRY OR TAMPERING. HOWEVER, THOSE WHO ENTER THE CONSTRUCTION ZONE WITHOUT ENTRY WILL BE CONSIDERED TO BE TRESPASSING.
• GSI WILL USE UTILITY ONE CALL SERVICES, REQUEST UTILITY MAPS, AND REQUEST POTHOLING AS NEEDED TO LOCATE AND MARK KNOWN UTILITIES. .. DIG ALERT: DIAL 811, OR DIGALERT.ORG
.. CITY OF SOLANA BEACH PUBLIC WORKS: 858-720-2470
• AT THE END OF EACH WORK DAY GSI WILL LEAE THE WORK AREA FREE OF HAZARDS,

AND PROVIDE TEMPORARY SIGNS, WARNING DEVICES, AND/OR BARRICADES, AS NEEDED.
• GSI WILL KEEP RECORDS OF THE DRILLING CONDITIONS, GROUT MIX SPECIFIC GRAVITY

AND OTHER NOTES ON THESE PLANS AS NEEDED TO PROVIDE AS-BUILT INFORMATION TO THE OWNER AFTER PROJECT COMPLETION.
• GSI UNDERSTANDS THE WORKING HOURS FOR THIS SITE TO BE 7:00 A.M. AND 7 P.M.

EACH DAY, MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY.
• GSI WILL NOTIFY THE CITY OF SOLANA BEACH AT (858) 720-2470, AT LEAST 24 HOURS BEFORE THE FIRST DAY OR THE PROJECT.

STANDARD REQUIREMENTS:

GSI WILL PERFORM THE WORK IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH THE LATEST EDITION AND SUPPLEMENTS OF THE "STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION,"

SAN DIEGO REGIONAL STANDARD DRAWINGS AND CITY OF SOLANA BEACH ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS.

ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS ADDRESSES
298-010-54-0001 THROUGH -36 135 S SIERRA AVE
EROSION CONTROL NOTES:
• GSI WILL PLACE SILT FENCE AT THE TOE OF THE SLOPE (TOP OF THE SEA WALL) TO LIMIT ERODED SOILS FROM REACHING THE PUBLIC BEACH.
• GSI WILL USE DIKES, BERMS OR TRENCHES TO LIMIT STORMWATERWATER FLOWING OVER CRESTS OF THE SLOPE.
• GSI WILL USE WATER AS NEEDED TO MINIMIZE AIR BORNE DUST ON THE SITE.

HOUSE KEEPING:
• THE SITE WILL BE ORGANIZED AND CLEAR OF ANY TRASH OR DEBRIS. ALL TRASH WILL BE PLACED IN A PROPER CONTAINER AND REMOVED AT THE END OF EACH WORK DAY.

SAFETY:
• ALL SAFETY PLANS FOR LIFTING, HEARING, DUST CONTROL, PPE ETC. WILL BE IN PLACE AND FOLLOWED ACCORDINGLY. PPE INCLUDES SAFETY VEST, STEEL TOED SHOES,

HARD HAT, SAFETY GLASSES, RESPIRATOR DURING DUST PRODUCING ACTIVITIES, AND GLOVES.
• GSI WILL GENERA TE A SITE SPECIFIC HEAL TH AND SAFETY PLAN THAT MUST BE

REVIEWED AND SIGNED BY ALL GSI EMPLOYEES, SUBCONTRACTORS, AND VISITORS TO THE SITE.
• GSI WILL LEAD A DAILY TAILGATE MEETING TO REVIEW JOB HAZARD ANALYSIS "JHA" FOR EACH OF THE DAYS ANTICIPATED TASKS.

EMPLOYEE CERTIFICATIONS:
• ACI SHOTCRETE NOZZLEMEN CERTIFICATION
• 10-HOUR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH TRAINING COURSE IN CONSTRUCTION

SAFETY & HEALTH
• AMERICAN RED CROSS STANDARD FIRST AID TRAINING
SHEET REVISIONS PROJECT NAME:

ANTICIPATED CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE/WORK SCHEDULE:

1. DELINEATE LIMITS OF STABILIZATION. NOTIFY LOCAL UTILITIES PROVIDERS TO LOCATE AND MARK POTENTIAL UNDERGROUND FACILITIES. DAYLIGHTING OF UTILITIES IN POTENTIAL CONFLICT, AS NECESSARY (BY OTHERS).

2. PREPARE THE WORK AREA FOR MICROPILE INSTALLATION AND CUTOFF WALL CONSTRUCTION:

2.1. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL FENCE AT THE TOP OF THE EXISTING SEAWALL TO LIMIT SOIL EROSION DURING CONSTRUCTION.

2.2. MINOR RE-SHAPING OF EXISTING SCARP AND SURROUNDING GRADES MAY BE REINFORCING STEEL PLACEMENT:
• RIENFORCEEING STEEL FOR THIS PROJECT SHALL BE EPOXY COATED OR GALVANZIED. • WELDED WIRE MESH WILL BE PLACED ON BOTH SIDES OF THE EXTENDED 51mm MICROPILES AS SHOWN IN THESE DRAWINGS.
• NO. 5 REBAR WILL BE TIED TO THE SOUTH WIRE MESH. FOLLOW SPACING AND SPLICE LENGTHS AS SHOWN IN THESE DRAWINGS.
• NO. 5 REBAR WILL ALSO BE USED FOR THE MICROPILE CAP. FOLLOW SPACING AND SPLICE LENGTHS AS SHOWN IN THESE DRAWINGS.

NEEDED TO FACILITATE CONSTRUCTION OF THE MICROPILE CUTOFF WALL. MICROPILE CAP PLATES:

2.3. MARK THE LOCATIONS OF THE PROPOSED STABILIZATION ELEMENTS WITH SURVEY • 6" X 6" X 1/2" STEEL BEARING PLATES WILL BE PLACED OVER THE MICROPILES IN THE MARKING PAINT. MICROPILE CAP AND ATTACHED WITH A HEX NUT TOP AND BOTTOM. IF THE MICROPILES

3. INSTALLATION OF MICROPILE ELEMENTS. EACH ELEMENT WILL BE GROUTED DURING EXTEND BEYOND THE TOP HEX NUTS, THEY WILL BE TRIMMED.

DRILLING UNLESS DIRECTED OTHERWISE BY GSI ENGINEER.

4. CONSTRUCT THE CUTOFF WALL:

4.1. PLACE REINFORCING STEEL AND DRAIN STRIPS PER THESE DRAWINGS.

4.2. USE WOOD OR SIMILAR FORMWORK ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE CUTOFF WALL TO FACILITATE SHOTCRETE PLACEMENT.

4.3. PLACE SHOTCRETE FROM THE BOTTOM UP TO THE REQUIRED THICKNESS DETAILED IN THESE PLANS.

5. PREPARE AREA NORTH OF THE CUTOFF WALL FOR REINFORCED SOIL SLOPE SYSTEM INSTALLATION. MINOR GRUBBING AND GRADING MAY BE NECESSARY.

6. INSTALL REINFORCED SOIL SLOPE SYSTEM IN LIFTS AS DETAILED IN THESE DRAWINGS AND PER THE MANUFACTURER INSTALLATION PROCEDURES.

7. SITE CLEANUP AND DEMOBILIZATION FROM SITE.

7.1. CONCRETE, GROUT, AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS WILL BE REMOVED PERIODICALLY THROUGHOUT THE WORK.

7.2. FINAL CLEANUP OF THE SITE TO INCLUDE REASONABLE HAND CLEANING METHODS LIKE SWEEPING, SPRAYING WITH WATER AND REMOVAL OF TRASH AND DEBRIS.

MAJOR LANDSCAPING SHOULD NOT BE NEEDED IF PROPER ACCESS IS GRANTED TO GSI THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT.

SIZE AND TYPE OF STABILIZATION ELEMENTS:
• THE MICROPILE ELEMENTS SHALL CONSIST OF 51 mm NOMINAL DIAMETER, SELF-DRILLING HOLLOW BAR. SACRIFICIAL DRILL BITS WILL BE ATTACHED TO THE STABILIZATION ELEMENT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
• SACRIFICIAL DRILL BITS ARE NOT PERMANENTLY INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT

AND MAY BE REMOVED AFTER DRILLING OR LEFT AT THE PROJECT FOR THE CONTRACTOR'S CONVENIENCE. SACRIFICIAL DRILL BITS ARE NOT END PRODUCTS.

SACRIFICIAL DRILL BITS ARE NOT PRODUCED IN THE UNITED STATES. • GSI ENGINEER MAY ELECT TO MODIFY THE TYPE OF STABILIZATION ELEMENT, LENGTH OR INSTALLATION METHOD, DEPENDING ON ACTUAL DRILLING CONDITIONS.

FACING AND DRAINAGE SYSTEM:
• DRAIN STRIPS WILL BE PROVIDED AND INSTALLED APPROX. EVERY SIX-FEET ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF THE CUTOFF WALL.. THE DRAIN STRIPS SHALL BE PLACED WITH THE GEOTEXTILE SIDE AGAINST THE FORMWORK.
• DRAIN STRIPS WILL BE CONTINUOUS AND ANY SPLICES SHALL BE MADE WITH A ONE-FOOT MINIMUM OVERLAP SUCH THAT THE FLOW OF WATER IS NOT IMPEDED. • DRAIN STRIPS SHALL EXTEND BEYOND THE FACE OF THE SHOTCRETE AT THE DOWNHILL FACE.
• DRAIN STRIPS SHALL BE MINIMUM 12" WIDE.

REINFORCED SOIL SLOPE (RSS) SYSTEM:

HIGH PERFORMANCE TURF REINFORCEMENT MAT (HPTRM)
•
•
•
•

MATERIAL IS THREE-DIMENSIONAL, LOFTY WOVEN POLYPROPYLENE HPTRM

MATRIX COMPOSED OF TRILOBAL MONOFILAMENT YARNS WOVEN INTO UNIFORM

CONFIGURATION OF RESILIENT PYRAMID-LIKE PROJECTIONS THAT MINIMIZE WATERING REQUIREMENTS WHILE ENHANCING VEGETATION ESTABLISHMENT.

MUST BE A HOMOGENEOUS MATRIX, AND NOT COMPRISED OF LAYERS, COMPOSITES,

OR DISCONTINUOUS MATERIALS, OR OTHERWISE LOOSELY HELD TOGETHER BY STITCHED OR GLUED NETTING.

THE HPTRM SHOULD MEET THE FOLLOWING VALUES:

PROPERTY TEST METHOD UNITS MINIMUM

REQUIREMENT
THICKNESS ASTM D6525 IN 0.4
LIGHT PENETRATION ASTM D6567 % 10
TENSILE STRENGHT ASTM D6818 LB/FT 4000 X 3000
TENSILE ELONGATION ASTM D6818 % 40X 35
RESILIENCY ASTM D6524 % 80
FLEXIBILITY ASTM D6575 IN-LB 0.534
UV RESISTANCE ASTM 4355 % 90 AT 6000 hrs
• WOOD OR PLASTIC STAKES, OR STEEL PINS ARE USED TO PIN-DOWN THE GEOTEXTILE

NEAR THE BACK OF THE REINFORCEMENT ZONE TO HOLD THE GEOTEXTILE TAUT WHILE ALIGNING THE WALL FACE AND PLACING SOIL BACKFILL. THESE ARE INSTALLED AS NEEDED ALONG THE HPTRM, BUT AT A FREQUENCY NO LESS THAN 1 PER 6 LINEAL FEET. THE STAKES OR PINS SHALL BE 9 TO 12 IN LONG.
• BACKFILL WILL COMPRISE GENERAL FILL WITH A UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM DESIGNATION OF SIL TY SAND (SM).
•• THE SM MATERIAL WILL CONSIST OF INERT EARTH MATERIALS WITH LESS THAN 3% ORGANICS OR OTHER DELETERIOUS SUBSTANCES.
.. FILL WILL BE PLACED IN UNIFORM, MAXIMUM 12-INCH LIFTS. .. FILL IN THE UPPER 12 INCHES OF THE GRADED SLOPE FACE WILL NOT BE COMPACTED DUE TO LACK OF CONFINEMENT.
.. FILL BEHIND THE UPPER 12 INCHES OF THE GRADED SLOPE FACE WILL BE COMPACTED TO AT LEAST 90% OF THE MATERIALS MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND BE

UNIFORMLY MOISTURE CONDITIONED TO AT LEAST THE OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT AS DETERMINED BY ASTM D1557.

DATE DESCRIPTION NO
09/01/21 ISSUED FOR REVIEW IFR
10/20/21 ISSUED FOR PERMIT IFP LAS BRISAS CONDOMINIUMS
1----!---------------1-----1 SHEETTITLE:

THIS DRAWING IS FURNISHED SOLELY FOR THE USE OF OR IN CONNECTION WTH THIS PROJECT AND THE PROPRIETARY INFORMATION SHO'l,/N HEREON IS NOTTO BE

TRANSMITTED TO ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION WITHOUT SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATION BY GEOSTABILIZATION INTERNATIONAL. (GSI). THE DESIGN IS ONLY VALID IF CONSTRUCTED AND SUPERVISED BY GSI OR ITS AUTHORIZED SUBCONTRACTOR.

DRAWN BY:

MAC

GENERAL NOTES
CHECKED BY: DATE:

JDR 10/20/21
PROJECT NUMBER:
210487CA01
SHEET
C-02
&eo!imblllzatlon lnl:ernatlonal®
Phone: 855.579.0536 I Fax: 970.245.7737
www.geostabilization.com
C75196

RSS ANCHOR DETAILS
Materials
AnehorHead
cable Tendon
TYPE 83 ANCHOR PROPERTIES
Material ComP0$11ion
Hot Dip Galvanized Ductlle
Iron
Galvanized Steel
Pllyglcal Propertles
""""'xu:4Jnx2.36in
(153.3 mm x 46. 7 mm x 59.9 mm)
.,.,...,. Arca: :10.3 int 166.5"""
D'.ometer. 0.1.875 In (4,8 mm)
Lower Termination Aluminum Length: 0.65 in (16.5 mm), Wall Thlckneu: 0.11. in (2.8 mm) Load Bes ring Plate ZJnc-/Jumlnum

5.98 In x 6.6 In x0.75 In
(.151..9 mm x 167.6 mm x 19.1 mm)
BearinL Area: 17.43 in' (112.5 cm•)
Top Termination Zint>-Alumlnum
Clrcumlotontial Trlpple Wedge Grip Assembly tJ> Ellmln!to Cable Plndi Poinls Grip tJ> Cable Contact Sudace Area: 0.505 In' (3.3 cm') Grip tJ> Coble Contact Rlltlo: 97% of cable Diameter
l-'8ffOfflU!lnoe"""1'VVUT-Ultlmate Assembly Strength 2800 lb (12.46 kN) Typical Working Load I 2000 lb (8.9 kN) Ultimate Cable Strength 3700 lb (16.46 kN) Embedment Depth I 6-12 ft (1.83-3.66 m) SHOTCRETE MIX DESIGN:
• SHOTCRETE SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ACI 506.2, "SPECIFICATIONS FOR MATERIALS, PROPORTIONING AND APPLICATION OF SHOTCRETE", EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. SHOTCRETING CONSISTS OF APPL YING ONE OR MORE LAYERS

OF CONCRETE CONVEYED THROUGH A HOSE PNEUMATICALLY PROJECTED AT A HIGH VELOCITY AGAINST A PREPARED SURFACE.
• THE WET-MIX PROCESS CONSISTS OF THOROUGHLY MIXING ALL THE INGREDIENTS,

INTRODUCING THE MIXTURE INTO THE DELIVERY EQUIPMENT AND DELIVERING IT, BY POSITIVE DISPLACEMENT, TO THE NOZZLE. AIR JET THE WET-MIX SHOTCRETE FROM THE NOZZLE AT HIGH VELOCITY ONTO THE SURFACE.
• GSI STANDARD SHOTCRETE MIX DESIGN SHALL BE USED UNLESS SHOTCRETE TEMPERATURES ARE ANTICIPATED TO REACH AND/OR EXCEED 85°F. IN THIS EVENT, GSI HOT WEATHER MIX MAY BE USED. SET TIME CONTROLLING ADDITIVES (I.E. HYDRATION

STABILIZERS, RETARDERS) MAY BE USED PER THE MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS AND UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A GSI ENGINEER.

GS/ STANDARD SHOTCRETE MIX DESIGN (PER YfY)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION WEIGHT (LBS)
AGGREGATE NO. 1 i" ROCK, AASHTO M80, CLASS B 650
AGGREGATE NO. 2 CONCRETE SAND, CLEAN, NATURAL 1800
AIR 6% TOTAL ..

WATER CLEAN AND POTABLE 300
FLY ASH TYPE F ORC 150
CEMENT TYPEV 750
TOTAL - 3710
GS/ HOT WEATHER SHOTCRETE MIX DESIGN (PER YfY)
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION WEIGHT (LBS.)
AGGREGATE NO. 1 j" ROCK, AASHTO M80, CLASS B 600
AGGREGATE NO. 2 CONCRETE SAND, CLEAN, NATURAL 1800
AIR 6%TOTAL - WATER CLEAN AND POTABLE 315
FLY ASH TYPE FOR C 300
CEMENT TYPEV 700
TOTAL -- 3710
SHEET REVISIONS PROJECT NAME:

SHOTCRETE APPLICATION:
• SHOTCRETE APPLICATION WILL GENERALLY COMPLY WITH ACI 506.2-13 UNLESS DIRECTED BY GSI ENGINEER OR THEIR DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE. • SHOTCRETE WILL BE PLACED FROM THE LOWER PART OF THE AREA UPWARDS TO PREVENT ACCUMULATION OF REBOUND. THE NOZZLE WILL BE ORIENTED A PROPER

DISTANCE FROM AND APPROXIMATELY PERPENDICULAR TO THE WORKING FACE SO THAT REBOUND WILL BE MINIMAL AND COMPACTION WILL BE MAXIMIZED. • CARE WILL BE TAKEN WHILE ENCASING REINFORCING STEEL AND MESH TO KEEP THE

FRONT FACE OF THE REINFORCEMENT CLEAN DURING PLACEMENT OPERATIONS, SO

THAT SHOTCRETE BUILDS UP FROM BEHIND, TO ENCASE THE REINFORCEMENT AND PREVENT VOIDS OR POCKETS FROM FORMING.
• SHOTCRETE THICKNESS TOLERANCE SHALL BE MINUS ONE INCH· PLUS TWO INCHES.

GROUT MIX DESIGN:
• STANDARD GROUT MIX DESIGN TO BE USED IN SOIL DRILLING. • IF SLOWER DRILLING IS EXPERIENCED WHILE DRILLING IN ROCK GSI ENGINEERS MAY APPROVE USE OF DRILLING GROUT MIX DESIGN. UPON COMPLETION OF DRILLING TO

SPECIFIED DEPTH WITH DRILLING GROUT MIX HOLE SHOULD BE FLUSHED WITH

STANDARD GROUT MIX AND NAIL HOLE SWABBED TO AID IN DRILLING GROUT MIX REPLACEMENT.
• IF VOIDS ARE ENCOUNTERED AND GROUT LOSS IS EXPERIENCED CONTACT GSI

ENGINEERS AND CUT OFF GROUT PUMPING FOR THAT ELEMENT WHEN DRILLING DEPTH IS REACHED AND A TOTAL OF 3 BAGS OF GROUT SLURRY PER 10' STICK OF BAR HAS BEEN USED.
• THE GROUT WILL BE A TYPE 1/IIN PORTLAND CEMENT. THE WATER/CEMENT RATIO WILL BE 0.5 TO 0.6. NO ADDITIONAL AGGREGATE OR ADMIXTURES WILL BE ADDED TO THE GROUT.

STANDARD GROUT MIX DESIGN
MATERIAL WEIGHT (LBS.) VOLUME (FT3
) FIELD UNIT VOLUME
WATER 235-282 3.8-4.5 28 - 34 GALLONS
CEMENT (TYPE 1/11) 470 2.4 5 BAGS (94 LBS.)
TOTAL UNIT 705 - 752 6.1 - 6.9 -- W/C RATIO .. .. 0.5 - 0.6 SPECIFIC GRAVITY -- -- 1.84-1.75

DRILLING GROUT MIX DESIGN
MATERIAL WEIGHT (LBS.) VOLUME(Fr3} FIELD UNIT VOLUME
WATER 235-282 3.8-4.5 28 - 34 GALLONS
CEMENT (TYPE 1/11) 188 0.9 2 BAGS (94 LBS.)
TOTAL UNIT 423 - 470 4.7 - 5.5 -- W/C RATIO .. .. 1.25 - 1.5 SPECIFIC GRAVITY -- -- 1.44-1.38

DATE DESCRIPTION NO
09/01/21 ISSUED FOR REVIEW IFR
10/20/21 ISSUED FOR PERMIT IFP

LAS BRISAS CONDOMINIUMS
1----+--------------+-----I SHEET TITLE:

THIS DRAWING IS FURNISHED SOLELY FOR THE USE OF OR IN CONNECTION VVITH THIS

PROJECT AND THE PROPRIETARY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON IS NOT TO BE

DRAWN BY:

MAC

GENERAL NOTES (CONT)
CHECKED BY: DATE:

JDR 10/20/21
PROJECT NUMBER:
210487CA01
SHEET
C-03
QUALITY CONTROL:
• GSI WILL CONDUCT OR OBTAIN QUALIFIED PERSONNEL TO CONDUCT THE FOLLOWING QUALITY CONTROL TESTING DURING THE PROJECT.

QUALITY CONTROL SCHEDULE

DESCRIPTION FREQUENCY

DILL LOGS EVERY MICROPILE
PROOF NAIL TEST 5% OF PRODUCTION NAILS,
TEST AFTER 48 HRS

MUD BALANCE ONCE EACH DAY OF READINGS (SPECIFIC

GRAVITY) GROUTING
1 SET OF 3 CUBES PER GROUT CUBES EVERY 10 PILES INSTALLED 2 PRODUCTION PANELS SHOTCRETE PANELS THROUGHOUT PROJECT 6eo!it:abllization lnternal:lonal®
Phone: 855.579.0536 I Fax: 970.245.7737
www.geostabilization.com

REFERENCE/ CRITERIA

RECORD DATA PER SHEET
C-14
FHWA 05-039, 2005
SEE SHEET C-03 & C-14 FOR

MIX DESIGN AND DATA LOG
ASTM C-109/AASHTO T106. 3, 7
& 28 DAY STRENGTH. 4000 PSI
28-DAY.

ASTM C1140, 1500 PSI. 3, 7 & 28
DAY STRENGTH. 5000 PSI
28-DAY.
'·i~ <;:~i .. }:7~4- ' ~-' ,,
30'WIDE CQNS1RUCIION,·
WORKZONE (SEE NOTE i)
SHEET REVISIONS PROJECT NAME:

DATE DESCRIPTION NO
09/01/21 ISSUED FOR REVIEW IFR
10/20/21 ISSUED FOR PERMIT IFP
1----+------------1-----1 SHEET TITLE:

THIS DRAWING IS FURNISHED SOLELY FOR THE USE OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS PROJECT AND THE PROPRIETARY INFORMATION SHOWl'l HEREON IS NOTTO BE

TRANSMITTED TO ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION WITHOUT SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATION BY GEOSTABILIZATION INTERNATIONAL. (GS!). THE DESIGN IS ONLY VALID IF CONSTRUCTED AND SUPERVISED BY GS! OR ITS AUTHORIZED SUBCONTRACTOR.

DRAWN BY:

MAC
61 PAST THE END OF THE

SEAWALL END OF

CONSTRUCTION ZONE

LAS BRISAS CONDOMINIUMS

EXISTING SITE & ACCESS PLAN
CHECKED BY: DATE:

JDR 10/20/21
PROJECT NUMBER:
210487CA01
SHEET
C-04
NOTES:

1. BACKGROUND IMAGE OBTAINED FROM GSI DRONE
FLIGHT AERIAL IMAGERY, FLOWN ON 8/25/21.

EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY DATA OBTAINED FROM

PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES, PLSA JOB
#2710.

2. CONSTRUCTION ACCESS CORRIDOR IS LOCATED

ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE LAS BRISAS
CONDOMINIUMS. CARE SHOULD BE TAKEN TO

LIMIT IMPACT TO THE CONDOMINIUM AND PUBLIC
ACCESS IN THE AREA.

3. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT

SHALL BE MOVED FROM THE STAGING SITE AND

RESTORE THE STAGING TO ITS
PRIOR-TO-CONSTRUCTION CONDITION WITHIN 72
HRS FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT.

4. GSI TO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION BARRIER

DURING WORKING HOURS TO SEPARATE WORK
ZONE FROM OPEN PUBLIC BEACH. LATERAL

PUBLIC ACCESS SHALL BE PROVIDED PAST THE
SITE AT ALL TIMES.

5. GSI WILL USE A PLASTIC OR SIMILAR BARRIER TO

PROTECT THE BUILDING FROM SHOTCRETE
OVERSPRAY. ANTICIPATE DRAPING FROM THE
3RD DECK TO GROUND LEVEL.
0 &eo!it:abllizal:lon lnternal:lonal®
Phone: 855.579.0536 I Fax: 970.245.7737
www.geostabilization.com
w
~ 3::
10' 20' 40'
C75196
SHEET REVISIONS PROJECT NAME:

DATE DESCRIPTION NO
09/01/21 ISSUED FOR REVIEW !FR
10/20/21 ISSUED FOR PERMIT IFP
1-----i------------+----t SHEET TITLE:

THl~i~E~f:~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~;:~~~~~R~~,,u;! ~:o~~~~~~iT;~i/~~~HIS ORA WN BY: TRANSMITTED TO ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION WITHOUT SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATION BY coN';~~~~~ ~~~~~~~t~:g-'~~~~1 ~i'lrs~Gl:;~~z~~ itsLcio":i~~TOR MAC

DRILL LOWER MICROPILE

INTO EXISTING SEAWALL

RETURN TO REPAIR
BREACH IN WALL.

LAS BRISAS CONDOMINIUMS

PROJECT SITE PLAN
CHECKED BY: DATE:

JDR 10/20/21
PROJECT NUMBER:
210487CA01
SHEET
C-05
NOTES:

1. BACKGROUND IMAGE OBTAINED FROM GSI
DRONE FLIGHT ON 8/25/21. EXISTING

TOPOGRAPHY DATA OBTAINED FROM

PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES,
PLSA JOB #2710.
0 6eo!it:abtlizat.ion lnl:emat.ional®
Phone: 855.579.0536 I Fax: 970.245.7737
www.geostabilization.com
Lu
♦~ .;::
10' 20' 40'

PROPOSED

SHOTCRETE WALL

KEY IN SHOTCRETE
BASE MIN. 611 BELOW

SURROUNDING GRADE

EXISTING

SEAWALL

DOWELL REBAR, MIN
12", AT END STATION

INTO EXISTING

SEAWALL

SHOTCRETE CONNECTION

TO EXISTING SEAWALL
~ MICROPILE CAP TO
~ SHOTCRETE CONNECTION
STRIP DRAINS SPACED EVERY 6',
@ SLOT DRAINS INTO 4" CORRUGATED PIPE,

SHOOT DRAIN INTO THE BASE OF SHOTCRETE

WALL AND DAYLIGHT TOWARDS THE BEACH

BLUFF SURFACE SOUTH OF

PROPOSED WALL ALIGNMENT

REINFORCED SHOTCRETE

TO OVERLAP EXISTING
SEAWALL MIN 12"
@18"SPACING

BETWEEN

MICROPILES I
@ SOLID HATCH INDICATES
~ STRUCTURALSHOTCRETE

REINFORCED SHOTCRETE

CONNECTION TO EXISTING
SEAWALL.
4" CORRUGATED PIPE OUTLET TO

DAYLIGHT AND DRAIN WATER OVER

TOP OF EXISTING SEAWALL

REBAR DOWELING I
I
EXISTING CONCRETE ~ :

SEAWALL RETURN ~
EMBEDME~::S=

RETURN WALL UNKNOWN
~ SHEET REVISIONS PROJECT NAME:

DATE DESCRIPTION NO
09/01/21 ISSUED FOR REVIEW IFR
10/20/21 ISSUED FOR PERMIT IFP
1-----1-------------1-----1 SHEET TITLE:

LAS BRISAS CONDOMINIUMS

SECTION VIEW - CUTOFF WALL

THIS DRAWJNG IS FURNISHED SOLELY FOR THE USE OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS

PROJECT AND THE PROPRIETARY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON IS NOT TO BE TRANSMITTED TO ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION WlTHOUT SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATION BY GEOSTABILIZATION INTERNATIONAL. (GSI). THE DESIGN IS ONLY VALID IF CONSTRUCTED AND SUPERVISED BY GS! OR ITS AUTHORIZED SUBCONTRACTOR.

DRAWN BY:

MAC
CHECKED BY:

JDR
DATE:
10/20/21
PROJECT NUMBER:
210487CA01
SHEET
C-06

LAS BRISAS CONDOMINIUMS
10'
-- MICROPILE
CAP
PROPOSED MICROPILES @ TO EXTEND 1 O' BEHIND A
(EAST) EXPOSED SCARP C-08

BOTTOM OF STRUCTURAL
SHOTCRETE. KEY IN
SHOTCRETE 6" MINIMUM

BELOW SURROUNDING GRADE

ALL MICROPILE TO BE

EMBEDDED A MINIMUM
OF 5' INTO TORREY

SANDSTONE FORMATION
&eo!itablllzation lnl:emational®
Phone: 855.579.0536 I Fax: 970.245.7737
www.geostabilization.com
z
0 ~ ~
0::
0 I.!..
1-
z
0 a.
i
LJJ
z [u 0
0:: l-o:: (J)
0Cl
I- ~ (J)
LAYER
TWO LAYERS W4.0x4x4 EPOXY C
(OR GALVANIZED) MESH; ONE

ON EACH SIDE OF MICR
OATED~
OPILES
NOMINAL 8" REINFORCE

SHOTCRET
~ ------------
CONTINUOUS NO.5 EPOXY COATE D
(OR GALVANIZED) WALERS, SPACIN
18". PLACED ON TOP OF MESH 0

SOUTH SIDE OF MICROPILES
SPLICE LENGTH OF 30

KEY IN SHOTCRETE
BASE MINIMUM 6" BELOW

SURROUNDING GRADE
G
N
'
II
~
r-....
i----
I'-
,.__
18" SPACING, GALVANIZED (OR STAIN

STEEL PENDING MATERIAL AVAILAB
X51 MICROPILES. PILES SHOU
EMBEDDED A MIN. OF 5' INTO UNDER

TORREYSANDSTONEFORMA
LESS~ ILITY)
LD BE .

LYING

SHEET REVISIONS

DATE DESCRIPTION NO
09/01/21 ISSUED FOR REVIEW IFR
10/20/21 ISSUED FOR PERMIT IFP
THIS DRAWING IS FURNISHED SOLELY FOR THE USE OF OR IN CONNECTION WlTH THIS

PROJECT AND THE PROPRIETARY INFORMATION SHO'MI HEREON IS NOT TO BE TIRANSMITTED TO /.NY OTHER ORGANIZATION WITHOUT SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATION BY GEOSTABILIZATION INTERNATIONAL (GS!). THE DESIGN IS ONLY VALID IF CONSTRUCTED AND SUPERVISED BY GS! OR ITS AUTHORIZED SUBCONTRACTOR.

TION
NVIEW
PROJECT NAME:

SHEET TITLE:

DRAWN BY:

MAC
n
V _,_ ~
t-!- ,_
1-1- ,_
-- I-t-f- ,_
t-1- ~
C--'-._
-- - i.....
1-f- - "'-[:::-- _,_ ~
r--- ...,_ I-
'""'- ,_._ ~
-- ,_
r-:,r
I~
f- - - '--- -- 1-t- - -
-- I- - - ,_,_ -

SELF-DRILLING MICROPILE

4.5" BITTYP
8"

NOMINAL
® ~r~CTIONAL VIEW

SHOTCRETE
4" DRAIN PIPE DRAIN STRIP

SIDE VIEW
2 LAYERS 4x4x4. 0 EPOXY

COATED (OR GALVANIZED)

WELDED WIRE MESH
NO. 5 GRADE 60 EPOXY COATED
(OR GALVANIZED) VERTICAL BARS
SPACED 18" HORIZONTALLY,
SPLICE LENGTH OF 30"
NO. 5 GRADE 60 EPOXY COATED
(OR GALVANIZED) HORIZONTAL
BARS SPACED 18" VERTICALLY,
SPLICE LENGTH OF 30"
2" MIN DISTANCE

TO REINFORCEMENT

DRAIN STRIP

CONNECTOR

FRONT VIEW
4" DRAIN PIPE
® ?r?IN CONNECTION DETAIL

LASBRISASCONDOMINIUMS

CUTOFF WALL DETAILS
CHECKED BY: DATE:

JDR 10/20/21
PROJECT NUMBER:
210487CA01
SHEET
C-07
&eo§t:abllizatlon International®
Phone: 855.579.0536 I Fax: 970.245. 7737
www.geostabilization.com
C75196
~ BEARINGPLATEWITH
~ NUT TOP AND BOTTOM

GROUND SURFACE
GROUT

SELF-DRILLING

MICROPILE

4.5" MIN. BIT

DIAMETER
s
LU
>
z
0 l-o
LU
Cl)
LU
LU
Cl)
Cl)
LU
0::::
~
0 ~T~CHOR DETAIL
SHEET REVISIONS PROJECT NAME:

DATE DESCRIPTION NO
09/01/21 ISSUED FOR REVIEW IFR
10/20/21 ISSUED FOR PERMIT IFP LASBRISASCONDOMINIUMS
1-----+-----------t------1 SHEET TITLE:

FIELD INSTALLED GROUT

GROUT ABSORPTION
BEYOND BORE HOLE 0

INJECTION ANCHOR

BORE HOLE
® ~l:ROPILE SECTION

MICROPILE HOLE
DIAMETER= 2-1/4"
6" I... .. I
~~
1/2"
® ~l:ROPILE BEARING PLATE
MICROPILE ANCHOR DETAILS Eieo!itablllzatlon lnt:ematlonal®

THIS DRA'MNG IS FURNISHED SOLELY FOR THE USE OF OR IN CONNECTION 'MTH THIS

PROJECT AND THE PROPRIETARY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON IS NOT TO BE

TRANSMITTED TO ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION 'MTHOUT SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATION BY GEOSTABILIZATION INTERNATIONAL. (GS!). THE DESIGN IS ONLY VALID IF CONSTRUCTED AND SUPERVISED BY GS! OR ITS AUTHORIZED SUBCONTRACTOR.

DRAWN BY:

MAC
CHECKED BY: . DATE:

JDR 10/20/21
PROJECT NUMBER:
210487CA01
SHEET
C-08
Phone: 855.579.0536 I Fax: 970.245.7737
www.geostabilization.com

RECONSTRUCT UPPER BLUFF WITH

GEOFABRIC REINFORCED FILL
LANDSCAPING & TEMP. IRRIGATION
TEf~RACE DEPOSITS

CONCRETE FILL
.,,,.,·- ' ,,,,,. -,~~ ~--
. I I' -·---==-~~~ ·-ill--l rl=TT r·n:·;- ----::::
,, ,,,- ,, , 7-- NOTES: ·-

1. FACTOR OF SAFETY NEAR 1.0

2. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

3. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS

4. LOCATED AS FAR LANDWARD AS POSSIBLE

5. MINIMIZE ALTERATION OF BLUFF - FACE OR MIMIC EXISTING.

6. INCLUDE DETAILED METHODOLOGY FOR MONITORING AND
MAINTENANCE OVER THE LIFE OF THE DEVICE.

TIEBACK

SANDSTONE BEDROCK

7. MINIMIZE THE NEED FOR ANY MAINTENANCE THAT NECESSITATATES ADDITIONAL. SEAWARD ENCROACMENT OF THE DEVICE.

8. BLUFF FACE TO HAVE "NATURAL COLOf\ AND TEXTURE" (SBMC 17.62) Preferred Solution - Seawall and Upper Bluff Repair
City of Solana Beach CCC-Approved LUP, February 2013 FIGURE NO. 3

RECONSTRUCT UPPER BLUFF WITH

GEOFABRIC REINFORCED FILL

TERRACE DEPOSITS

1. FACTOR OF SAFETY NEAR 1.0

2. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

3. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS

4. LOCATED AS FAR LANDWARD AS POSSIBLE
5 . MINIMIZE ALTERATION OF BUJFF ·-FACE OR MIMIC EXISTING.

6. INCLUDE DETAILED METHODOLOGY FOR MONITORING AND
MAINTENANCE OVER THE LIFE OF THE DEVICE.

SANDSTONE BEDROCK

7. MINIMIZE THE NEED FOR ANY MAINTENANCE THAT NECESSITATATES ADDITIONAL SEAWARD ENCROACMENT OF THE DEVICE.

8. BLUFF FACE TO HAVE "NATURAL COLOR AND TEXTURE" (SSMC 17.62) Preferred Solution - Upper Bluff Repair
City of Solana Beach CCC-Approved LUP, February20]3 FIGURE NO. 4 '--'
L--
HYDRoseeD
SC.IENTIFIC. OR PRODUC.T NAME
BINDER

FERTILIZER
MULCH .

ABRONIA VILLOSA

ARTEMISIA CALIFORNIA
MIX
CAMl550NIA CHEIRANTHIFOLIA 55P. SUFFRUTICOSA
ENC.ELIA CALIFORNIA
ERIOc:,ONUM FASCICULATUM

LASTHENIA CALIFORNIA

LASTHENIA GLABRA
LUPINUS 61COLOR

MALOSMA LAURINA

MIMULUS PUNICEUS
YUCCA Y'1HIPPLEI
5ARVON TM
5UPERTHRIVE™
MYCORRHIZAL INOCULUM, GLOMIS INTRARADICE5
C.OMMON NAME
AZTEC™ OR APPROVED EGUAL
1e-1e-1e
VIRGIN 1-"lOOD FIBER

SAND VERBENA

COASTAL SAGEBRUSH

SUN CUP (BEACH EVENING PRIMOSE)
CALIFORNIA ENC.ELIA
CALIFORNIA 6UCKY'1HEAT

DAARF GOLDFIELDS
GOLDFIEI..D5

PYGMY-LEAFED LUPINE

LAUREL SUMAC
MONl<f:Y FLOY'1£:R

OUR LORD'S CANDLE
RA Te/ AC.Fij;:
.2;,0 1-65.
900 1-65.
9000 L65.

I L65.
9 L65.
1/2 LBS
e LB.
20 L65.
1-1/.2 L65.
1-1/2 L65.
5 L65.
9 L65.
1-1/.2 L65 .
9 L65.
€1 GALS.

P.L.S.
24%
Gf%
12 24%
1%

0.90%
11%
1e
51%
1%
Se%
5EcDS/LB.
e,e,ooo
55,000,000
4,000.00
115,000
450,000
9,;?50,000
1,eoo,000
115,000
.211)00
12,0001)00
100,000
20Z./IOO GALS OF HYDROSEED SLURF
40 oz.

ATTACHMENT 11D11

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
The proposed project proposed to extend a lateral retention wall from the southern terminus of the existing lower coastal bluff seawall to the top of the failed bluff. The project would also propose reconstruction of a relatively small area of failed mid-to-upper bluff below Las Brisas Condominiums utilizing geogrid / soil, and applying hydroseed consisting of drought-tolerant, salt-resistant native plant species. The alternatives to this project are limited and determined to be infeasible. They are addressed below.

ALTERNATIVE #1: No Project
A No Project alternative would allow a significant failure that has already reached the top of the coastal bluff to continue to extend landward toward the residential structure. Based on the existing slope stability evaluation for the project site, a No Project alternative would result in the very near future loss of the public pedestrian easement that extend from Fletcher Cove south across the rear yard (adjacent to top of bluff) of Las Brisas Condominiums. Emergency public agency vehicle access also served by this easement will be lost. Due to the significant of the ongoing failure, this access has already been temporarily closed by the City of Solana Beach. Further, it the access has already been impacted by the failure at the southern property line of Las Brisas Condominiums.

A No Project Alternative that allows the failure to continue unimpeded would also result in the likely near future impact to the southwestern residential building on the Las Brisas site. The geotechnical / factor of safety evaluation for this building notes that a single additional event failure at the top of bluff could place the building under imminent threat of damage.

Base on this analysis a No Project Alternative is not a viable response to the existing, and ongoing failure conditions at this site.

ALTERNATIVE #2: Placement of a below-grade caisson/grade beam/ tieback system set back from the top of bluff, extending north from the southerly boundary for a span of+/- 25', and extending east along the southerly boundary for a span of+/- 16'.

This alternative would acknowledge that the failure will be allowed to continue upslope until such time has it exposes the caisson system. When that event occurs, the caisson system would receive an additional row of tiebacks and a sculpted and color-treated shotcrete wall covering.

Alternative #2 would provide sufficient protection to the southwesterly residential building on the Las Brisas site, but it would result in the total loss of the existing public access easement that was required as a condition of the complex's initial approval. It would also result in the continuation of mid-to upper bluff failure below the condominium units and would therefore likely need to be extended further to the north as the mid-to-upper bluff continued to fail in that direction.

Attachment "D"

Page 2 ends

Finally, as Alternative #2 would ultimately result in an exposed upper bluff wall, it would be in conflict with the City's Preferred Bluff Retention Device Standards.

Therefore, while Alternative #2 could be found viable from an engineering perspective, it was determined to be unacceptable as a project solution.

ALTERNATIVE #3: Extension of the Existing Lower Coastal Bluff Seawall Approximately 40' to the south and reconstruction of the entire mid-to-upper bluff failure that exists at this time.

As the existing and continuing failure was initiated to the north of the Las Brisas southern property line (south of the terminus of the Las Brisas seawall), this would require the participation of a neighboring condominium association that owns the property south of Las Brisas. The residential condominium units located at the top of bluff above this 40' wall extension area are setback approximately 120' from the top of bluff. Therefore, they are not threatened by the bluff failure, and the California Coastal Commission would not be likely to approve coastal bluff protection in this area. Further, a significant sea cave is located approximately 73' north of the southern terminus of the Las Brisas seawall. When sand is not on the public beach, the exposed dimensions of the sea cave are as follows: 65' wide, 34' deep and 17' high. This sea cave will ultimately fail, and such failure will extend to the top of bluff ad beyond to the east. Again, no residential units would be threatened by such failure as they are setback approximately 120' from the top of bluff. However, any seawall extending north of the existing Las Brisas seawall would be significantly threatened with flanking when such a failure occurs. South of the sea cave, there is another+/- 136 lineal feet of unprotected bluff before reaching another existing seawall.

Therefore, any extension of the existing Las Brisas seawall to the south would ultimately require additional extensions, potentially totaling over 200 feet in length. This domino-development would not be protecting existing residences. The likelihood of the property owner to the north of Las Brisas seeking permits for seawalls that are not necessary per Section 30235 of the California Coastal Act is virtually nil. The likelihood of the Coastal Commission approving such unnecessary development is equally nil.

For that reason, further extension to the south of the existing Las Brisas seawall is not a viable solution to the current failure which threatens the residential building and public access easement at that property.

Construction Testing"& Engineering, Inc.
~ Inspection I Testing I Geotechnical I Environmental & Construction Engineering I Civil Engineering I Surveying March 7, 2021
City of Solana Beach
Attention: Ms. Corey Andrews
635 South Highway 101
Solana Beach, California 92075
Office: (858) 720-2434
Subject:

References:

Ms. Andrews:

Application Submittal Geotechnical Review
Las Brisas Condominiums
135 South Sierra Avenue
Solana Beach, California 92075
At End of Document
CTE Job No. 10-15983G
Via Email: candrev,'[email protected]
As requested, Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. (CTE) has reviewed the provided submittal application documents referenced at the end of this letter. The purpose of our review was to assess whether the proposed project is in substantial compliance with the City of Solana Beach's (City) Local Coastal Plan (LCP) policies.

The proposed bluff retention device consists of an approximately 60-foot long shotcrete return wall supported on ten (10) 30-inch diameter caissons or drilled piers. The return wall will extend landward from an existing permitted tied-back shotcrete seawall and along the applicant's southern property line (PL). Due to the alignment of the proposed wall, from the lower seawall to the upper bluff, the wall may be considered a combined lower & upper bluff system. The applicant considers it an emergency project based on slope stability analyses provided in the referenced bluff evaluation (Terra Costa, 2020). In addition, the applicant acknowledges that the proposed wall does not comply with the City's Preferred Bluff Retention Device Standard provided in the LCP, due to the existing failure scenario not being addressed in the LCP. The applicant's proposed upper bluff stabilization measures (i.e., geogrid reinforced fill) north of the proposed return wall do appear to substantially comply with the upper bluff stabilization method depicted in LCP Preferred Solutions 3 & 4 in LCP Appendix B.

While it is noted that the submitted and reviewed report and plan appear to be very well prepared, based on CTE's review, a determination of substantial compliance with the LCP cannot be made at this time, and CTE requests the following additional information from the applicant/project consultant(s). Please also note that based on our future review of requested documents and additional information, subsequent review comments may be still be warranted. 1441 Montiel Road, Suite 115 I Escondido, CA92026 I Ph (760) 746-4955 I Fax (760) 746-9806 I www.cte-inc.net Application Submittal Geot~chnical Review
Las Brisas Condominiums
Page2
135 South Sierra Avenue, Solana Beach, California
March 7, 2021 CTE Job No. 10-15983G
1) To the best of your ability, please provide the following documents alluded to in the application submittal:
a. Terra Costa Consulting Group (Terra Costa) April 23, 2020 letter regarding the coastal bluff referenced in the September 25, 2020 Terra Costa update bluff evaluation.
b. Geotechnical studies, referred to in Terra Costa's September 25, 2020 letter, that were relied upon for estimating soil strength parameters for the slope stability analyses presented in Terra Costa's September 25, 2020 letter. c. Prior geotechnical documents associated with the existing seawall, including:

1. "Geotechnical Update Letter; Repairs to Coastal Bluff Seawall135 South Sierra Avenue, Solana Beach, California" dated April 5, 2010 by Soil Engineering Construction, Inc.

11. "Geotechnical/Geologic Evaluation Bluff Conditions, Las Brisas Condominiums" by Anthony-Taylor Consultants dated June 22, 2004 m. The 2018 written monitoring report alluded to in the applicant's referenced cover letter, and other available monitoring reports. 2) Per the permit application, question 5, please provide a geotechnical report prepared to meet the requirements of the City and the California Coastal Commission (CCC) signed and stamped by both a Registered Civil Engineer (RCE) and Certified Engineering Geologist (CEG). A previously prepared geotechnical report associated with the previous wall construction, updated to current standards of practice and signed and stamped by a RCE and CEG, may be suitable.
3) Please provide structural calculations for the proposed shotcrete wall, including determination of caisson embedment depth and proposed embedment units, and any geotechnical documents relied on for geotechnical parameter inputs for the calculations. 4) Please provide additional slope stability analysis for a proposed-construction scenario demonstrating a 1.5 Factor of Safety for the completed project. 5) Please provide a site plan and geologic cross-section of the existing slope failure that depicts the underlying geology; the limits of the public access easement; the seaward side of the nearest principal structure foundational element; and verified top-of-bluff and corresponding minimum setbacks.
6) Please discuss current landscaping and irrigation practices at the project location. If a landscaping operation & maintenance plan is available, please submit.

S:\Projects\I 0-15000 to I 0-15999 Projects\! 0-I 5983G\Ltr _ Geotechnical Application Submittal I st Review - Las Brisas 3-7-21.doc Application Submittal Geotechnical Review
Las Brisas Condominiums
135 South Sierra Avenue, Solana Beach, California
March 7, 2021

Page 3 ends

CTE Job No. 10-159830
7) Noting that the LCP defines City Infrastructure as "City owned roads and City owned utilities located therein and thereon", please comment as to whether a bluff failure is imminent that would threaten city infrastructure and/or a principal structure with danger from erosion, per LCP Policy 4.52(a)(l). Additionally, please comment as to whether city infrastructure and/or a principal structure is more likely than not to be in danger within approximately one year, per LCP Policy 4.52(a)(2).
8) Please address the proposed project's impact on the southerly neighbor, including but not limited to:
a. What impact will the proposed wall have on the future erosion of the remaining exposed scarp on the southerly neighbor's property?
b. The proposed wall drains appear to be intended to drain from the face of the wall onto the southerly neighbor's property. What impact will the proposed wall drains have on the future erosion of the remaining exposed scarp on the southerly neighbor's property? Please show all drain outlets on plans. 9) Please indicate the proposed post-construction depth of embedment of the southerly face of the proposed shotcrete wall. Address whether this embedment depth is appropriate and/or adequate to accommodate potential erosion and scour at the wall base and potential undermining of the wall. Please address what long-term maintenance of the wall may be necessary to protect against or accommodate future erosion and potential undermining at the base of the wall.

As previously stated, based on our review of requested documents and information indicated above, additional review comments may be warranted.

S:\Projects\10-15000 to 10-15999 Projects\l0-15983G\Ltr_Geotechnical Application Submittal 1st Review - Las Brisas 3-7-21.doc Application Submittal Geotechnical Review
Las Brisas Condominiums
135 South Sierra Avenue, Solana Beach, California
March 7, 2021
Page4
CTE Job No. 10-159830
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Respectfully submitted,
CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC.

Dan T. Math, GE #2665
Principal Engineer
Martin E. Siem, CEO #2311
Senior Engineering Geologist
CJK/MES/DTM:cjk
Colm J. Kenny, RCE #84406
Senior Engineer
S:\Projects\l 0-I 5000 to I 0-15999 Projects\! 0-15983G\Ltr _ Geotechnical Application Submittal I st Review - Las Brisas 3-7-21.doc Application Submittal Geotechnical Review
Las Brisas Condominiums
135 South Sierra Avenue, Solana Beach, California
March 7, 2021
REVIEWED DOCUMENTS:

City of Solana Beach Local Coastal Plan
Adopted February 2?1\ 2013, As Amended November 2018
Application for Conditional Use Permit (Cover Letter)
Coastal Bluff Failure Repair
Las Brisas Condominiums
Issued by The Trettin Company, dated December 16, 2020
Bluff Retention Device Conditional Use Permit Application Las Brisas Condominiums
135 South Sierra Avenue
Solana Beach, California 92075
Dated December 16, 2020
Coastal Bluff Evaluation/Project Recommendations
Las Brisas Condominiums
135 South Sierra Avenue
Solana Beach, California

Page 5 ends

CTE Job No. 10-15983G
Terra Costa Consulting Group Project No. 1848-02, dated September 25, 2020 Plans for Las Brisas Condominiums Bluff Stabilization (5 Sheets) Prepared by Terra Costa Consulting Group
Dated September 28, 2020
S:\Projects\l 0-15000 to I 0-15999 Projects\! 0-l 5983G\Ltr _ Geotechnical Application Submittal 1st Review - Las Brisas 3-7-21.doc Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc.

Inspection I Testing I Geotechnical I Environmental & Construction Engineering I Civil Engineering I Surveying December 22, 2021
City of Solana Beach
Attention: Ms. Corey Andrews
635 South Highway 101
Solana Beach, California 92075
Office: (858) 720-2434
CTE Job No. 10-15983G
Via Email: candre\vs(a'icosb.org
Subject: Application Submittal Second Geotechnical Review Las Brisas Condominiums
135 South Sierra Avenue
Solana Beach, California 92075
References: At End of Document
Ms. Andrews:

As requested, Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. (CTE) has reviewed the provided submittal application documents referenced at the end of this letter. The purpose of our review was to assess whether the proposed project is in substantial compliance with the City of Solana Beach's (City) Local Coastal Plan (LCP) policies. This is the second submittal review.

Based on CTE's review, the applicant has adequately addressed CTE's previous review comments. CTE notes that the applicant's submitted slope stability analysis indicates that " ... within the last approximately 8-months ... observed and continuing deterioration of the lower bluff and over-steepened conditions of the mid- and upper bluff, create a real and imminent threat to Building 3, and to the public access corridor for the designated public open space at the Surfsong project. This same access corridor also functions and [sic] the Las Brisas fire access road, providing fire truck access to both Building 3 and portions of Building 1. As such, the observed failures within the bluff along and west and below Building 3, have a real potential to threaten the health and safety of the beach going and access corridor using public, as well as threatening the stability of Building 3."
CTE believes that Building 3 would be considered a "principal structure" per the LCP. 1441 Montiel Road, Suite 115 I Escondido, CA 92026 I Ph (760) 746-4955 I Fax (760) 746-9806 I www.cte-inc.net Application Submittal Second Geotechnical Review
Las Brisas Condominiums
135 South Sierra Avenue, Solana Beach, California
December 22, 2021

Page 2 ends

CTE Job No. 10-159830
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Respectfully submitted,
CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC.

Dan T. Math, GE #2665
Principal Engineer
CJK/DTM:cjk
Colm J. Kenny, RCE #84406
Senior Engineer
S:\Projects\10-15000 to 10-15999 Projects\10-15983O (Las Brisas)\Ltr_Geotechnical Application Submittal 2nd Review- Las Brisas 12-22-

21.doc
Application Submittal Second Geotechnical Review
Las Brisas Condominiums
135 South Sierra Avenue, Solana Beach, California
December 22, 2021
REVIEWED DOCUMENTS:

Geotechnical Update and Response to Third-Party Geotechnical Review Las Brisas Condominiums Bluff Stabilization
135 South Sierra Avenue
Solana Beach, California 92075
CUP 20-004
GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 8157-A-SC, dated October 22, 2021
Las Brisas Condominiums Bluff Stabilization Engineering Design Submittal Prepared by GeoStabilization International, dated 15, 2021

Page 3 ends

CTE Job No. 10-15983G
Response to CTE Review of CUP 20-004; Modification to a CUP for Las Brisas Condominiums Provided by The Trettin Company, dated November 1, 2021 Application Submittal Geotechnical Review
Las Brisas Condominiums
135 South Sierra Avenue
Solana Beach, California 92075
CTE Job No. 10-159830, dated March 7, 2021
City of Solana Beach Local Coastal Plan
Adopted February 27t11, 2013, As Amended November 2018
Geotechnical/Geologic Evaluation
Bluff Conditions
Las Brisas Condominiums
135 South Sierra Avenue
Solana Beach, California 92076
Anthony-Taylor Consultants Project No. 03-2283, dated June 22, 2004 S:\Projects\10-15000 to 10-15999 Projects\10-15983G (Las Brisas)\Ltr_Geotechnical Application Submittal 2nd Review - Las Brisas 12-22-

21.doc
Geotechnical Engineering
Coastal Engineering
Maritime Engineering
3890 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 200  San Diego, California 92123  (858) 573-6900 voice  (858) 573-8900 fax www.terracosta.com
Project No. 1848-02
September 25, 2020
Ms. Renee Resler, Chair
Mr. Brian Caine, Member

LAS BRISAS HOA
135 S Sierra Avenue #36
Solana Beach, California 92075

COASTAL BLUFF EVALUATION/PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS

LAS BRISAS CONDOMINIUMS
135 SOUTH SIERRA AVENUE

SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA
Dear Ms. Resler and Mr. Caine:

TerraCosta Consulting Group, Inc. (TerraCosta) is pleased to present this letter concerning our evaluation of coastal bluff stability in response to the significant and ongoing coastal bluff failure at the southern end of the Las Brisas condominium complex located at 135 South Sierra Avenue in Solana Beach, California. This letter should be considered an update to our April 23, 2020, letter regarding the subject coastal bluff.

To date, we have performed several site inspections, the first being to map the approximate limits of the slope failure using the topographic base map for the subject property prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter on October 14, 2019. As part of our field mapping, we reconstructed the approximate contours to reflect the failure limits as they existed during our initial April 16, 2020, site inspection. The approximate geometry of the slope failure during our field mapping is presented on Figure 1.

Slope stability analyses were performed on two representative cross sections to determine stability of the coastal bluff for the existing failure conditions. The locations of the cross sections are presented on Figure 1. Analyses were performed using the slope stability computer program GSTABL7. GSTABL7 is a 2D limit equilibrium slope stability program with a variety of options for external loads, along with various external restraints. Strength parameters used in our analyses were based on data in our files from Ms. Renee Resler and Mr. Brian Caine September 25, 2020 LAS BRISAS HOA Page 2
Project No. 1848-02
K:\18\1848\1848 TCG Letters\1848-01 L02 Las Brisas HOA.docx other geotechnical studies in Solana Beach. Summary outputs of the analyses are presented on Figure 2 through 5.

As indicated on the attached figures, the minimum computed static factor of safety for the existing conditions was as low as 1.021 in the area of the public easement/public agency vehicle access. This area is under a high threat of failure in the near future.

The computed static factors of safety for failure terminating at the southwest corner of the existing building were as low as 1.231. This existing factor of safety is significantly below the required California Building Code minimum of 1.5. Although the southwest corner of the existing building is not imminently threatened, it could potentially reach that threshold following a single event failure which causes the bluff, down to the area of the clean sand lens, to retreat eastward by several additional feet. Based on the existing bluff failure, which extends from the clean sand lens to the top of bluff, such a single event failure into the rear yard/public easement area could occur at any time.

Based on public agency permit requirements that Las Brisas provide and maintain a dedicated public access and public vehicle access in the area of the ongoing failure, and with consideration provided to the near-imminent threat to the residential structure, it is our recommendation that Las Brisas initiate the required permitting actions to construct a caisson/grade beam/tieback lateral wall that would extend from the southern terminus of the existing permitted seawall to the top-of-bluff. The engineering design we are submitting for your review would be sufficient to return a minimum 1.5 factor of safety to the threatened public access areas and to the existing residential structure on the Las Brisas property. Further, it will protect the existing, permitted lower coastal bluff seawall from being flanked and will prevent further loss of the mid to upper coastal bluff at Las Brisas.

We note that the time to obtain necessary discretionary permits for a project is likely in the range of 18 months. Therefore, we recommend that the site be consistently monitored during the permit process. Should further significant failure occur during that period, a reevaluation of the potential escalation of the threat to the residential structure should be performed immediately. Under such circumstances, a determination should be provided to determine if expedited or emergency permitting should be implemented.

Ms. Renee Resler and Mr. Brian Caine September 25, 2020 LAS BRISAS HOA Page 3
Project No. 1848-02
K:\18\1848\1848 TCG Letters\1848-01 L02 Las Brisas HOA.docx We appreciate the opportunity to be of service and trust this material meets your current needs. We look forward to working with you and your permit agent in securing a full solution to the significant failure occurring on your coastal bluff. If you have any questions or require additional information, please give us a call.

Very truly yours,
TERRACOSTA CONSULTING GROUP, INC.

Walter F. Crampton, Principal Engineer
R.C.E. 23792, R.G.E. 245
WFC/jg
Attachments
cfj;:-------
v
---r·-Z:--
SCALE: 1"=20'
L_J /--~
\, ~----
x --=====--x...--==-_:_:-=-~ ~ x..=-- - ___, " ----
'
/
/
--x--x- ,
t
/' ---- ,/ \_ ~ -- PPROXIM4T£ Uly1ITS" ,50~ .,
F {3t:UFF FA!lURE / _,-, ~y - -
/ ( / ~- ___ -✓ / -:=e-_"==_'"=aie,=:CS_g;:==~,..==~=-~ X ,c:.,,,_ _ __,___ ~ --..-='--' ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~~ ~~~~~f:;1:;l~:~~~=>< --~~. ==~~,-~-
-----~-:---==~-::::-~-="'~!§; f~~;;;:{~i~!_r·~-:'.~i:i'~'~:~~,~~,'~~~i~~i~i--::C- tt } -;:}=-...: :=-:-~-;-:----:~ - - - -- - ::: ;:: ---:-:_ ____ __ -__ -EH;,-----
~~~::::: -_.., /
----- -------- ,,..-_,..---- - ----~-

TERRACOSTA CONSULTING GROUP

ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
3890 MURPHY CANYON ROAD, SUITE 200
SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 (858) 573-6900

PROJECT NAME
LAS BRISA$ BLUFF FAILURE

FIGURE NUMBER
1 PROJECT NUMBER
1848-01

STABILITY SECTION

SITE PLAN

6.3 26.3 46.3 66.3 86.3 106.3 126.3 146.3 166.3
0 20406080
100
Las Brisas Condominiums Stability Section 1
s:\matt m\las brisas\stability section 1.pl2 Run By: Username 4/21/2020 10:18AM 1 2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21 22
23 24
25 26
3 211
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1
2 3
3 3
d bc
e
g f h
i
j
a
# FSa 1.021
b 1.022
c 1.027
d 1.028e 1.031
f 1.032
g 1.034h 1.034
i 1.035j 1.036
Soil
Desc.

Terrace
Low Ter
Tt
Trans
Soil
Type
No.
1234
Total
Unit Wt.
(pcf)
120.0120.0125.0
110.0
Saturated
Unit Wt.
(pcf)
120.0120.0125.0
110.0
Cohesion
Intercept
(psf)
300.0

0.0 3000.0

0.0 Friction
Angle
(deg)

33.033.036.030.0
Pore
Pressure
Param.

0.000.000.000.00
PressureConstant
(psf)

0.00.00.00.0 Piez.

Surface
No.
0000
GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.021
Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method FIGURE
2 6.3 26.3 46.3 66.3 86.3 106.3 126.3 146.3 166.3
0 20406080
100
Las Brisas Condominiums Stability Section 2
s:\matt m\las brisas\stability section 2.pl2 Run By: Username 4/21/2020 10:16AM 1 2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15 16 17
18 19
20 21 22
23 24
25 26
4 22
2 2
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1 1
2 3
3 3
c b
f d e h gi j
a
# FSa 1.175
b 1.182
c 1.183
d 1.183e 1.188
f 1.188
g 1.188h 1.189
i 1.190j 1.191
Soil
Desc.

Terrace
LowTer
Tt
Trans
Soil
Type
No.
1234
Total
Unit Wt.
(pcf)
120.0120.0125.0
110.0
Saturated
Unit Wt.
(pcf)
120.0120.0125.0
110.0
Cohesion
Intercept
(psf)
300.0

0.0 3000.0

0.0 Friction
Angle
(deg)

33.033.036.030.0
Pore
Pressure
Param.

0.000.000.000.00
PressureConstant
(psf)

0.00.00.00.0 Piez.

Surface
No.
0000
GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.175
Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method FIGURE
3 6.3 26.3 46.3 66.3 86.3 106.3 126.3 146.3 166.3
0 20406080
100
Las Brisas Condominiums Stability Section 1
s:\matt m\las brisas\stability section 1, terminate at building.pl2 Run By: Username 4/22/2020 12:51PM 1 2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21 22 23
24 25
26 27
3 211
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1 1 11
2 3
3 3
cbdegfihj
a
# FSa 1.231
b 1.238
c 1.242
d 1.243e 1.244
f 1.245
g 1.246h 1.249
i 1.252j 1.254
Soil
Desc.

Terrace
Low Ter
Tt
Trans
Soil
Type
No.
1234
Total
Unit Wt.
(pcf)
120.0120.0125.0
110.0
Saturated
Unit Wt.
(pcf)
120.0120.0125.0
110.0
Cohesion
Intercept
(psf)
300.0

0.0 3000.0

0.0 Friction
Angle
(deg)

33.033.036.030.0
Pore
Pressure
Param.

0.000.000.000.00
PressureConstant
(psf)

0.00.00.00.0 Piez.

Surface
No.
0000
GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.231
Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method FIGURE
4 6.3 26.3 46.3 66.3 86.3 106.3 126.3 146.3 166.3
0 20406080
100
Las Brisas Condominiums Stability Section 2
s:\matt m\las brisas\stability section 2, terminate at building.pl2 Run By: Username 4/22/2020 12:56PM 1 2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15 16 17
18 19
20 21 22
23 24
25 26
4 22
2 2
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1 1
2 3
3 3
bdcegfhij
a
# FSa 1.309
b 1.309
c 1.311
d 1.311e 1.312
f 1.313
g 1.313h 1.314
i 1.315j 1.315
Soil
Desc.

Terrace
LowTer
Tt
Trans
Soil
Type
No.
1234
Total
Unit Wt.
(pcf)
120.0120.0125.0
110.0
Saturated
Unit Wt.
(pcf)
120.0120.0125.0
110.0
Cohesion
Intercept
(psf)
300.0

0.0 3000.0

0.0 Friction
Angle
(deg)

33.033.036.030.0
Pore
Pressure
Param.

0.000.000.000.00
PressureConstant
(psf)

0.00.00.00.0 Piez.

Surface
No.
0000
GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.309
Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method FIGURE
5 2021 2021
Las Brisas Condominiums
Bluff Stabilization Engineering
Design Submittal
Regional Address:
4475 E. 74th Avenue
Commerce City, CO. 80022
Phone: 855.579.0536
Fax: 970.245.7737
www.geostabilization.com
lieo!itabilization International®
1 October 15, 2021
To: Ms. Renee Resler
Subject: DESIGN-BUILD DOWNSLOPE MICROPILE CUTOFF WALL
GeoStabilization International (GSI®) is pleased to present the following Engineering Design Submittal for the permanent micropile cutoff wall proposed for the Las Brisas Condominiums Site (Site) at 135 South Sierra Avenue Solana Beach, CA 92075.

This submittal consists of information pertaining to the design and construction of the proposed cutoff wall that will retain the backfill material planned on the north side of the wall. The micropiles will be embedded a minimum of five feet into the Torrey Sandstone Formation underlying the site. Micropile stickup above existing grade will be encapsulated with reinforced structural shotcrete, which will provide a system that achieves the Factor of Safety values required for the project.

Information in this submittal was developed based on, but not limited to, the following:
• Geotechnical/Geologic Evaluation Bluff Conditions, prepared by Anthony-Taylor Consultants, dated June 22, 2004.
• Las Brisas Condominiums Bluff Stabilization Draft Plans, prepared by Terracosta Consulting Group Engineers and Geologists, September 28, 2020. • Multiple field reconnaissance completed by GSI Project Development Geologist Josh Wagner, Deputy Operations Manager, Spike Priestly, and Regional Engineer Jody Robinson.
o Three-dimensional drone model developed from drone survey performed during site reconnaissance.

Our opinions and statements regarding this project shall remain confidential and shall not be shared with other parties without the express written consent of GSI®.

Sincerely,
GeoStabilization International®
Cameron Lobato, P.E. Jody Robinson, P.E.

Senior Vice President Regional Engineer
2 Table of Contents
Micropile Cutoff Wall ....................................................................................................... 3 Project Description....................................................................................................... 3 Design Requirements .................................................................................................. 4 Micropile Cutoff Wall Elements and Strengths............................................................. 4 Slope Stability Analyses .............................................................................................. 5 Design Material Properties .......................................................................................... 6 Design Structural Properties........................................................................................ 7 Corrosion Potential ...................................................................................................... 8 Structural Elements – Material Properties ................................................................... 8 Appendix A - Construction Sequence...........................................................................A-1 Construction Sequence ............................................................................................A-1 Appendix B - Design Analyses Output .........................................................................B-1 Appendix C - Calculations ........................................................................................... C-1 Facing Calculations ................................................................................................. C-1 Tensile and Compression Capacity ......................................................................... C-4 Appendix D - Material Properties ................................................................................ D-1 Self-Drilling SuperNails™ ........................................................................................ D-1 Facing Reinforcement.............................................................................................. D-1 Drain Strip................................................................................................................ D-1 Shotcrete ................................................................................................................. D-1 Grout........................................................................................................................ D-2 Appendix E - Micropile Testing.....................................................................................E-1 Testing Procedure and Equipment ...........................................................................E-2 Testing on Micropiles................................................................................................E-2 Appendix F - Construction Details................................................................................F-1 3 Micropile Cutoff Wall
Project Description
The subject property is known as the Las Brisas Condominiums, located at 135 South Sierra Avenue, San Diego County, City of Solana Beach, California. The Condominiums consist of three separate residential structures, comprising multi-story, multi-unit masonry structures founded on shallow foundations.

The upper bluff face within the vicinity of the most westerly building at the site (identified as Building 3 in the project geotechnical/geological evaluation) has been susceptible to significant erosion and scouring. As such, a section of the upper bluff has failed, leading to significant risk to Building 3 and a recorded easement for public agency vehicles, including emergency vehicles.

GSI’s scope of work includes construction of a micropile cutoff wall that will retain the exposed failed bluff and mitigate against damages associated with migration of the existing scarp towards the north and east of the exposed bluff. The cutoff wall will be comprised of up to 65-foot long micropiles that run downslope, approximately along the existing property line. This design is a value engineered (VE) alternative to the original drilled shaft cutoff wall concept developed by TerraCosta. Micropiles will be spaced 18 inches on center and depths will vary to ensure up to 5-foot embedment into the Torrey Sandstone Formation underlying the site; thereby, mitigating against possible undermining of the repair over time. In general, design pile embedment lengths vary between approximately 8 and 65 feet. Conceptually, the final aesthetics of the repair will remain identical to the original concept proposed by TerraCosta, with a sculpted and stained shotcrete facing.

On the north side of the shotcrete facing, a reinforced soil slope (RSS) will be constructed to occupy the existing void on the Las Brisas property. The RSS will comprise woven geotextile grids to construct the wall face in alignment with surrounding grades to the north. The end of the grids will be pinned to the slope with hand-driven mechanical anchors every third lift to accommodate sliding stability of the RSS (i.e., mitigate against the RSS sliding downslope). The remaining intermediate grid layers will be pinned to the slope using ground stakes. The geotextile will provide permanent erosion protection from initial construction.

All infrastructure will be built exclusively on Las Brisas HOA property; however, to construct the solutions presented herein, GSI crews (of up to six people) may need temporary access to the neighboring property to the south (Surfsong HOA). This access shall be for foot traffic only and will likely be required at various times during construction.

It is not anticipated that GSI crews will pass further than 20 feet to the south of the Las Brisas - Surfsong property line. It is the sole responsibility of Las Brisas HOA to coordinate any necessary temporary access agreements prior to GSI arriving on site. 4 Design Requirements
The permanent micropile cutoff wall will comprise the installation of an array of hollow bar micropiles faced with reinforced shotcrete to provide confinement for the RSS proposed on the north side of the shotcrete wall. The compound global stability of the system was designed to accommodate a static factor of safety (FS) of 1.5 and a seismic FS of 1.1.

We note that our system does not account for wave impact due to potential Tsunami inundation following an earthquake.

Our design accounted for a construction and vehicular at the top of the bluff. We iteratively analyzed surcharges between 250 and 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) to analyze impact of surcharging on the global stability of the slope. The stability results in Appendix B are provided for a 3,000 psf surcharge.

Micropile Cutoff Wall Elements and Strengths
The cutoff wall consist of an array of micropiles, concrete micropile cap, reinforced shotcrete facing, and a reinforced soil slope (RSS). The micropiles will consist of 51mm domestic hollow bar steel with embedment depths up to 65 feet. We note that lengths and spacing of micropiles elements may vary depending on conditions observed at the time of construction, but the maximum spacing of micropiles will be 18 inches along the property line and each will be embedded a minimum of 5 feet into the Torrey Sandstone unit underlying the site. The micropile cap will extend 10 feet east of the bluff edge and structurally connect to the micropiles east of the bluff edge. The micropile cap will have a minimum cross-sectional width of 18 inches and depth of 12 inches. Internal steel reinforcement embedded in the micropile cap will extend west of the bluff edge to structurally tie into the proposed shotcrete wall. The nominal design thickness of the structural shotcrete facing will be 8 inches and the final lift of shotcrete applied to the wall will be sculpted and stained to match the draft design plans issued by Terracosta Consulting Group Engineers and Geologists.

The micropiles will generally be drilled vertically along the slope and installed with a nominal 4.5-inch diameter drill bit. The design tributary spacing of the micropiles will be 18 inches along the property line. The facing will consist of reinforced structural shotcrete, with two layers (one on north side of piles and one on south side of piles) of gauge 4.0 welded wire steel fabric and continuous No. 5 vertical and horizontal steel walers spaced 18 inches vertical and horizontally along the south side of the wall extents.

All steel reinforcing elements installed as part of the cutoff wall will have corrosion protection through either epoxy or galvanization, pending material availability at the start of construction. In addition, a minimum of 2 inches of cover from the atmosphere will be provided for steel elements embedded in the structural facing and micropile cap, as specified by ACI-318. Further, a minimum of 3 inches of cover from the ground will be provided for steel elements embedded in the structural facing and micropile cap, as specified by ACI-318.

The RSS will be comprised of woven geotextile reinforcement. Since the RSS fill cannot be confined at the face, the upper 12 inches of fill will be in a relatively loose condition to 5 construct the wall face in alignment with surrounding grades to the north. The RSS reinforcement will be PYRAMAT® 75 high performance turf reinforcement mat (HPTRM) (or equivalent, depending on material availability at the time of construction), which is a three dimensional, lofty, woven polypropylene geotextile that is specially designed for erosion control applications on steep slopes. The matrix is composed of polypropylene monofilament yarns which exhibits high interlock and reinforcement capacity with both soil and root systems. The material has a very high UV resistance making it advantageous for marine environments susceptible to high UV demands. The expected design life of the reinforcement is 75 years and is in conformance with all relevant ASTM standards as indicated on the project data sheet provided in the materials section of this submittal.

Reinforcement lengths will be a minimum 4 feet and all reinforcement will extend to the exposed slope face. The grids will be pinned to the slope every third lift with hand-driven mechanical anchors. The remaining intermediate grid layers will be pinned to the slope using ground stakes. Horizontal spacing of stakes will be no less than one every six feet, or a minimum of two per lift. The target batter of the RSS will be approximately 45 degrees, which tends to line up well with the existing slope north of the proposed repair area.

The allowable tension capacity for the micropiles is approximately 33,600 pounds for static loadings conditions and 45,300 pounds for seismic loading conditions. The allowable compression capacity for the micropiles is 61,000 pounds.

Slope Stability Analyses
Overview
We completed a multiple scenario [static long-term effective stress conditions and seismic active (pseudostatic) conditions] slope stability assessment of the permanent RSS and micropile cutoff wall to analyze compound-stability of the system. The geometry of our slope stability model was developed based on the three-dimensional drone model from our site survey.

A slope stability analysis was first completed using the two-dimensional finite element analysis software PLAXIS 2D 2021. Once a baseline model was calibrated, a secondary analysis was completed using the three-dimensional finite element software PLAXIS 3D 2021. The PLAXIS program performs safety analysis to analyze slope stability and to determine a factor of safety (FS) against global failure. The FS against failure can be generalized as the ratio of forces resisting slope movement (e.g., soil strength, soil mass, etc.) and the forces driving slope movement (e.g., gravity, earth pressure, and earthquake shaking). A FS value greater than 1 and less than 1.2 indicates a condition where the slope has potential to creep over time. A FS value of 1 or less indicates a failure condition.

We analyzed stability of the proposed system, as shown in the PLAXIS output included in Appendix B. The PLAXIS model inputs are included on pages 1 through 26 in Appendix B. The PLAXIS model inputs are included on pages 27 through 33 in Appendix B. We evaluated two loading cases based on static and seismic loading conditions as follows:
6 • Case 1: Static (non-seismic) long-term (steady-state, effective stress) conditions with peak drained strength properties.
• Case 2: Seismic (code-based approach) conditions were analyzed with the design-level ground motion parameters indicated in the project geotechnical report issued by Terracosta. The horizontal seismic coefficient (kh) used in our analysis was one-half of the site peak ground acceleration (PGA) or 0.22.

Approach to Soil and Rock Elements
The subsurface profile used in our modeling and analysis was based on the field and laboratory data provided in the Geotechnical Report by Terracosta, and our experience in similar soil units.

The Terrace Deposits identified at the site were modeled using the Hardening Soil small (HSsmall) constitutive model. A key benefit of the HSsmall model is that it provides an adjustable shear modulus degradation curve based on the Hardin-Drnevich relationship (Plaxis 2014). The HSsmall model includes a stress-dependent stiffness formulation, as well as shear hardening and compaction (cap) hardening in primary loading. The reference stress used to initialize stress conditions was calibrated based on available field data, typical values in the literature, and our experience in similar materials.

To analyze impact of the stress state in the Terrace Deposits on performance of the proposed stabilization elements, a loose layer of sand was modeled in the bottom 8 feet of the soil profile, immediately above the rock formation.

The overall sedimentary rock formation identified at the site was modeled using the Hoek-Brown constitutive model. A benefit of the Hoek-Brown model is that it provides a better non-linear failure criterion for the strength of rocks as opposed to the linear Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion.

The table below summarizes the estimated engineering properties for each subsurface unit at the site.

Design Material Properties
Reference Parameter
Material
Terrace
Deposits
Loose
Sand
RSS Fill
Torrey
Sandstone
Formation
Unit Weight (lb/ft3) 110 105 120 120
Peak Friction Angle, φ’ (degrees) 34 32 40 N/A
Effective Cohesion, C (lb/ft2) 5 5 10 N/A
Reference Elastic Modulus at 50% Strain (lb/ft2) 1.14E6 1.14E6 1.14E6 - Reference Elastic Modulus Constrained (lb/ft2) 1.14E6 1.14E6 1.14E6 - Reference Elastic Modulus During Unload/Reload (lb/ft2) 3.43E6 3.43E6 3.43E6 - Reference Small Strain Shear Modulus (lb/ft2) 2.55E6 2.55E6 2.55E6 - Unconfined Compressive Strength (lb/ft2) - - - 3.65E6
7 Geological Strength Index (-) - - - 80
Material Constant - - - 17
Nominal (ultimate) bond stress values for subsurface materials were estimated based on the material types and tables in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) GEC Circular No.4 (1999), FHWA GEC Circular No.5 (2002), and FHWA GEC Circular No.7 (2015), as well as our experience with similar material types. In PLAXIS, a linear and material dependent bond strength was used to account for the bond reduction in the loose sand layer between the Terrace Deposits and Torrey Sandstone Formation. • Terrace Deposits – 750 pounds per foot (lbs/ft)
• Loose Sand – 500 lbs/ft
• Torrey Sandstone Formation – 900 lbs/ft
Approach to Structural Elements
The cutoff wall consists of an array of micropiles, concrete micropile cap, reinforced shotcrete facing, and RSS.

The proposed micropiles were modelled in PLAXIS as beam elements, with axial and bending stiffness values based on the structural properties. The beam elements were modeled using our anchor pullout resistances based on the available subsurface data, and our experience in similar materials. We defined the stiffness of the embedded beams based on the elastic properties of the steel bars and ignored grout contribution by conservatively assuming a fully cracked grout condition. The reinforced shotcrete facing and micropile cap were modelled used the concrete constitutive model in PLAXIS. The model was calibrated based on a 28-day design compressive strength of 4,000 pounds per square inch (psi). The stiffness contribution from the steel reinforcing embedded in the shotcrete facing was conservatively ignored in the PLAXIS analyses. However, the reinforced shotcrete facing was designed using the ACI 318-14 code. The facing design calculations are provided in Appendix C.

The PYRAMAT® 75 woven geotextile was modelled in PLAXIS as an anisotropic elastic geogrid with in-plane (EA1) and out-of-plane (EA2) stiffness values based on the manufacturer’s specifications, which are listed below.

Design Structural Properties
Structural
Element
Area, A
(ft2)
Moment of
Inertia, Ix
(ft4)
In-Plane Axial
Stiffness, EA1
(lb/ft)
Out-of-Plane
Axial Stiffness,
EA2 (lb/ft)
Nominal
Moment
Capacity,
Mp (lb-ft)
X51 0.11 0.97E-3 63.1E6 63.1E6 6,304
PYRAMAT® 75 - - 4,000 2,000 -
8 Approach to Staged Construction
The PLAXIS model had several sequential construction stages to take into consideration the effects of duration, stress history, and construction sequence on the behavior of the proposed cutoff wall. The full model sequential construction stages in our PLAXIS model are outlined below.
• Stage 1 – Generate initial at-rest (k0) stress conditions. • Stage 2 – Plastic nil phase to verify equilibrium of stresses. • Stage 3 – Installation of micropile elements.
• Stage 4 – Construction of Reinforced Shotcrete Facing • Stage 5 – Begin building up reinforced soil slope (RSS). • Stage 6 through 34 – Continue with RSS construction until reaching top of bluff elevation.
• Stage 35 - A global stability FS calculation was performed in PLAXIS following installation of the final layer of reinforcement and fill.

PLAXIS Outputs
Results from our stability analyses are included in Appendix B. Based on our stability analyses, the permanent stabilization system meets the global stability FS requirements identified for the project. The compound global stability of the system meets the static FS of 1.5 and seismic FS of 1.1.

Corrosion Potential
The level of corrosion protection for the steel is primarily dependent on the service life of the anchor, the aggressivity of the environment, and installation methods and consequences of failure. To account for a 75-year design life, all steel that will be used for construction of the proposed stabilization system will have corrosion protection through either epoxy coating or galvanization. The corrosion protection for steel elements for the project will ultimately depend on the material availability at the time of construction.

While potential corrosion will be resolved through epoxy coating or galvanization, we conservatively evaluated the corrosion potential of micropiles assuming the bar will be plain. This approach used reduced axial (tensile and compression) structural capacities for design of the proposed stabilization system. The corrosion potential of micropiles was evaluated using the Federal Highway Administrations Publication FHWA-CFL/TD-10-002 titled Hollow Bar Soil Nails: Review of Corrosion Factors and Mitigation Practice and GEC Circular No. 7. Calculations are provided in the following pages.

Structural Elements – Material Properties
All material properties used in structural elements are based on established values from the manufacturer. Structural properties are provided in Appendix C. Key structural elements included in this project are as follows:
• Grout
• Reinforced shotcrete
9 • 51mm hollow bars
• Steel bearing plates
• Hex nuts
• Couplers
Appendix A - Construction Sequence
A-1
Construction Sequence
GeoStabilization International® anticipates that the work will be performed following the general construction sequence below. Work may be completed simultaneously or in varying sequence upon completion mobilization and setup up of temporary facilities and set up of erosion control measures.

1. Delineate limits of stabilization. notify local utilities providers to locate and mark potential underground facilities. daylighting of utilities in potential conflict, as necessary (by others).

2. Prepare the work area for micropile installation and cutoff wall construction:
a. Install erosion control fence at the top of the existing seawall to limit soil erosion during construction.
b. Minor re-shaping of existing scarp and surrounding grades may be needed to facilitate construction of the micropile cutoff wall. c. Mark the locations of the proposed stabilization elements with survey marking paint.

3. Installation of micropile elements. each element will be grouted during drilling unless directed otherwise by GSI engineer.

4. Construct the cutoff wall:
a. Place reinforcing steel and drain strips per these drawings. b. Use wood or similar formwork on the north side of the cutoff wall to facilitate shotcrete placement.
c. Place shotcrete from the bottom up to the required thickness detailed in these plans.

5. Prepare area north of the cutoff wall for reinforced soil slope system installation. minor grubbing and grading may be necessary.

6. Install reinforced soil slope system in lifts as detailed in these drawings and per the manufacturer installation procedures.

7. Site cleanup and demobilization from site.
a. Concrete, grout, and other construction debris will be removed periodically throughout the work.
b. Final cleanup of the site to include reasonable hand cleaning methods like sweeping, spraying with water and removal of trash and debris. major landscaping should not be needed if proper access is granted to gsi throughout the project.

Appendix B - Design Analyses Output

Page 1 ends

100 ft
100 ft 60 ft
blue surface
represents proposed
shotcrete surface for
cutoff wall
Approx. scarp north
of proposal repair construction/vehicular
surcharge
z
y

Page 2 ends

proposed X51
micropiles
z
y

Page 4 ends

light blue is proposed
reinforced soil slope
blue is 8" nominal
reinforced shotcrete
surface
z
y

Page 5 ends

70% opacity
perspective view to
illustrate pile
embedments
z
y

Page 6 ends

70% opacity side
view to illustrate 5'
pile embedment in
Torrey Sandstone

Page 7 ends

Grid geometry shown
for Reinforced Soil
Slope
grid layers are UX1500 grid
(EA1 (in-plane stiffness) =
4000 lbs/ft; EA2 (out-of-plane
stiffness) = 2000 lbs/ft
y
z
y

Page 8 ends

2D section from 3D analysis
showing hand-installed mechanical
anchors to pin the tail of the grid
layers to the slope. Embedment will
be up to approximately 10'. The
added benefit of the anchors to
global stability was conservatively
ignored in our analysis. 0.00 -75.00 -100.00 1-150.00
I I
1-125.00
I I
1-100.00
I I
1 •75.00
I I
1·50.00
I I
• •
I I I
1-25.00
I I
• •
• • •
y
X
I I 125
.00
I I I
150.00
I I I
e
3D
PLAXIS Report

Page 9 ends

1.1.2.1.1 Materials - Soil and interfaces - HS small
Identification Terrace Deposits Fill Loose Sand
Identification number 1 4 5
Drainage type Drained Drained Drained
Colour
Comments (N1)60 = 50 (N1)60 = 50 (N1)60 = 50
γ unsat lbf/ft³ 110.0 120.0 105.0
γ sat lbf/ft³ 115.0 125.0 110.0
Dilatancy cut-off No No No
e init 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000
e min 0.000 0.000 0.000
e max 999.0 999.0 999.0
E 50
ref lbf/ft² 1.140E6 1.140E6 1.140E6
E oed
ref lbf/ft² 1.140E6 1.140E6 1.140E6
E ur
ref lbf/ft² 3.430E6 3.430E6 3.430E6

Page 10 ends

■
3D
Identification Terrace Deposits Fill Loose Sand
power (m) 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000
Use alternatives No No No
C c 6.321E-3 6.321E-3 6.321E-3
C s 1.891E-3 1.891E-3 1.891E-3
e init 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000
c ref lbf/ft² 5.000 10.00 5.000
φ (phi) ° 34.00 40.00 32.00
ψ (psi) ° 4.000 10.00 0.000
γ 0.7 0.1090E-3 0.1090E-3 0.1090E-3
G 0
ref lbf/ft² 2.550E6 2.550E6 2.550E6
Set to default values No No No
ν ur 0.2000 0.2000 0.2000
p ref lbf/ft² 2089 2089 2089
K 0
nc 0.4408 0.3572 0.4701
c inc lbf/ft²/ft 0.000 0.000 0.000
z ref ft 0.000 0.000 0.000
R f 0.9500 0.9500 0.9500

Page 11 ends

Generally some cohesion
required in PLAXIS to
prevent singularity in
solver matrix
\
\
\
\
, ' --------------- i------------ --- -- -- --- -- -- -- -- --- " -- -- -- -- --- -- --- - ~ ~ ' ~ ) - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - -
3D
Identification Terrace Deposits Fill Loose Sand
Tension cut-off Yes Yes Yes
Tensile strength lbf/ft² 0.000 0.000 0.000
Undrained behaviour Standard Standard Standard
Skempton-B 0.9866 0.9866 0.9866
ν u 0.4950 0.4950 0.4950
K w,ref / n lbf/ft² 140.5E6 140.5E6 140.5E6
Failure criterion Mohr-Coulomb Mohr-Coulomb Mohr-Coulomb Stiffness Standard Standard Standard
Strength Manual Rigid Manual
R inter 0.7000 1.000 0.7000
Consider gap closure Yes Yes Yes
δ inter 0.000 0.000 0.000
Cross permeability Impermeable Impermeable Impermeable
Drainage conductivity 1 , dk ft³/day/ft 0.000 0.000 0.000 Drainage conductivity 2 , dk ft³/day/ft 0.000 0.000 0.000 K 0 determination Automatic Automatic Automatic
K 0,x = K 0,y Yes Yes Yes

Page 12 ends

3D
Identification Terrace Deposits Fill Loose Sand K 0,x 0.4408 0.3572 0.4701 K 0,y 0.4408 0.3572 0.4701 OCR 1.000 1.000 1.000
POP lbf/ft² 0.000 0.000 0.000 k x ft/day 0.8607 0.8607 0.8607 k y ft/day 0.8607 0.8607 0.8607 k z ft/day 0.8607 0.8607 0.8607 e init 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 S s 1/ft 0.000 0.000 0.000 c k 1000E12 1000E12 1000E12

Page 13 ends

1.1.2.1.2 Materials - Soil and interfaces - Hoek-Brown
Identification Terry Sandstone
Identification number 2
Drainage type Drained
Colour
Comments
γ unsat lbf/ft³ 120.0
γ sat lbf/ft³ 125.0
Dilatancy cut-off No
e init 0.5000
e min 0.000
e max 999.0
E' rm lbf/ft² 20.89E6
ν (nu) 0.1500
|σ ci | lbf/ft² 3.655E6

Page 14 ends

■
3D
Identification Terry Sandstone m i 17.00
GSI 80.00 D 0.000 m b 8.322 s 0.1084 a 0.5006 σ t lbf/ft² 47.59E3 σ c lbf/ft² -1.202E6 ψ max ° 0.000 σ ψ lbf/ft² 0.000 Undrained behaviour Standard
Stiffness Standard
Strength Manual R inter 0.7000
Consider gap closure Yes δ inter 0.000
Cross permeability Impermeable

Page 15 ends

3D
Identification Terry Sandstone
Drainage conductivity
1 , dk ft³/day/ft 0.000
Drainage conductivity
2 , dk ft³/day/ft 0.000
K
0 determination Manual
K 0,x = K 0,y Yes K 0,x 1.000 K 0,y 1.000 k x ft/day 0.000 k y ft/day 0.000 k z ft/day 0.000 e init 0.5000 c k 1000E12

Page 16 ends

1.1.2.1.3 Materials - Soil and interfaces - Concrete
Identification Concrete_4ksi
Identification number 3
Drainage type Non-porous
Colour
Comments
γ unsat lbf/ft³ 145.0
γ sat lbf/ft³ 145.0
Dilatancy cut-off No
e init 0.5000
e min 0.000
e max 999.0
E_28 lbf/ft² 734.0E6
ν (nu) 0.1000
f c,28 lbf/ft² 1.150E6

Page 17 ends

■
3D
Identification Concrete_4ksi f c0n 0.1500 f cfn 0.000 f cun 0.000 G c,28 lbf/ft 7341 φ max ° 37.00 ψ ° 5.000 ?fc 1.000 f t,28 lbf/ft² 80.64E3 f tun 0.000 G t,28 lbf/ft 734.0 γ ft 1.000 Time dependent behaviour No E 1 /E 28 1.000 f c,1 /f c,28 1.000 ε cp ^p -1.400E-3 a 18.00 Shrinkage behaviour No

Page 18 ends

3D
Identification Concrete_4ksi
e∞ ^shr 0.000 t 50,shr ^p day 0.000
Creep behaviour No φ ^cr 0.000 t 50 ^cr day 0.000
Stiffness Standard
Strength Rigid R inter 1.000
Consider gap closure Yes δ inter 0.000
Cross permeability Impermeable
Drainage conductivity
1 , dk ft³/day/ft 0.000
Drainage conductivity
2 , dk ft³/day/ft 0.000
K
0 determination Automatic
K 0,x = K 0,y Yes K 0,x 0.3982 K 0,y 0.3982

Page 19 ends

3D
Identification Concrete_4ksi k x ft/day 0.000 k y ft/day 0.000 k z ft/day 0.000 e init 0.5000 c k 1000E12

Page 20 ends

1.1.2.2 Materials - Geogrids -
Identification Pyrawall 75 UX1700
Identification number 1 2
Comments
Colour
Material type Elastic Elastic
Isotropic No Yes
EA 1 lbf/ft 4000 3840
EA 2 lbf/ft 2000 3840
GA lbf/ft 1000 1920
Identification number 1 2
Identification number 1 2

Page 21 ends

■
3D

1.1.2.3 Materials - Plates -
Identification SC_8in
Identification number1
Comments 6ksi
Colour
Material type Elastic d ft 0.6700 γ lbf/ft³ 140.0
Isotropic Yes E 1 lbf/ft² 3.000E9 E 2 lbf/ft² 3.000E9 ν 12 0.2500 G 12 lbf/ft² 1.200E9 G 13 lbf/ft² 1.200E9 G 23 lbf/ft² 1.200E9

Page 22 ends

■
3D
Identification SC_8in
Rayleigh α 0.000
Rayleigh β 0.000
Prevent punching No
Identification number1

Page 23 ends

1.1.2.4 Materials - Beams -
Identification X51
Identification number1
Comments
Colour
Material type Elastoplastic E lbf/ft² 572.0E6 γ lbf/ft³ 50.00 Beam type Predefined
Predefined beam type Massive circular beam
Diameter ft 0.3750 A ft² 0.1104 I 2 ft 0.9707E-3 I 3 ft 0.9707E-3 Yield stress σy lbf/ft² 1.239E6

Page 24 ends

Equivalent stiffness based on 4.5"
drillhole with X51mm steel bar;
contribution of grout stiffness ignored
assuming fully cracked condition
corresponding
nominal moment of

6.304 kip-ft per steel
section
I
\
\
\
\ ■ \.. -- -- I '{ '{ '{ "" r
l \ \ \ ~ -- -- - --
~
~
3D
Identification X51
Critical direction Local direction 2 W 2 ft³ 5.177E-3
Rayleigh α 0.000
Rayleigh β 0.000
Identification number1

Page 25 ends

Page 26 ends

Geogrid - Py ram at 75
Medianical Thermal
Property
Material set
Idenbficabon
Comments
Colour
Material type
Properties
Isotropic
Unit
lbf/ft
lbf/ft
Value
Pyramat 75
112.ss, o, o
Elasbc
□ 4000
2000
Colour
Red
Green
Blue
Im l@I Hue
E::::mJ Saturabon
E::::mJ Lightness
Favourites
I I I I I I I I I Save colour as favourite I
~--O_K __ ~I LI __ c_a_n_ce_l_~

Page 27 ends

Critical 2D Section pulled from 3D
analysis - Back Analyzed Factor of Safety
(FS) of 1.0 with pre-failure geometry
-170.00 -160.00 -150.00 -140.00 -130.00 -120.00 -110.00 -100.00 -90.00 -130.00 -70.00 -60.00 -50.00 -40.00 -30.00 -20.00 -10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 1l1111l1111l1111l1111l1111l1111l1111l1111l1111l1111l1111l1,11l111,l1111l1111l1111l1111l1111l1111l,111l1111l1111l1111l1,11l1111l1111l1111l1111l1111l1111l1111l,111l1111l1111l1111l1111l111,l1111l1111l1111l1111l1111l1111l1111l1111l,111! 1

Page 28 ends

deformed piles from
pushover analysis.

System designed to
accommodate up to 1"
of total pile deformation.
-- 3D critical slip surface along
micropile wall. FS = 1.5 static and 1.1
seismic with kh = 0.5PGA = 0.5 (0.44)
= 0.22
-- Deformation accounts for up to 6ft of
material loss below shotcrete facing. PLAXIS 3D STABILITY MODEL OUTPUT , I ,

Page 29 ends

-- Design Test Load =
DTL = 40 kips / 65 ft =
615 lbs/ft < Design Bond
of 750 lbs/ft, OK
-- Loading accounts for
up to 6ft of material loss
below shotcrete facing. PLAXIS 3D STABILITY MODEL OUTPUT Axiai l foroes N (scaled up &.1,00* 10-3 times}
Maximum value= 679.9 lbf(Element602at Node 221)
Minimum value = -39.88 * 10 l lbf (Element 136 at Node 2647)

Page 30 ends

-- Shear Strength
Utilization = 551 lbs /
17,000 lbs = 3%
-- Accounts for up to
6ft of material loss
below shotcrete
facing. PLAXIS 3D STABILITY MODEL OUTPUT
Shear foroes Q 12 (sc.,led up 5 .• 00*10 -3 times}
Maximum value = 55 1. 1 lbf (Element 586 at Node 279)
Minimum value = -387.3 lbf (Element 354 at Node 2444)

Page 31 ends

-- Moment Utilization
= 986*1.1 lbs-ft /
6400 lbs-ft = 17%
-- Accounts for up to
6ft of material loss
below shotcrete
facing. PLAXIS 3D STABILITY MODEL OUTPUT
Bendlng moments M 3 (scaled up 5,.00* 10 -3 times)
Maximum value - 364, 3 lbf ft (Element 26 5 at Node 29 5,5) Minimum value - -985 ,4 lbf ft (Element 592 at Node 280) PLAXIS 3D STABILITY MODEL OUTPUT
Critical 2D section pulled
from 3D analysis - max strain
increment in the grid
reinforcement is ~1% of
ultimate value.

Page 32 ends

•
Total principal strain , 1 (scaled up 1.00•103 times}
Maxm..m vM • 1,m•10-
1s (Bement 2195 atStrmpoilt 29937)
Minirrun vM • -4,632•10-3 (Bement -4086 111 Strm poilt ffl23) ·1.00 ·l.25
-1.50 -1,75
·2.00
•2,25 -2,50 -2.7S -3.00
-3.25
•3,50
.3.75
cl
Critical 2D section pulled from 3D
analysis.
-- static global stability FS = 1.51
-- seismic global stability FS = 1.12
PLAXIS 3D STABILITY MODEL OUTPUT Page 33
·160.00 ·152.00 ·144.00 ·136.00 ·128.00 ·120.00 ·112.00 ·10-1,00 -96.00 •
.. ., o.oo
Tota l prioopal strain c1 (scaled up SO.O timH)
MaXl'l'UTlvU - o.019n•10" (Bement 3501atStressl)Of'l 2006) ~ vM • -0.1509 (Bement 3882 at Stress poht 657 )

8.00 16.00 00 32.00 -«J.00 8.00 56.oo 6◄ oo n.oo BO.oo aa.oo 96.oo 10-1.00 112.1 ..,_.,
-60.00
·70,00
...,_.,
-'J(),00
·100,00
·110.00
·120.00
Appendix C - Calculations
C-1
Facing Calculations
Design Approach/Assumptions –
• ACI 318-14 Code Edition.
• Reinforced shotcrete facing treated as a cantilevered beam/one-way slab. o L/H ratio > 2
• Conservatively assumed full lateral earth pressure (dead load) from RSS acting on wall.
o Actual lateral pressure is over 100 times less than that used in design of the facing (Crouse and Wu, 2003).
• Seismic load treated as live load.
o Mononobe-Okabe Method used to calculate dynamic lateral earth pressure.
• Wall height (length of beam/slab) of 12 feet used for length of beam in moment calculation.

Reinforced Shotcrete Design – Check For Steel Percentage Notes:
1) Created using ACI 318-14
2) If εt is greater than 0.005, the beam/slab is tension controlled. If εt is less than 0.002, the beam/slab is compression controlled. If it is between the two, the beam/slab is in transition (See Figure 2).

Beam Geometries:
height of the beam
width otrhe beam
cover
distance to re bar
o tor beam, 1 tor slab

0.75for spiral, 0.65for other
Concrete Pro(l.enies:
strength of the steel
strength of the Concrete
Stress Block Ratio
Strength Reduction Factor
steel in Member
Check Min Steel:

Min amount of steel:

Steel to be used:

Check Tension Controlled:

Ffnd Compression depth:

Tension control check:

Solve for Capacity:
h •
II,,•
cov::
d•
va r =
var 2:
r,=
fe- =
P1 =
<I>.

A, =
18 16
1 0.65
60000 psi
4000 psi

0.85 0.90

2.05 in2

0.26 in2

2.05 in2
a = 4.532353 in
C • 5.33218
, , • 0.006002
Tension Controlled
1693106 lb-in
1523795 lb-in
127.0 k-lt
Concrete Beam/1 -way Slab Calculator

0.75 • 00&
Figure 1: Concrete Beam Diagram in a
balanced condition
SPIRAi. _,,,,,,,' I , ______ _ __ ..,, o -. 0.85 +{rr 00()2) 2~ 0'11, A
t·r • 0.002
f ~o.eoo
1ncerpo1atJon on cflr: Splml , .. o.75 , 0.15~- fJ
Oth&r~·=0.65+ 0.25[i-¾J Figure 2: Tension/CompressionfTransition zones with corresponding Strength Reduction Factors
Equations Used:

I _ 3 JI'b,,d < 200b, d A,~• (booms) - f,. _ f ,
IA,.,., (slabs) = 0.0021,,,d I
1, A,f,. I a = 0.851,'b
Li] I•, =Ooo{ d~c )I
IM, -A,f,(d - f) I
C-2
Reinforced Shotcrete Design – Check Against Loads
f'c (psi) 4,000 psi fy 60 psi
L (ft) 144 in. Φ 0.9 in.

L.R. W4.0 mesh + #5 bar + X51 bar Area= 1.94 T.R. W4.0 mesh + #5 bar Area= 0.13 b 8 in.

DL 4 k LL 1 k
f = 0.9
h= 18 in.
d= 16 in.

WDL= 3.5 k/ft
WLL= 1.4 k/ft
Wu= 6.5 k/ft
Mu= 117.5 k-ft
Rn= 0.7648 ksi
ρ= 0.0127 %
ρmin= 0.0033 %
ρmax= 18.0625 %
Steel to be Used, As 2.07 in
2 As, mesh*2 layers + (As, #5 bar*2/ft of
wall) + As, X51*1 full bar between
each span
in
2 0.119*2+(0.3*2/18)+1.8*2*0.5 in
2 f Mn 127.0000 k-ft
f
As calc.

Mn > Mu Design is Satisfactory
Steel Percentage is Satisfactory
-
-
+ + +
.. .. -
3- C
Shown Formulas - s Against Load Check – Design Reinforced Shotcrete

0.9 = f
in. 18 h=
in. =B61-2 d=
k/ft =(0.5*0.39*125*(B55/12)^2)*0.001 = DL W
k/ft =2169.41*0.001*(B57/12) =LL W
k/ft =(1.2*B63)+(B64*1.6) =u W
k-ft =((B65*(B55/12)^2)/8) =u M
ksi =B66*12/(B60*B57*B62^2) =n R
% =((0.85*B54)/E54)*(1-(SQRT(1-(2*B67)/(0.85*B54)))) ρ= % =200/(E54*1000) = min ρ
% =(3/8)*((0.85*B54*1000*0.85)/(60*1000)) = max ρ
in =0.119*2+(0.3*2/B61)+1.8*2*0.5 Steel to be Used, As
2 *1 full bar between each s, X51 *2/ft of wall) + A s, #5 bar *2 layers + (A s, mesh A span
in
2 in 0.119*2+(0.3*2/18)+1.8*2*0.5
2 k-ft 127 Mn f
Mn > Mu f
As calc.
=IF(B76>B66, "Design is Satisfactory","Design is not Satisfactory") =IF(AND(B68>B69,B68<B70), "Steel Percentage is Satisfactory","Steel Percentage is not Satisfactory") I
+
1 +
+
+
+
+
+
·"'
+
...

C-4
Tensile and Compression Capacity
Bar tensile capacity for 75-yr design life – Static condition Corrosion calculations FHWA-CFL/TD-10-002
Material Properties
Bar Type
Bar Area {Ac)
Outside Diameter {D)
Inside Diameter {Di)
Yield Strength {Fy)
Grade Steel {fy)
Design Life
:::[(~c:~:)l: t;;)ji!f ulations
Do
X
X
D.11 = D0 - 2X
Deft
1t * D,~ed n • D2
A red = '" 4 4
Areduced
Rr = A reduced * [y
RT
(J)T
T Reduced
Load Combination Factor
T Design
X51

1.795 sq in
2 in

1.187 in
152.0 kips
85 ksi
75 yr

1.92 in

4.00 mm

0.158 in

1.61 in

0.92 sq in
117.8 kips

0.75 88.4 kips

1.35 65.5 kips
Calculated Outer Diameter
Thickness of Sacrif icial Steel metric
Thickness of Sacrif icial Steel uses
Effective Bar Diameter
Reduced Steel Area
Nominal Tensile Capacity
ASTM A615 Tensile Resist ance
Reduced Tensile Capacity
Static Load Combination Factor
Design Tensile Capacity
C-5
Bar tensile capacity for 75-yr design life – Seismic condition Corrosion calculations FHWA-CFL/TD-10-002
Material Properties
Bar Type
Bar Area {Ac)
Outside Diameter {D)
Inside Diameter {Di)
Yield Strength {Fy)
Grade Steel {fy)
Design Life
:::[(~c:~:)l: t;;)ji!f ulations
Do
X
X
D.11 = D0 - 2X
Deft
n * Di ed n • D2
A red = '" 4 4
Areduced
Rr = A reduced * [y
RT
(J)T
T Reduced
Load Combination Factor
T Design
X51

1.795 sq in
2 in

1.187 in
152.0 kips
85 ksi
75 yr

1.92 in

4.00 mm

0.158 in

1.61 in

0.92 sq in
117.8 kips

0.75 88.4 kips

1.00 88.4 kips
Ca lculated Outer Diameter
Thickness of Sacrif icial Steel met
Thickness of Sacrif icial Steel usc!
Effective Bar Diameter
Reduced Steel Area
Nominal Tensile Capacity
ASTM A615 Tensile Resist ance
Reduced Tensile Capacity
Static Load Combination Factor
Design Tensile Capacity
C-6
Bar compression capacity for 75-yr design life
Allowable Compression Loads · Micropiles
Pile Dimensions/ Propertie
BarType
Bar Dia. (OD)
Bar Dia. (ID)
Hole Dia.

Reduced Area of Steel
Area of Grout
Steel Fy
Grout f'c
s
X51 -
2 in

1.187 in

4.5 in

0.92 in2

14.98 in2
85 ksi
4 ksi
FHWA NHI 05-039: Allowable Compression Load
P, .• 11 ... '0bl, = (o.4[ X A,,.., +0.47 F, .. IN,, x Ab<,,) P _c-allowable
Max Compression Load
Structural Check
61 kips
40 kips
OK
<= Reduced for Corrosion
(Eq. 5-7)
Appendix D - Material Properties
D-1
Self-Drilling SuperNails™
• Hollow bar: X51
o Nominal Diameter: 51 mm (or equivalent) O.D.
o Minimum Yield Strength: 152 kips (or equivalent)
o Embedment Length: Per Plans
o Grouting Pressure: As required for grout return at surface o Drilling Fluid: Neat Cement Grout or Air if approved by GSI engineer o Corrosion Protection: Sacrificial Steel for a design life of 75 years o Centralizers: Not applicable for injection drilling systems o Couplers: Shall conform to ASTM A29, similar or greater strength than bar Material certificates can be submitted upon delivery of material to the site.

Facing Reinforcement
• 8-Inch Nominal Shotcrete
• Welded-Wire Mesh
o Geometry
▪ Size: 4 in x 4 in
▪ Diameter of Wire: 4.0 gauge
o Material
▪ Tensile Strength of Wire: 60 ksi
• Bearing Plates: 6”x6”x1/2” ASTM A36
• Steel Nuts: Shall conform to ASTM A108
Drain Strip
12” wide Geocomposite Sheet Drain: Shall be manufactured with a drainage core and a drainage geotextile encapsulating the core. The drainage shall have a minimum compressive strength of 6000 psf when tested in accordance with ASTM D6364. The geotextile shall have a minimum flow rate of 20 gallons per minute per foot of width when tested in accordance with the requirements given in ASTM D 4716.

Shotcrete
Shotcrete shall be a pumpable mixture with a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 4,000 psi. Use type I, I/II, or V cement. Shotcrete shall comply with the requirements of ACI 506.2, “Specifications for Materials, Proportioning and Application of Shotcrete”. The wet-mix process consists of thoroughly mixing all ingredients, introducing the mixture into the delivery equipment, and delivering it by positive displacement.

Shotcrete Mix Design
• Minimum 28-day compressive strength: 4,000 psi
• Target water to cement ratio: 0.4 to 0.5
• Target slump: 3 to 4 inches
• Target gradation: ACI No. 2 or as approved by GSI Engineer

D-2
Placement:

Weather is a key factor in the placement of shotcrete because it affects how quickly the material matures and gains strength. Refer to the construction drawings for information regarding shotcrete placement and curing in cold and hot weather situations.

Grout
• Minimum 28-day compressive strength: 4,000 psi
• Target water to cement ratio: 0.5 to 0.6
• Density Range: 108.6 to 112.2 pcf
• Portland Cement: Type V
22 Geo-Drill Injection Anchor System
The Williams Geo-Drill Injection Anchor System is today’s solution for a fast and efficient anchoring system into virtually any type of soil. The system has historically been known as a “self-drilling anchoring” because the hollow ful-ly-threaded bar serves as both the drill string and the grouted anchor, thus installation is performed in a single operation.

The sacrificial drill bit is threaded onto the end of the Hollow Injection Bar and left in place following drilling. The drilling fluid (air, water, or grout) is introduced through the hollow bar and allows the spoils to flush from the borehole.

The Geo-Drill System is particularly suitable for soils that do not allow for open-hole drilling (i.e. granular soils that are collapsible in nature). In such cases, drilling with a grout fluid serves the purpose of flushing spoils from the borehole and prevents looser, surrounding material from collapsing due to the higher relative density of the grout. Williams Geo-Drill Injection Anchor System should be considered on any project requiring fast production that would otherwise need to involve a casing system in order to maintain borehole stability. • Fully domestic system available.
• Fast, single-step anchoring system with simple equipment. • Eliminates the need for a cased borehole in collapsing soils. • Efficient installation since drilling and grouting can be performed in a single operation, saving both time and money. • Continuously drilling and grouting under high pressure causes the grout to permeate into looser soils and creates a bulb-effect for increased bond capacity.
• Suitable for working in limited space and areas of difficult access. • Multiple ranges of drill bits suitable for most soil conditions. • Installed with standard track drill (top hammer) or hand-held drilling equipment, eliminating the need for larger casing rigs.
• Continuously threaded bar pattern can be cut and coupled anywhere along its length. • Domestic available in 10’ or 20’ lengths, non-domestic available in 3 meter lengths only. • Corrosion protection systems available upon request.
• FHWA approved for use as a micropile or soil nail (Domestic Hollow Injection Bar only) B7X1 Domestic Hollow Injection Bar
B7Y1 Non-Domestic Hollow Injection Bar
Advantages of the Williams Geo-Drill Injection Anchor System Hollow Bar Anchor System
Bar
Diameter
Average
Inner
Diameter
Minimum
Net Area
Through Threads
Minimum
Ultimate
Strength
Minimum
Yield
Strength
Nominal
Weight
Part
Number
32 mm
(1-1/4”)

0.787”
(20.0 mm)

0.556 in2
(359 mm2)

58.4 kips
(260 kN)

47.2 kips
(210 kN)

2.1 lbs/ft
(3.1 kg/m) B7X1-032N
32S mm
(1-1/4”)

0.626”
(15.9 mm)

0.776 in2
(501 mm2)

81.5 kips
(363 kN)

66.0 kips
(294 kN)

2.7 lbs/ft
(4.0 kg/m) B7X1-032S
38 mm
(1-1/2”)

0.830”
(21.1 mm)

1.067 in2
(688 mm2)
112 kips
(498 kN)

90.7 kips
(404 kN)

3.76 lbs/ft
(5.6 kg/m) B7X1-038N
51 mm
(2”)

1.187”
(30.1 mm)

1.795 in2
(1158 mm2)
188 kips
(837 kN)
152 kips
(677 kN)

6.26 lbs/ft
(9.3 kg/m) B7X1-051N
76 mm
(3”)

1.890”
(48.0 mm)

3.880 in2
(2503 mm2)
407 kips
(1811 kN)
329 kips
(1466 kN)

13.79 lbs/ft
(20.5 kg/m) B7X1-076N
Bar Designation
& Outer
Diameter
Average
Inner
Diameter
Minimum
Net Area
Through Threads
Minimum
Ultimate
Strength
Minimum
Yield
Strength
Nominal
Weight
Part
Number
T30S - 30 mm
(1.18”)
11 mm
(0.43”)

0.662 in²
(427 mm²)

71.9 kips
(320 kN)

58.5 kips
(260 kN)

2.42 lbs/ft
(3.6 Kg/M) B7Y1-030S
T40N - 40 mm
(1.57”)
20 mm
(0.79”)

1.046 in²
(675 mm²)
121 kips
(539 kN)

96.7 kips
(430 kN)

4.23 lbs/ft
(6.3 Kg/M) B7Y1-040N
T40S - 40 mm
(1.57”)
16 mm
(0.63”)

1.222 in²
(788 mm²)
148 kips
(660 kN)
118 kips
(525 kN)

4.84 lbs/ft
(7.2 Kg/M) B7Y1-040S
T52N - 52 mm
(2.05”)
24 mm
(0.94”)

1.874 in²
(1209 mm²)
209 kips
(929 kN)
164 kips
(730 kN)

6.92 lbs/ft
(10.3 Kg/M) B7Y1-052N
* T73N - 73 mm
(2.87”)
53 mm
(2.08”)

2.5 in²
(1615 mm²)
260 kips
(1160 kN)
218 kips
(970 kN)

8.9 lbs/ft
(13.2 Kg/M) B7Y1-073N *
T76S - 76 mm
(2.99”)
45 mm
(1.77”)

3.891 in²
(2510 mm²)
427 kips
(1900 kN)
337 kips
(1500 kN)

13.23 lbs/ft
(19.7 Kg/M) B7Y1-076S
* T103N - 103 mm
(4.06”)
78 mm
(3.07”)

4.87 in²
(3140 mm²)
510 kips
(2270 kN)
405 kips
(1800 kN)

17.0 lbs/ft
(25.3 Kg/M) B7Y1-103N *
* T130N - 130 mm
(5.12”)
60 mm
(2.36”)

16.2 in²
(10452 mm²)
1785 kips
(7940 kN)
1180 kips
(5250 kN)

50.4 lbs/ft
(78 Kg/M) B7Y1-130N *
* Diameter available on special order. Contact your Williams representative for fastener and drill bit information.

D-3
IHlallllrlll' AlldDa-....

Advantages of the Williams Geo-Drill Injection Anchor System B7X1 D omes t· Ic H o II ow I n,ec . f ,on B ar
B7Y1 N D on- omes fH/1 Ic o ow /"f n,ec ,on B ar
23 Accessories
The Hollow Injection Bar is a high strength, impact resistant heavy wall steel tubing conforming to ASTM A519 or A513 and is continuously threaded over its entire length with a heavy duty left hand thread/deformation pattern. The steel tub-ing provides maximum flow with minimum resistance during high pressure flushing and grouting operations. The thread form (similar for all diameters) is a unique Williams feature that provides a lower thread pitch angle to provide easier coupling disengagement without “locking up”, than conventional rope threads during drilling operations. This thread form provides more surface area and thread/deformations per unit length for superior bond capabilities over that of competi-tive drill steel thread forms. The bar’s thread/deformation pattern has also shown to exceed the bond characteristics of ASTM A615 reinforcing steel. The lower thread angle allows the installed anchor to be torque-tensioned. The Geo-Drill Injection Anchor system is available with enhanced corrosion protection with hot-dip galvanized/epoxy coated bars and components. Installation adapters for the Geo-Drill Injection Anchors are available for all drill rigs.

The Hollow Injection Bar Couplings
have a unique tapered center stop which
seals the Injection Bar connection to min-imize grout leakage during simultaneous grouting and drilling operations. The inter-nal stop design also assures a full positive thread connection in both Injection Bar
ends while providing a matching end
bearing between bars that reduces per-cussion energy loss to the drill bit. The couplings are machined from ASTM A29 grade C1045 high strength steel to provide 100% ultimate tensile or compression strength capacity of the installed anchorage. The coupling OD is tapered on both ends to allow drill cuttings and grout displacement during drilling while the ID has internal chamfers to assist alignment and connection of the bars. The Non-Domestic Hollow Injection Bar Couplings do not contain a tapered center stop, but instead have an o-ring gas-ket to minimize grout leakage.

Bar Outside
Diameter
Inside
Diameter Thickness PartNumber
32 mm
& T30
2-1/2”
(64 mm)
1-3/8”
(35 mm)
5/32”
(4 mm) R9F-10-436
38 mm
& T40
3”
(76 mm)
1-5/8”
(41 mm)
5/32”
(4 mm) R9F-12-436
51 mm
& T52
3-3/4”
(95 mm)
2-1/8”
(54 mm)
7/32”
(6 mm) R9F-16-436
76 mm
& T76
5-1/2”
(140 mm)
3-1/8”
(80 mm)
9/32”
(7 mm) R9F-24-436
Hex Nuts
Nominal
Bar Diameter
Across
Flats
Across
Corners Thickness PartNumber
32 mm
(1-1/4”)
1-3/4”
(45 mm)

2.0”
(51 mm)
1-3/4”
(44 mm) B7X3-032
38 mm
(1-1/2”)
2”
(51 mm)

2.3”
(59 mm)
2”
(51 mm) B7X3-038
51 mm
(2”)
3”
(76 mm)

3.5”
(88 mm)
3-1/2”
(89 mm) B7X3-051
76 mm
(3”)
4-1/4”
(108 mm)

4.9”
(125 mm)
3-3/4”
(95 mm) B7X3-076
T30 1-7/8”
(46 mm)

2.2”
(59 mm)
1-3/8”
(35 mm) B7Y3-030
T40 2-1/2”
(65 mm)

2.9”
(73 mm)
2”
(51 mm) B7Y3-040
T52 3-1/8”
(80 mm)

3.6”
(92 mm)
2-3/4”
(70 mm) B7Y3-052
T76 4”
(102 mm)

4.6”
(117 mm)
3-1/8”
(80 mm) B7Y3-076
The bar can be centralized in the drill hole on 10’ centers by attaching a steel centraliz-er in front of the coupling during the drilling operation. Available plain or hot dip galvanized to ASTM A123. State drill hole diameter and bar size when ordering. ***Beveled washers must be used in conjunction with hardened washer.*** Bar Outside
Diameter
Overall
Length
Part
Number
32 mm 1-5/8”
(41 mm)
6-1/4”
(159 mm) B7X2-032
38 mm 2”
(51 mm)
7-5/8”
(194 mm) B7X2-038
51 mm 2-5/8”
(67 mm)
8-1/2”
(216 mm) B7X2-051
76 mm 3-7/8”
(98 mm)
9-7/8”
(251 mm) B7X2-076
T30 1-1/2”
(38 mm)
4-1/8”
(105 mm) B7Y2-030
T40 2-1/8”
(54 mm)
5-1/2”
(140 mm) B7Y2-040
T52 2-3/4”
(70 mm)
6-1/4”
(159 mm) B7Y2-052
T76 3-3/4”
(95 mm)
8-5/8”
(219 mm) B7Y2-076
Threaded Bar Profile
Couplings Stop-Type Coupling
Hex Nuts
R8M Beveled Washers
R9F Hardened Washers
B7XC Centralizers
The Hex Nuts designed
exclusively for the Geo-Drill
Injection Anchor system are a
full 100% ultimate tension or
compression strength compo-nent. They are manufactured
from a high strength steel com-plying with ASTM A108.

Hollow Bar Anchor System
Bar Degree
of Bevel
Outside
Diameter
Inside
Diameter
Maximum
Thickness
Minimum
Thickness
Part
Number
32 mm
& T30 15° 2-13/16” (71 mm)
1-5/16”
(33 mm)
1”
(25 mm)
5/16”
(8 mm) R8M-09S
38 mm 15° 3-3/8”
(86 mm)
1-3/4”
(45 mm)
1-1/4”
(32 mm)
3/8”
(10 mm) R8M-12S*38
T40 15° 3-1/2”
(89 mm)
2”
(51 mm)
1-1/4”
(32 mm)
3/8”
(10 mm) R8M-13S
51 mm
& T52 15° 5-1/4”(133 mm)
2-9/32”
(58 mm)
1-5/8”
(41 mm)
7/16”
(11 mm) R8M-16-150
76 mm
& T76 15° 6”(152 mm)
3-1/2”
(89 mm)
2-7/64”
(54 mm)
1/2”
(13 mm) R8M-24B7X
D-4
Hallllrlll' AIIDdlDa-....

Threaded Bar Profile
Couplings s top-T ,pe C oup/ina
Hex Nuts Hex Nuts
RBM Beveled Washers
R9F Hardened Washers
B7XC Centralizers
24 Accessories
Williams Geo-Drill Injection Anchors can be used as a choice for pre-tensioned anchors in loose or collapsing soils without the need for a casing. A free length must be installed onto the anchor if the project specifications call for a pre-tension load to be applied from the bond length. Please consult with a Williams specialist for suggestions to properly attach a free length sleeve. Note to Designer: Consult with Williams for an appropriate level of corrosion protection if prestressed ground anchors are intended to be used for a permanent application.

Williams Hollow Injection Bar offer an excellent choice for micropiles in difficult ground conditions where open-hole drilling isn’t possible. The continuously threaded bar profile lends itself perfectly for restricted headroom applications because the bar can be cut and coupled at any length. The FHWA has approved hollow bar anchors for permanent use in micropile applications.

The Geo-Drill Injection Anchor System is often used for spiling in NATM tunneling. Spiles are continuously drilled and grouted pre-support reinforcement to enable the heading of a tunnel to advance without the risk of falling debris. The anchors can also be used as face stabilization of portals.

Applications
In general, Williams recommends using the Geo-Drill Injection Anchor System in difficult soils that do not allow for open-hole drilling. Ground conditions featuring large voids or the presence of an artesian water condition are generally not suitable for a drilled and grouted hollow bar. In hard rock, conventional DTH (Down the Hole Hammers) in open-hole drilling offer a more efficient alternative. In all such cases, Williams offers solutions in their complete line of solid bar anchor systems and multi-strand tendon systems.

SB Sand/Clay Bit
Two stage cross cut drill bit, suitable for loose to
medium dense ground and fills.

Soil Types: Sand, Clay and Light Gravels
HC Hardened Bit
Hardened cross cut drill bit, suitable for the majority of applications including narrow bands of soft rock.

Soil Types: Fills and Medium Dense Gravels
BB Button Bit
Tungsten carbide hemispherical button drill bit for
moderately strong to strong rock, boulders and rubble.

Rock Types: Mudstone, Limestone, and Granite
CC Carbide Bit
Tungsten carbide cross-cut drill bit. Excellent choice for majority of granular soils with mixed hard formations.

Soil Types: Fills, Gravels, Shale & Seamy Rock
Formations
B7XB Drill Bits
Soil Nails are non-tensioned, in-situ reinforcement for the stability of excavations and embankments in top-down construc-tion. The Williams Geo-Drill Injection Anchor System is an ideal choice for soil nailing in difficult soils as it offers high installation rates. Hollow bar soil nails have been used extensively on private and select DOT permanent soil nail walls for years. With the 2015 edition of the FHWA Geotechnical Engineering Circular #7, hollow bar soil nails are specifically addressed and allowed for use in non-corrosive ground conditions. Consult your Williams’ Technical Representative for more information.

CB Cobble Bit
Offset face cross cut drill bit suitable for drilling in cobbles with silt and gravel as well as sedimentary
bedrock material.

Soil Nails
Prestressed Ground Anchors
Micropiles
Tunnel Spiles and Forepoling
Limitations of System
Hollow Bar Anchor System
Nominal
Bar
Diameter
Available Drill Bit Diameters

HC CC SB BB CB
32 mm
(1-1/4”)
2”
(51 mm)
2”
(51 mm)
5”
(127 mm)
2-1/2”
(65 mm)
4”
(102 mm)
2-1/2”
(65 mm)
2-1/2”
(65 mm) 3”
(76 mm) 3”
(76 mm)
3”
(76 mm) 3-1/2”
(89 mm) 3-1/2”
(89 mm)
3-1/2”
(89 mm) 4”
4” (102 mm)
(102 mm)
4”
(102 mm)
38 mm
(1-1/2”)
T30
T40
2-1/2”
(65 mm)
2-1/2”
(65 mm) 5”
(127 mm)
2-1/2”
(65 mm)
4”
(102 mm)
3”
(76 mm)
3”
3” (76 mm) (76 mm) 3-1/2”
(89 mm)
3-1/2”
3-1/2” (89 mm)
(89 mm) 6”
(152 mm)
4”
(102 mm)
4”
(102 mm)
4”
(102 mm) 4-1/2”
(114 mm)
5”
(127 mm)
51 mm
(2”) -
3”
(76 mm)
6”
(152 mm)
3”
(76 mm) 4-3/4”
(121 mm)
3-1/2”
(90 mm) 3-1/2”
(90 mm) 4”
(102 mm)
4-1/2”
(114 mm) 8”
(203
mm)
4”
(102
mm) 6”
(152
mm)
5”
(127 mm) 5”
(127
mm)
6”
(152 mm)
T52 - 4”
(102 mm)
7”
(178 mm) - -
76 mm
(3”)
T76
-
5”
(125 mm) 7”
(178 mm)
5”
(125 mm)
- 6”
(152 mm) 10”
(254 mm)
6”
(152 mm) 7”
(175 mm)
D-5
IHlallllrlll' AlldDa-....

Soil Nails
Prestressed Ground Anchors
Micropiles
Tunnel Spiles and Forepoling
Limitations of System
Welded Wire Mesh Reinforcement
Welded Wire Reinforcement Institute
D-6
Design Aids 6
U.S. CUSTOMARY (INCH-POUND) WIRE SIZES AND AREAS
TABLE 5 • SECTIONAL AREAS OF WELDED WIRE REINFORCEMENT
Wire Size Number* Nominal Nominal Area in Sq. In. Per Ft. Of Width For Various Spacing {area of steel x 100) Diameter Weight Center-To-Center Spacing Plain Inches LbsA.in. Ft. 3" 4" 6" 12" 18"
W45 .757 1.530 1.80 1.35 .90 .45 .30
W34 .658 1.160 1.36 1.02 .68 .34 23
W31 .628 1.054 1.24 .93 .62 .31 .21
W25 .564 .850 1.00 .75 .50 .25 .17
W23 .541 .782 .92 .69 .46 .23 15
W20 .505 .680 .80 .60 .40 .20 .13
W18 .479 .612 .72 .54 .36 .18 .12
W1 6 .451 .544 .64 .48 .32 .16 .11
W15 .437 .510 .60 .45 .30 .15 .10
W14 .422 .476 .56 .420 .28 .14 .090
W12 .391 .408 .48 .360 .24 .12 .080
W11 .374 .374 .44 .330 .22 .11 .073
W1 0.5 .366 .357 .42 .315 .21 .105 .070
W10 .357 .340 .40 .300 .20 .10 068
W9.5 .348 .323 .38 .285 .19 .095 .063
W9 .338 .306 .36 .270 .18 .090 .060
W8.5 .329 .329 .34 .255 .17 .085 .057
W8 .319 .272 .32 .240 .16 .080 .053
W7.5 .309 .309 .30 .225 .15 .075 .050
W7 .299 .238 .28 .210 .14 .070 .047
W6.5 .288 .221 .26 .195 .13 .065 043
W6 .276 .204 .24 .180 .12 .060 .040
W5.5 .265 .187 .22 .165 .11 .055 .037
W5 .252 .170 .20 .150 .10 .050 .033
W4.5 .239 .153 .18 .135 .09 .045
W4 _j .226 ~--136 .16 .12 .08 .040 ,_ W3.5 .211 - '.'TT9 .14 .105 .07 .035 W3 .195 .102 .12 .09 .06 .030
W2.9 .192 .098 .11 6 .087 .058 .029
W2.5 .178 .085 .100 .075 .050 .025
W2.1 .162 .070 .084 .063 .042 .021
W2 .160 .068 .080 .060 .040 .020
W1.5 .138 .051 .060 .045 .030 .015
W1.4 .134 .049 .056 .042 .028 .014
Examples Using Various Minimum Yield Strengths for Economy - Consider:
• Grade 60 wire by style 12X 12 - W31 /W31 (Standard)
• Grade 75 wire by style 12X12 - W25/W25 (20% savings by weight & steel area) • Grade 80 wire by style 12X12 - W23/W23 (25% savings by weight & steel area) Note: The above listing of plain wire sizes rep,eseots wires normally selected to manufacture welded wire reinforcement styles to speciiic areas of rooforcemenl Wires may be deformed using prefix D, except >Miere only Wis required on buiding codes (usuaDy less than W4). Wire sizes other than those i sled above may be available if the quan-tity required is sufficient to justify manufacture. 'The number following the prefix W identifies the cross-sectional area of the wire in hundredths of a square inch.

The nominal dmleter al a deformed wire is equivalent to the diameter of a plain wire ha-.ing the same weijlt per foot as the deformed-v.ire.

Refer to ACI 318 for The ACI Building Code requirements for tension development lengths and tension lap splices of welded wire reinforcement. For additional information see Welded Wire Reinforcement Manual of Standard Practice and Structural Welded Wire Reinforcement Detailing Manual, published by the Wire Reinforcement Institute.
19 Prefabricated Drainage Material
D-7
SITE0RAIN™ STRIP 6600

PREFABRICATED STRIP DRAIN

PRODUCT OVERVIEW
~ AWD
AMERICAN WICt< DRAIN
SIT[ORAIN Slrip 6600 geocomposile strip drai• products are composed ol a dimpled polymeric perlorated core fully wrapped in a nonwoven geotexlile. The geotextlie allows water to pass through while retaining backfill matenals. The perforated core allows water collection from all sides and pro,ides a continuous llow path to designaled drainage exits.

SITEDRAIN Strip 6600 products provide a value engineered alternative to pertorated pipe and aggregate subsurface drainage systems requiring moderate strength, high flow capacity, and a geotextile meeting AASHTO M288 Class 2 subsurface drainage requirements.

PROPERTY 1
~
TEST METHOO UNIT OF MEASURE I Typical Value MARV - GEOTEXTILE t1ateria1 2 PP, NPNIY PP, NPNIY MODEL WIDTH
Survivability AASHTO M288 >- Class 2 2 6606 ~
Grab Tensile lbs 195 160
ASTM 04632 Strength N 867 712 66~ 12
- ~ T -- -
Grab Elongation ASTM 04632 % 60 50 6612 11'
lbs 505 410
CBR Puncture ASTM06241 66!! 18'
N 2,246 1.824
lbs I 85 60
Trapezoidal Tear ASTM 04533 N I 378 267
"" 18'
662/i ,,. UV Resistance ASTM 04355 % / 500 Hrs 70 70
Apparent Opening sieve 70 70
ASTM 04751 SizelAOS)' mm L 0.212 0.212
- - -- -
6614 21·
6636 36"
Permittivity ASTM 04491 sec·
1 2.1 1.5
J
gpm/ft1 l 155 110
Water Flow Rane ASTM 04491
Lpm/m' 6,315 4,482
CORE - -- - Compressive ASTM 06364 psf 6,000
~
Strength ASTM 0!621 kPa 287 -
1 in 1.0 Thickness ASTM 05199 - mm 25.4
In-Plane Flow Rate' ASTM 04716 gpm/ft
Lpm/m
21 261 t
1 Unless otherwise noted, all physical and performance properties listed are Typical Value or Hinimum A\ferage Roll Value (HARV) as delin.ed in ASTM 04-439. 1 PP= Pofypropylene; NPNW = Heedle-Punched Non.woven; WM= Woven Honolilament: SBNW = Spunbonded Nonwoven 3 Values for AOS represent Ka•imum Average RoU ValuelHaxARV~ - In-plane flow rate measured at 3,600 psi 072 kPa) compressive foad and a hydraulic gradient of 0.1.

ROLL
LENGTH
l50'
l50'
500'
l50'
500'
l50'
500'
too'
All technical mformalion contained in this document is accurate as of publication. A\VO reserves !he right to male changes to producls and litera1u1e without notice.

Plea$E! refer to our ~ebsi1e for the most current technical information available.

ROLL
WEIGHT
271bs
51 lbs
l70 1bs
11~,
240 Ibs
9' 1bs
3'131bs
941bs
101.oliQ
11190
10'11l
11100
104!0
11~0
10490
Am•rican Wick Drain • 1209 Airporl Road, Monro•, NC 28110 USA • TF: +1.800.242.9425 • PH: +1.704.238.9200 • EHAII.: [email protected] WEB: awd-usa.com 20l8SOSl6rol
E-1
Appendix E - Micropile Testing
E-2
Testing Procedure and Equipment
The testing procedure for micropile elements is described as following: The reaction frame will be sufficiently rigid and of adequate dimensions so that excessive deformation of the testing equipment does not occur. The configuration of the testing apparatus will be designed so that the jack, bearing plates, and stressing anchorage will not need to be repositioned during a test.

The load will be applied with a hydraulic jack and measured with a pressure gauge. The pressure gauge will be graduated in 100 psi increments or less. Ram travel will be sufficient to allow the test to be done without resetting the equipment. All rams, pressure gauges, and pumps will have been calibrated with each other within the last 12 months by an independent accredited laboratory. Calibrated jacks, gages, and pumps will have identifiable serial numbers to insure traceability to calibration tests.

Movement of the pile head shall be measured with a dial gauge capable of measuring to the nearest 0.001 inch. The gauge will be visually aligned to be parallel with the axis of the micropile and shall be supported independently of the jack or reaction frame.

Testing shall be performed by incrementally loading the test piles per to the subsequent loading schedules. The test load shall be monitored by a jack pressure gauge with sensitivity and range meeting the requirements of pressure gauges used for pile testing.

The micropile movements shall be recorded at each load increment.

Testing on Micropiles
All micropile testing will be performed in tension and on five percent of production elements. Test locations will be selected at random, and all testing will occur on production elements installed within the repair limits. Testing will be completed based on the information provided above and in the construction drawings.

Appendix F - Construction Details
I
l
t
:
;
i
!

BLUFF STABILIZATION PLANS
~ {!; ;, ~
? ~-'IP
ro 1l {1'
r, i 11}:
~ ~ 0
,:r,
~
~ ?J
:t. ~ 4,,'l- ;s· ,w ,:!
! APPROXIMATE .S'
.PROJECT LOCATION 0
LAT: 32.99029
LONG: -11 7.27413 i -e ..,.

VICINITY MAP
(NOT TO SCALE)

LAS BRISAS CONDOMINIUMS

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH, CA

LAS BR/SAS HOA

SHEET INDEX
NO. DESCRIPTION
C-01 COVER SHEET
C-02 GENERAL NOTES
C-03 GENERALNOTES (CONT.)
C-04 EXISTING SITE & ACCESS PLAN
C-05 PROJECT SITE PLAN
C-06 SECTION VIEW - CUTOFF WALL
C-07 CUTOFF WALL DETAILS
C-08 MICROPILE ANCHOR DETAILS
C-09 MICROPILE CAP DETAILS
C-10 SECTION VIEW - RSS SYSTEM
C-1 1 PHASE II MITIGATION SECTION
C-12 MICROPILE TESTING DETAILS
C-13 DRILL LOGS
t1-----s-'H_E_E_T_u_ v1_s_1_o_N_s _____ PR_o_J_Ec_T_N-AM_E_:-------------------------------...-------------------....-~-:::::-==-=-:::-~-...._------1 ! DATE DESCRIPTION NO
i 09/01/21 ISSUED FOR REVIEW I 10,20,21 ISSUED FOR PERMIT IFP LAS BR/SAS CONDOMINIUMS ! 1------+-------------+-----t 11-----+------------+----+--------------------------------------...... ~ 1------+-------------+-----t SHEET TITLE:
,------------------
! t t------+-------------+-----t
l THIS DRAWING IS FURNISHED SOLELY FOR THE USE OF OR IN CONNECTION V-.,TH THIS

PROJECT AND THE PROPRIETARY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON IS NOT TO BE

TRANSMITTED TO ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION WITHOUT SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATION BY GEOSTABILIZATION INTERNATIONAL. (GSI). THE DESIGN IS ONLY VALID IF

CONSTRUCTED AND SUPERVISED BY GSI OR ITS AUTHORIZED SUBCONTRACTOR DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:

MAC JDR

COVERSHEET
DATE: PROJECT NUMBER: SHEET
10/20/21 210487CA01 C-01
C75196
6eo5mblllzatlon lntematlonalGD !'----4
Phone: 855.579.0536 I Fax: 970.245.7737
www. geostabi lization. com
ATTACHMENT 2
GENERAL NOTES:
• GSI WILL BE THE LEAD FOR JOB SITE CONDITIONS AND SAFETY DURING CONSTRUCTION HOURS. THE JOB SITE WILL BE KEPT REASONABLY SECURE TO DETER UNAUTHORIZED ENTRY OR TAMPERING. HOWEVER, THOSE WHO ENTER THE CONSTRUCTION ZONE WITHOUT ENTRY WILL BE CONSIDERED TO BE TRESPASSING.
• GSI WILL USE UTILITY ONE CALL SERVICES, REQUEST UTILITY MAPS, AND REQUEST POTHOLING AS NEEDED TO LOCATE AND MARK KNOWN UTILITIES. .. DIG ALERT: DIAL 811, OR DIGALERT.ORG
.. CITY OF SOLANA BEACH PUBLIC WORKS: 858-720-2470
• AT THE END OF EACH WORK DAY GSI WILL LEAE THE WORK AREA FREE OF HAZARDS,

AND PROVIDE TEMPORARY SIGNS, WARNING DEVICES, AND/OR BARRICADES, AS NEEDED.
• GSI WILL KEEP RECORDS OF THE DRILLING CONDITIONS, GROUT MIX SPECIFIC GRAVITY AND OTHER NOTES ON THESE PLANS AS NEEDED TO PROVIDE AS-BUil T INFORMATION TO THE OWNER AFTER PROJECT COMPLETION.
• GSI UNDERSTANDS THE WORKING HOURS FOR THIS SITE TO BE 7:00 A.M. AND 7 P.M.

EACH DAY, MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY.
• GSI WILL NOTIFY THE CITY OF SOLANA BEACH AT (858) 720-2470, AT LEAST 24 HOURS BEFORE THE FIRST DAY OR THE PROJECT.

STANDARD REQUIREMENTS:

GSI WILL PERFORM THE WORK IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH THE LATEST EDITION AND SUPPLEMENTS OF THE "STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION,"

SAN DIEGO REGIONAL STANDARD DRAWINGS AND CITY OF SOLANA BEACH ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS.

ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS ADDRESSES
298-010-54-0001 THROUGH -36 135 S SIERRA AVE
EROSION CONTROL NOTES:
• GSI WILL PLACE SILT FENCE AT THE TOE OF THE SLOPE (TOP OF THE SEA WALL) TO LIMIT ERODED SOILS FROM REACHING THE PUBLIC BEACH.
• GSI WILL USE DIKES, BERMS OR TRENCHES TO LIMIT STORMWATER WATER FLOWING OVER CRESTS OF THE SLOPE.
• GSI WILL USE WATER AS NEEDED TO MINIMIZE AIR BORNE DUST ON THE SITE.

HOUSE KEEPING:
• THE SITE WILL BE ORGANIZED AND CLEAR OF ANY TRASH OR DEBRIS. ALL TRASH WILL BE PLACED IN A PROPER CONTAINER AND REMOVED AT THE END OF EACH WORK DAY.

SAFETY:
• ALL SAFETY PLANS FOR LIFTING, HEARING, DUST CONTROL, PPE ETC. WILL BE IN PLACE AND FOLLOWED ACCORDINGLY. PPE INCLUDES SAFETY VEST, STEEL TOED SHOES,

HARD HAT, SAFETY GLASSES, RESPIRATOR DURING OUST PRODUCING ACTIVITIES, AND GLOVES.
• GSI WILL GENERATE A SITE SPECIFIC HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN THAT MUST BE

EMPLOYEE CERTIFICATIONS:
• ACI SHOTCRETE NOZZLEMEN CERTIFICATION
• 10-HOUR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEAL TH TRAINING COURSE IN CONSTRUCTION

SAFETY & HEAL TH
• AMERICAN RED CROSS STANDARD FIRST AID TRAINING
SHEET REVISIONS PROJECT NAME:

ANTICIPATED CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCEM/ORK SCHEDULE:

1. DELINEATE LIMITS OF STABILIZATION. NOTIFY LOCAL UTILITIES PROVIDERS TO LOCATE AND MARK POTENTIAL UNDERGROUND FACILITIES. DAYLIGHTING OF UTILITIES IN POTENTIAL CONFLICT, AS NECESSARY (BY OTHERS).

2. PREPARE THE WORK AREA FOR MICROPILE INSTALLATION AND CUTOFF WALL CONSTRUCTION:

2.1. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL FENCE AT THE TOP OF THE EXISTING SEAWALL TO LIMIT SOIL EROSION DURING CONSTRUCTION.

2.2. MINOR RE-SHAPING OF EXISTING SCARP AND SURROUNDING GRADES MAY BE REINFORCING STEEL PLACEMENT:
• RIENFORCEEING STEEL FOR THIS PROJECT SHALL BE EPOXY COATED OR GALVANZIED. • WELDED WIRE MESH WILL BE PLACED ON BOTH SIDES OF THE EXTENDED 51 mm MICROPILES AS SHOWN IN THESE DRAWINGS.
• NO. 5 REBAR WILL BE TIED TO THE SOUTH WIRE MESH. FOLLOW SPACING AND SPLICE LENGTHS AS SHOWN IN THESE DRAWINGS.
• NO. 5 REBAR WILL ALSO BE USED FOR THE MICROPILE CAP. FOLLOW SPACING AND SPLICE LENGTHS AS SHOWN IN THESE DRAWINGS.

NEEDED TO FACILITATE CONSTRUCTION OF THE MICROPILE CUTOFF WALL. MICROPILE CAP PLATES:

3. INSTALLATION OF MICROPILE ELEMENTS. EACH ELEMENT WILL BE GROUTED DURING EXTEND BEYOND THE TOP HEX NUTS, THEY WILL BE TRIMMED.

DRILLING UNLESS DIRECTED OTHERWISE BY GSI ENGINEER.

4. CONSTRUCT THE CUTOFF WALL:

4.1. PLACE REINFORCING STEEL AND DRAIN STRIPS PER THESE DRAWINGS.

4.2. USE WOOD OR SIMILAR FORMWORK ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE CUTOFF WALL TO FACILITATE SHOTCRETE PLACEMENT.

4.3. PLACE SHOTCRETE FROM THE BOTTOM UP TO THE REQUIRED THICKNESS DETAILED IN THESE PLANS.

5. PREPARE AREA NORTH OF THE CUTOFF WALL FOR REINFORCED SOIL SLOPE SYSTEM INSTALLATION. MINOR GRUBBING AND GRADING MAY BE NECESSARY.

6. INSTALL REINFORCED SOIL SLOPE SYSTEM IN LIFTS AS DETAILED IN THESE DRAWINGS AND PER THE MANUFACTURER INSTALLATION PROCEDURES.

7. SITE CLEANUP AND DEMOBILIZATION FROM SITE.

7.1. CONCRETE, GROUT, AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS WILL BE REMOVED PERIODICALLY THROUGHOUT THE WORK.

7.2. FINAL CLEANUP OF THE SITE TO INCLUDE REASONABLE HAND CLEANING METHODS LIKE SWEEPING, SPRAYING WITH WATER AND REMOVAL OF TRASH AND DEBRIS.

MAJOR LANDSCAPING SHOULD NOT BE NEEDED IF PROPER ACCESS IS GRANTED TO GSI THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT.

AND MAY BE REMOVED AFTER DRILLING OR LEFT AT THE PROJECT FOR THE CONTRACTOR'S CONVENIENCE. SACRIFICIAL DRILL BITS ARE NOT END PRODUCTS.

REINFORCED SOIL SLOPE (RSS) SYSTEM:

HIGH PERFORMANCE TURF REINFORCEMENT MAT (HPTRM)
•
•
•
•

MATERIAL IS THREE-DIMENSIONAL, LOFTY WOVEN POLYPROPYLENE HPTRM

MATRIX COMPOSED OF TRILOBAL MONOFILAMENT YARNS WOVEN INTO UNIFORM

CONFIGURATION OF RESILIENT PYRAMID-LIKE PROJECTIONS THAT MINIMIZE WATERING REQUIREMENTS WHILE ENHANCING VEGETATION ESTABLISHMENT.

MUST BE A HOMOGENEOUS MATRIX, AND NOT COMPRISED OF LAYERS, COMPOSITES,

OR DISCONTINUOUS MATERIALS, OR OTHERWISE LOOSELY HELD TOGETHER BY STITCHED OR GLUED NETTING.

THE HPTRM SHOULD MEET THE FOLLOWING VALUES:

PROPERTY TEST METHOD UNITS MINIMUM

REQUIREMENT
THICKNESS ASTM 06525 IN 0.4
LIGHT PENETRATION ASTM D6567 % 10
TENSILE STRENGHT ASTM D6818 LB/FT 4000 X 3000
TENSILE ELONGATION ASTM D6818 % 40X 35
RESILIENCY ASTM D6524 % 80
FLEXIBILITY ASTM D6575 IN-LB 0.534
UV RESISTANCE ASTM4355 % 90 AT 6000 hrs
• WOOD OR PLASTIC STAKES, OR STEEL PINS ARE USED TO PIN-DOWN THE GEOTEXTILE

NEAR THE BACK OF THE REINFORCEMENT ZONE TO HOLD THE GEOTEXTILE TAUT WHILE ALIGNING THE WALL FACE AND PLACING SOIL BACKFILL. THESE ARE INSTALLED AS NEEDED ALONG THE HPTRM, BUT AT A FREQUENCY NO LESS THAN 1 PER 6 LINEAL FEET. THE STAKES OR PINS SHALL BE 9 TO 12 IN LONG.
• BACKFILL WILL COMPRISE GENERAL FILL WITH A UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM DESIGNATION OF SIL TY SAND (SM).
.. THE SM MATERIAL WILL CONSIST OF INERT EARTH MATERIALS WITH LESS THAN 3% ORGANICS OR OTHER DELETERIOUS SUBSTANCES.
.. FILL WILL BE PLACED IN UNIFORM, MAXIMUM 12-INCH LIFTS. •• FILL IN THE UPPER 12 INCHES OF THE GRADED SLOPE FACE WILL NOT BE COMPACTED DUE TO LACK OF CONFINEMENT.
•• FILL BEHIND THE UPPER 12 INCHES OF THE GRADED SLOPE FACE WILL BE COMPACTED TO AT LEAST 90% OF THE MATERIALS MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND BE

UNIFORMLY MOISTURE CONDITIONED TO AT LEAST THE OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT AS DETERMINED BYASTM 01557.

DATE DESCRIPTION NO
09/01/21 ISSUED FOR REVIEW IFR
10/20/21 ISSUED FOR PERMIT IFP LAS BRISAS CONDOMINIUMS
1----1---------------1-----t SHEET TITLE:

THIS DRAWING IS FURNISHED SOLELY FOR THE USE OF OR IN CONNECTION l'.1TH THIS

PROJECT AND THE PROPRIETARY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON IS NOT TO BE

DRAWN BY:

MAC

GENERAL NOTES
CHECKED BY: DATE:

JDR 10/20/21
PROJECT NUMBER:
210487CA01
SHEET
C-02
&eoStablllzatlon International®
Phone: 855.579.0536 I Fax: 970.245.7737
www.geostabilization.com
C75196

RSS ANCHOR DETAILS
M8:t.eria Is
Anchor Head
cable Tendon
TYPE 83 ANCHOR PROPERTIES
Material ComPOSltion
Hot Dip Galvanized Ductile
Iron
Galvanized Steel
Ph)'slcsl Propertle9
i,.4dJnx1.841nxcwt> in
(163.3 mm x 46.7 mm x 59.9 mm)
Bearim! ArcA: 10.3 in• 166.5 cm'1
D'.ametei: 0.1B75 In (4.8 mm)
Lower Termination Aluminum Length: 0.65 in (15.5 mm). Wall Thlckne$S: 0.11 in (2.8 mm) Load Bearing Plate Zinc,,Aluminum

5.98 In x6.6 In x0.75 In
(151.9 mm x; 167 .6 mm x 19.1 mm)
Boarin• Arca: 17.43 in' (l.12.5 cm')
ITop Termination Zinc-Aluminum
Circumf erentlal Trlpple W&dgo Grip Assembly ID ElimiM!<! Clmle Pinch Poin:s Grip to cable contact Surface Area: 0.505 In' (3.3 cm') Grtp to Coble eon= Rmlo: 97% of cable Diometbr
ll"'fMTOITill!lnce ........-nnAr rlff"l
Ultimate Assembly Strength 2800 lb (12.46 kN) Typical Working load I 2000 lb (8.9 kN) Ultimate Cable Strength 3700 lb (16.46 kN) Embedment Depth I 6-12 ft (1.83-3.66 m) SHOTCRETE MIX DESIGN:
• SHOTCRETE SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ACI 506.2, "SPECIFICATIONS FOR MATERIALS, PROPORTIONING AND APPLICATION OF SHOTCRETE", EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. SHOTCRETING CONSISTS OF APPLYING ONE OR MORE LAYERS

OF CONCRETE CONVEYED THROUGH A HOSE PNEUMATICALLY PROJECTED AT A HIGH VELOCITY AGAINST A PREPARED SURFACE.
• THE WET-MIX PROCESS CONSISTS OF THOROUGHLY MIXING ALL THE INGREDIENTS,

STABILIZERS, RETARDERS) MAY BE USED PER THE MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS AND UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A GSI ENGINEER.

GS/ STANDARD SHOTCRETE MIX DESIGN (PER YIY)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION WEIGHT(LBS)
AGGREGATE NO. 1 i" ROCK, AASHTO M80, CLASS B 650
AGGREGATE NO. 2 CONCRETE SAND, CLEAN, NATURAL 1800
AIR 6%TOTAL - WATER CLEAN AND POTABLE 300
FLY ASH TYPE F ORC 150
CEMENT TYPEV 750
TOTAL - 3710
GS/ HOT WEATHER SHOTCRETE MIX DESIGN (PER YD3
)
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION WEIGHT(LBS.)
AGGREGATE NO. 1 i" ROCK, AASHTO M80, CLASS B 600
AGGREGATE NO. 2 CONCRETESAND,CLEAN,NATURAL 1800
AIR 6%TOTAL - WATER CLEAN AND POTABLE 315
FLY ASH TYPE FOR C 300
CEMENT TYPEV 700
TOTAL -- 3710
SHEET REVISIONS PROJECT NAME:

FRONT FACE OF THE REINFORCEMENT CLEAN DURING PLACEMENT OPERATIONS, SO

THAT SHOTCRETE BUILDS UP FROM BEHIND, TO ENCASE THE REINFORCEMENT AND PREVENT VOIDS OR POCKETS FROM FORMING.
• SHOTCRETE THICKNESS TOLERANCE SHALL BE MINUS ONE INCH - PLUS TWO INCHES.

SPECIFIED DEPTH WITH DRILLING GROUT MIX HOLE SHOULD BE FLUSHED WITH

STANDARD GROUT MIX AND NAIL HOLE SWABBED TO AID IN DRILLING GROUT MIX REPLACEMENT.
• IF VOIDS ARE ENCOUNTERED AND GROUT LOSS IS EXPERIENCED CONTACT GSI

STANDARD GROUT MIX DESIGN
MATERIAL WEIGHT (LBS.) VOLUME (FT3
) FIELD UNIT VOLUME
WATER 235-282 3.8-4.5 28 - 34 GALLONS
CEMENT (TYPE 1/11) 470 2.4 5 BAGS (94 LBS.)
TOTAL UNIT 705- 752 6.1 - 6.9 -- W/C RATIO -- -- 0.5 - 0.6 SPECIFIC GRAVITY -- -- 1.84 - 1.75

DRILLING GROUT MIX DESIGN
MATERIAL WEIGHT (LBS.) VOLUME (FT3
) FIELD UNIT VOLUME
WATER 235-282 3.8-4.5 28 - 34 GALLONS
CEMENT (TYPE 1/11) 188 0.9 2 BAGS (94 LBS.)
TOTAL UNIT 423 - 470 4.7 - 5.5 -- W/C RATIO -- -- 1.25 - 1.5 SPECIFIC GRAVITY -- -- 1.44 - 1.38

DATE DESCRIPTION NO
09/01/21 ISSUED FOR REVIEW
10/20/21 ISSUED FOR PERMIT IFP

LAS BRISAS CONDOMINIUMS
1-----1--------------+----I SHEET TITLE:

THIS DRAWING IS FURNISHED SOLELY FOR THE USE OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS PROJECT AND THE PROPRIETARY INFORMATION SHOw.'I HEREON IS NOT TO BE

DRAWN BY:

MAC
GENERAL NOTES (CONT.)
CHECKED BY: DATE:

JDR 10/20/21
PROJECT NUMBER:
210487CA01
SHEET
C-03
QUALITY CONTROL:
• GSI WILL CONDUCT OR OBTAIN QUALIFIED PERSONNEL TO CONDUCT THE FOLLOWING QUALITY CONTROL TESTING DURING THE PROJECT.

QUALITY CONTROL SCHEDULE

DESCRIPTION FREQUENCY

DILL LOGS EVERY MICROPILE
PROOF NAIL TEST 5% OF PRODUCTION NAILS,
TEST AFTER 48 HRS

MUD BALANCE ONCE EACH DAY OF READINGS (SPECIFIC

GRAVITY) GROUTING
1 SET OF 3 CUBES PER GROUT CUBES EVERY 10 PILES INSTALLED 2 PRODUCTION PANELS SHOTCRETE PANELS THROUGHOUT PROJECT fi!illl
&eoStabtllzation lnt:ernat:lonal®
Phone: 855.579.0536 I Fax: 970.245.7737
www.geostabilization.com

REFERENCE/ CRITERIA

RECORD DATA PER SHEET
C-14
FHWA 05-039, 2005
SEE SHEET C-03 & C-14 FOR

MIX DESIGN AND DATA LOG
ASTM C-109/AASHTO T106. 3, 7
& 28 DAY STRENGTH. 4000 PSI
28-DAY.

ASTM C1140, 1500 PSI. 3, 7 & 28
DAY STRENGTH. 5000 PSI
28-DAY.

SHEET REVISIONS PROJECT NAME:

DATE DESCRIPTION NO
09/01/21 ISSUED FOR REVIEW IFR
10/20/21 ISSUED FOR PERMIT IFP
J-----+-----------+-----1 SHEET TITLE:

THIS DRAWING IS FURNISHED SOLELY FOR THE USE OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS

PROJECT AND THE PROPRIETARY INFORMATION SHOWI-J HEREON IS NOT TO BE

DRAWN BY:

MAC
6' PAST THE END OF THE

SEAWALL END OF

CONSTRUCTION ZONE

LAS BRISAS CONDOMINIUMS

EXISTING SITE & ACCESS PLAN
CHECKED BY: DATE:

JDR 10/20/21
PROJECT NUMBER:
210487CA01
SHEET
C-04
NOTES:

1. BACKGROUND IMAGE OBTAINED FROM GS! DRONE
FLIGHT AERIAL IMAGERY, FLOWN ON 8/25/21.

EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY DATA OBTAINED FROM

PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES, PLSA JOB
#2710.

2. CONSTRUCTION ACCESS CORRIDOR IS LOCATED

ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE LAS BRISAS
CONDOMINIUMS. CARE SHOULD BE TAKEN TO

LIMIT IMPACT TO THE CONDOMINIUM AND PUBLIC
ACCESS IN THE AREA.

3. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT

SHALL BE MOVED FROM THE STAGING SITE AND

RESTORE THE STAGING TO ITS
PRIOR-TO-CONSTRUCTION CONDITION WITHIN 72
HRS FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT.

4. GSI TO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION BARRIER

DURING WORKING HOURS TO SEPARATE WORK
ZONE FROM OPEN PUBLIC BEACH. LATERAL

PUBLIC ACCESS SHALL BE PROVIDED PAST THE
SITE AT ALL TIMES.

5. GSI WILL USE A PLASTIC OR SIMILAR BARRIER TO

PROTECT THE BUILDING FROM SHOTCRETE
OVERSPRA Y. ANTICIPATE DRAPING FROM THE
3RD DECK TO GROUND LEVEL.
0 &eo!it:ablllzatlon International®
Phone: 855.579.0536 I Fax: 970.245.7737
www.geostabilization.com
w
♦~ ~
10' 20' 40'
C75196
SHEET REVISIONS PROJECT NAME:

DATE DESCRIPTION NO
09/01/21 ISSUED FOR REVIEW IFR
10/20/21 ISSUED FOR PERMIT IFP
L-----'1--------------!-----t SHEET TITLE:

THl!~~E~;~~~ ~~ti~~~~ ~$~~~~~~R~T~;; i:o~~~~~~iTi1
~~/;1~~His DRAWN BY: TRANSMITTED TO ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION WITHOUT SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATION BY CON~~~~~~l~l~~~~~~~~~:i ~1~~1 cgi1
lrsn:~l;;~~z~~ i:a\l'o":i~rTOR MAC

DRILL LOWER MICROPILE

INTO EXISTING SEAWALL

RETURN TO REPAIR
BREACH IN WALL.

LAS BRISAS CONDOMINIUMS

PROJECT SITE PLAN
CHECKED BY: DATE:

JDR 10/20/21
PROJECT NUMBER:
210487CA01
SHEET
C-05
'~
NOTES:

1. BACKGROUND IMAGE OBTAINED FROM GSI
DRONE FLIGHT ON 8/25/21. EXISTING

TOPOGRAPHY DATA OBTAINED FROM

PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES,
PLSA JOB #2710.
w
♦~ 3:
0 10' 20' 40'
C75196
&eo!itablllzation lnt:emational®
Phone: 855.579.0536 I Fax: 970.245.7737
www.geostabilization.com

PROPOSED

SHOTCRETE WALL

KEY IN SHOTCRETE
BASE MIN. 6" BELOW

SURROUNDING GRADE

EXISTING

SEAWALL

DOWELL REBAR, MIN
12", AT END STATION

INTO EXISTING

SEAWALL

SHOTCRETE CONNECTION

TO EXISTING SEAWALL
~ MICROPILE CAP TO
~ SHOTCRETE CONNECTION
STRIP DRAINS SPACED EVERY 61
,
@ SLOT DRAINS INTO 4" CORRUGATED PIPE,

SHOOT DRAIN INTO THE BASE OF SHOTCRETE

WALL AND DAYLIGHT TOWARDS THE BEACH

BLUFF SURFACE SOUTH OF

PROPOSED WALL ALIGNMENT

REINFORCED SHOTCRETE

TO OVERLAP EXISTING
SEAWALL MIN 12"
@ 18" SPACING

BETWEEN

MICROPILES I
@ SOLID HATCH INDICATES \§:§I_} STRUCTURALSHOTCRETE

REINFORCED SHOTCRETE

CONNECTION TO EXISTING
SEAWALL.
4" CORRUGATED PIPE OUTLET TO

DAYLIGHT AND DRAIN WATER OVER

TOP OF EXISTING SEAWALL

REBAR DOWELING I
I
EXISTING CONCRETE ~ :,
SEAWALL RETURN ""I
EMBEDME~::S=

RETURN WALL UNKNOWN
~ SHEET REVISIONS PROJECT NAME:

DATE DESCRIPTION NO
09/01/21 ISSUED FOR REVIEW IFR
10/20/21 ISSUED FOR PERMIT IFP
1-----1------------+-----1 SHEET TITLE:

LAS BR/SAS CONDOMINIUMS

SECTION VIEW - CUTOFF WALL

THIS DRAWING IS FURNISHED SOLELY FOR THE USE OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS

PROJECT AND THE PROPRIETARY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON IS NOT TO BE

DRAWN BY:

MAC
CHECKED BY:

JDR
DATE:
10/20/21
PROJECT NUMBER:
210487CA01
SHEET
C-06

LAS BRISAS CONDOMINIUMS
10'

MICROPILE
CAP
PROPOSED MICROPILES @ TO EXTEND 10' BEHIND A
(EAST) EXPOSED SCARP C-08

BOTTOM OF STRUCTURAL
SHOTCRETE. KEY IN
SHOTCRETE 6" MINIMUM

BELOW SURROUNDING GRADE

ALL MICROPILE TO BE

EMBEDDED A MINIMUM
OF 5' INTO TORREY

SANDSTONE FORMATION
&eo!il:ablllzatlon lnb!rnatlonal®
Phone: 855.579.0536 I Fax: 970.245.7737
www.geostabilization.com
z
0 ~ ~
0::::
0 u..
1-
z
0 0..
~ co
w
>- z wO
0:::: l-o:::: Cf)
0 0
I- z
<(
Cf)
LAYER
TWO LAYERS W4.0x4x4 EPOXY C
(OR GALVANIZED) MESH; ONE

ON EACH SIDE OF MICR
OATED~
OPILES
NOMINAL 811 REINFORCE

SHOTCRET
~ ------------
D .... CONTINUOUS NO.5 EPOXY COATE
(OR GALVANIZED) WALERS, SPACIN
18". PLACED ON TOP OF MESH 0

SOUTH SIDE OF MICROPILES
SPLICE LENGTH OF 30 ~~
,_~ ,_
I"-
, ......
r--
r-::,,-
"
t ........... y
--
1-'-
--I-.....

I-.....
-- '-~ t-i-
---.... --i 1--
11,,_
,--
1-'-
~
I-I-
~
I-I-I-
'-
'-
'-
'-
~
I~

SELF-DRILLING MICROPILE

4.5" BITTYP
8"

NOMINAL
2 LAYERS 4x4x4.0 EPOXY

COATED (OR GALVANIZED)

KEY IN SHOTCRETE
BASE MINIMUM 611 BELOW

SURROUNDING GRADE
® ~T~CTIONAL VIEW 2" MIN DISTANCE

TO REINFORCEMENT
,_ -
18" SPACING, GALVANIZED (OR STAIN

STEEL PENDING MATERIAL AVAILAB
X51 MICROPILES. PILES SHOU
EMBEDDED A MIN. OF 5' INTO UNDER

TORREY SANDSTONE FORM
LESS~ ILITY)
LD BE .

LYING
ATION
>--- >--- ~ -- >--- ,__ - -- '- - SHOTCRETE
4" DRAIN PIPE
NVIEW i I ~A NF.TA.SC. E-0 SIDE VIEW

DRAIN STRIP

DRAIN STRIP
4" DRAIN PIPE

CONNECTOR

FRONT VIEW
I ◊ ® ~T~AIN CONNECTION DETAIL
~,----;;-;;;;::;:-;:;-;;-;~~;;:------,-==:-:".":".=------------------..l--------=::::..-,------------------;;;;:=:";:..--_J l SHEET REVISIONS PROJECT NAME: ,J' i 09/01/21 ISSUED FOR REVIEW !FR
i ~D....,..AT=E::--r-----D~E--SC_,_R-IP_T_IO-N---~-N0---1 i 10/20/21 ISSUED FOR PERMIT IFP LASBRISASCONDOMINIUMS
! t----+------------+-----l
-
I tt-====!=====================t===~+---------------------------------------J , SHEET TITLE:
't----+------------+-----l
• i t----+------------+-----l CUTOFF WALL DETAILS I 1-----+-------------+-----I ; t----+------------+-----l i~~;;;::;;;:;-;;;~:;;::::::::;-~;-:;:;::-:-::::-:::;::::;::::::::::=::-::::-::::::+--------....----------r-----------------------J • THIS DRAVVING IS FURNISHED SOLELY FOR THE USE OF OR IN CONNECTION WTH THIS DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: PROJECT NUMBER: SHEET / PROJECT AND THE PROPRIETARY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON IS NOT TO BE ! TRANSMITTED TO ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION VVITHOUT SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATION BY fieo!it:abillzatlon lnt:ernatlonal®
Phone: 855.579.0536 I Fax: 970.245.7737
www. geostabilization. com
C75196
t GEOSTABILIZATION INTERNATIONAL. (GSI). THE DESIGN IS ONLY VALID IF ~ '--c-oN_sm_u_cT-ED_A-ND-su_PE-Rv_1se_D_BY-Gs_1 o_R1_rs_AU-TH-oR_1ze_D_su_Bc_oN-TRA.;,.;c;.;.;ro;.;.;R·...1, __ ___;M.;.;,;A:..;.C,;;_ __ ..L __ ....:;:J:.::;D;.:.R;.._ __ ..L. __ 1~0:.:,:f2;,;;;0:.:,:f2;.:1 __ _,J__,.:2:.,1~0::,4:;_87~C~A~0~1--L ___ C::,-:;0:.!,7 ___ L ______________ _J_ ___ _::::::=::::::_ __ __J !
' l
i
~
i
i
~
~ BEARING PLATE WITH

NUT TOP AND BOTTOM

GROUND SURFACE
GROUT

SELF-DRILLING

MICROPILE

4.5" MIN. BIT

DIAMETER
0 ~T~CHOR DETAIL
$
UJ
>
z
0 l-o
UJ
U)
UJ
UJ
U)
U)
w
0:::
~

FIELD INSTALLED GROUT

GROUT ABSORPTION
BEYOND BORE HOLE 0

INJECTION ANCHOR

BORE HOLE
® ~l~ROPILE SECTION

MICROPILE HOLE
DIAMETER= 2-1/4"
6" ,.. --1
~~
1/2"
0 ~l~ROPILE BEARING PLATE
IL-D-AT_E ___ sH_E_'E_T_RE __ v1,_s_1_o_w._s ____ ,...PR_o_J_Ec_T_N_A-ME-:-------------------------------,---------------,r---:;~===:;~;::--, .... ! 09/01/21 ISSUEDFOff~~~~l~TION ~~ LAS BRISAS CONDOMINIUMS j 10/20/21 ISSUED FOR PERMIT IFP it-----+------------t-----i
i_:
1-----+-----------+----t SHEET TITLE:
it-----+------------t-----i i I----+-----------+---;
lt-----+------------t-----i
f 1-----+------------t-----i
DRAWN BY: j THIS DRAWING IS FURNISHED SOLELY FOR THE USE OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS i T~~i~~~;~~ :~ :T~~~::~:~::~~i~f~E~~~;~~~~~l~~ii BY

MICROPJLE ANCHOR DETAILS
CHECKED BY: . DATE: PROJECT NUMBER: SHEET
&eo!itabllizatlon lnb!matlonal®
Phone: 855.579.0536 I Fax: 970.245.7737
www.geostabilization.com
l GEOSTABILIZATION INTERNATIONAL. (GS!). THE DESIGN IS ONLY VALID IF MAC J DR 10/20/21 210487CA01 C-08 G 'L..;c~oN:;!sTR~u~c!!TEDtA~No~su~pE:;!Rv~,s~ED:!;BY~G!S'!;!oR~IT!;SA~UTH~O~R~1ze!os~us;;;c~oNT~RA~c;::;ro:::,;R....! ___ ~~--...l.---~~--...J. __ ...!,!~~.!......-....l-...:;.!.:;;~,.:;::~--l---~~--....l------------------i..------------ r
~
~ I
NO.5GRADE60TOPAND
BOTTOM MAT 16-IN O.C

RETAINED SIDE
3"MIN.

NO. 5 GRADE 60 TOP AND
BOTTOM CONTINUOUS.

SPLICE LAP SHALL BE MIN. 30"
C_~~;~J~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~K~~~~~~~~~~.;;;; n
[:] [:] 0
LJ====::1::1::=======J!:l=~===±±======:l=l±=====::::l:t:=====:±1==1

EXCAVATION SIDE

SHOTCRETE TO CAP

CONNECTION, EXTEND
REBAR MIN 36" INTO

SHOTCRETE FACING
NOTE:

VIEW LOOKING NORTH AT

FACE OF SHOTCRETE WALL
18", oc
0 ~l~ROPILES - TOP VIEW
NO. 5 GRADE
60TOP MAT
16"
NO. 5 GRADE
60 BOTTOM MAT
2 - NO. 5 GRADE 60

CONTINUOUS
30" SPLICE LENGTH
@) ~l~ROPILES - SIDE VIEW
N
.,...

NUT TOP & BOTTOM

SELF-DRILLING

MICROPILE
18"
6-IN X 6-IN X 1/2-IN

STEEL PLATE
® ~l~ROPILES- END VIEW
3"MIN
NO. 5 GRADE 60 -,-,.,___ N
.,... CONTINUOUS
I 3" MIN ... ,.. ______ 18" _..,._ I
® ~~INFORCEMENT - END VIEW
~
i
f ,----S~'H~E;'E-;:;:T~RE;';-;V:'.7i7,~SJ~O~'N.;:-;S~---,--;:PR;:-::O~J:::EC:::;T::N::AM:::E::-:-------------------------------,--------------------~-~-:::.-==~~:-----' i DATE DESCRIPTION NO
! 09/01/21 ISSUED FOR REVIEW i 10/20/21 ISSUED FOR PERMIT IFR

IFP LAS BRISAS CONDOMINIUMS
! l----+------------!----1 ii====t=====================t===~+-----------------------------------------1 ~ SHEET TITLE:
, l----+------------!----1
; ! t----+------------!----1 I t----+------------1----1 I 1----;------------+---I i t----+------------1-----1
'
!,' THIS DRAWING IS FURNISHED SOLELY FOR THE USE OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS , PROJECT AND THE PROPRIETARY INFORMATION SHOl'<N HEREON IS NOT TO BE TP.ANSMITTED TO ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION WITHOUT SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATION BY

MICROPILE CAP DETAILS
DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: PROJECT NUMBER: SHEET
&eo!itablllzat:lon lnternat:lonal@
Phone: 855.579.0536 I Fax: 970.245.7737
www.geostabilization.com
C75196
< GEOSTABILIZATION INTERNATIONAL. (GSI). THE DESIGN IS ONLY VALID IF ! CONSTRUCTED AND SUPERVISED BY GSI OR ITS AUTHORIZED SUBCONTRACTOR. MAC J DR 10/20/21 210487CAO 1 C-09 '--------------____.;..;;.;,;;,;;,;_1--___;,,;~-...l--..:.:::.:..:.---L-..:.::.:.::.:::.:.::..:.__1--~~~...J_-~---L--------...L--===:::::::...-_J l
• t
e
;
•

PROPOSED FINISHED GRADE LINE TO DAYLIGHT TO EXISTING

GRADE TO THE NORTH OF PROPOSED PERMANENT CUTOFF
WALL. EXISTING GRADE ON THE NORTH IS APPROX. 1:1

EXTEND ALL GRID LAYERS TO

EXPOSED SLOPE FACE,
MIN 4' LENGTH
GEOGRID TO TERMINATE MIN 6" BEHIND FINISHED FACE. DUE TO LACK OF LATERAL CONFINEMENT, 90% RELATIVE COMPACTION
ALONG THE FACE MAY NOT BE FEASIBLE. HOWEVER, THE RSS FACE WILL BE COMPACTED TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE.

GEOGRID WILL BE HIGH PERFORMANCE TURF

REINFORCEMENT MATS (HPTRM) OR EQUIVALENT

RIENFORCED SOIL SLOPE (RSS)
(CONTINUE TO TOP OF BLUFF)

RSS BACKFILL TO BE LOCALLY

SOURCED MATERIAL AND APPROVED

BY PROJECT ENGINEER

RSS GRID LAYERS SPACED
MAXIMUM 12" VERTICALLY
0 ~T~INFORCED SOIL SLOPE SECTION
--·-~--~-----7',,
······----·;,-.._·-•-·---~--------,/ ',,
... •-· ··-·-·-7',, ',, --------~ ',, ',,
' ' ', ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
MIN 90% COMPACTION IN
BEHIND FRONT 12" OF RSS
B3 ANCHOR AND PLATE SHALL BE USED
EVERY 3RD LIFT OF GEOGRID (SEE
AND SHEET C-03 FOR ANCHOR DETAILS)
4" PERFORATED PIPE SLEEVED WITH FILTER

FABRIC TO PERMIT FLOW OF WATER BUT LIMIT
FLOW OF SOIL INTO PIPE. TIE 4" PIPE INTO SLOTTED
DRAINS EXTENDING TOWARDS EXISTING SEAWALL.

DUE TO LACK

AT THE FACE
~
~
1[:::=:==~sH~~E}EJr:RE~~~v:Z1s~1~o~w.~s[======:r;PR;o~J~Ec;T~N;A;M;E:-------------------------------T-------------7r---::::;;;;=;;;:::---7 l DATE DESCRIPTION NO
: 09/01/21 ISSUED FOR REVIEW IFR j 10/20/21 ISSUED FOR PERMIT IFP LAS BRISAS CONDOMINIUMS l---------------1----1 ir---i------------+----+-----------------------------------------1 ~ SHEET TITLE:
!1-----+------------l-------1
1 • i-----+---------------1
I----+---------------- SECTION VIEW - RSS SYSTEM
!
i,· f-T:"'.H1::-"'.s D:-:-RA-::-W1::':"NG::--:-1s=-=Fu:-:R~N1s-HE::::-D-so-=LE-LY-Fo-R T-H-E u-sE-o-Fo_R_IN c-o-NN-Ec-T10J...N_WI_TH-TH-1s+-D-RA_W_N_B_Y_· ______ C_H_E_C-KE_D_B_Y-·. _____ D_A_T_E·.-------,l""'P_R_O_J-EC_T_N_U_M_B_E_R_·___ S_H_E_E_T _____ -1 PROJECT AND THE PROPRIETARY INFORMATION SHOv.N HEREON IS NOT TO BE j TRANSMITTED TO ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION WITHOUT SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATION BY &eoSt:ablllzatlon International®
Phone: 855.579.0536 I Fax: 970.245.7737
www.geostabilization.com
C75196 1·
/~~~~'
f GEOSTABILIZATI0N INTERNATIONAL. (GSI). THE DESIGN IS ONLY VALID IF t -C-ON-ST-RU_c_TE-DAN_D_su_P_ER-VIS-ED-BY_G_s1_0R_1r_sA_uT_H_0R-IZE_D_su_sc_oN_rRA_c_ro_R.__,, ____ M_A_c _______ J_D_R ___ _._ ___ 10_I2_0_I_2_1 __ _.__;..2;..1;..0;..48;..7_C;..A;..0;..1_....1i....--..;;C;..-.;..1 o;..... __ ..a.. _______________ ...J.. _____ ...,;;;; _____ ,_J

LAS BRJSAS CONDOMINIUMS
10'

SHEET REVISIONS

DATE DESCRIPTION
09/01/21 ISSUED FOR REVIEW
10/20/21 ISSUED FOR PERMIT
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NO
IFR
IFP

PHASE I REINFORCED

SHOTCRETE CUTOFF WALL
PROJECT NAME:
! i 1---1---------------t----t SHEET TITLE:
11---1-------------+-----t

LASBRISASCONDOMINIUMS
i 1---1---------------t----t
l PHASE II MITIGATION SECTION
i 1---1---------------t----;
' t---1-------------+-----t
!f_ _ _j ___________ _j_ __ -J---------,--------,---------,--:----:--:-'""."."'.':"':".::---,-::::::-------. f
i. THISOR"WINGISFURNISHEDSOLELYFORTHEUSEOFORINCONNECTIONWITHTHIS DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: PROJECT NUMBER: SHEET PROJECT AND THE PROPRIETARY INFORMATION SHO'/.N HEREON IS NOT TO BE

TRANSMITTED TO ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION WITHOUT SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATION BY

PHASE I MICROPILES

AND CAP
• ADDITIONAL REINFORCED SHOTCRETE

AND BLUFF STABILIZATION ELEMENTS

WILL BE REQUIRED TO MITIGATE

GLOBAL FAILURE OF CUTOFF WALL

ONCE EXPOSED DUE TO NATURAL
EROSIONAL PROCESSES.
• TRIGGER ALARMS FOR PHASE II
EROSION MITIGATION:

1. MICROPILES BELOW BASE OF

SHOTCRETE FACING BECOME
EXPOSED UP TO 6', AND/OR

2. FLOW OF RSS BACKFILL TOWARDS
SOUTH AND BETWEEN MICROPILES.
&eo§tablllzatlon International®
Phone: 855.579.0536 I Fax: 970.245.7737
www.geostabilization.com
I Lc~o:::,;N~:!;~;!;;~~:!~:~~!
1 ~~~!~~!:~~::R~~~~::;E;;..:
1 ~~;~;:;!.,:1<g~i1
1:.!;lrsTH~A~~~HE;!~~~z~::!,~ s~
0 ~!;sL6~o~~ALRA:!:; 10 c::'. 1
;,'.!'.oR;;. . .J. ___ ~M~A~C::,_ __ ..l __ __:J~D~R~----L--..;1~0~/2:;.,:0::.:,/:;,2.:.,_1 __ ,1__,:2;.!.1.;:,04::;8:;:.7~C::,:A..:,0:::,1,:__.1-__ ___;C;;:.-.,;.1.:,1 ___ ..L ________________ ...., ____________ _

TO HYDRAULIC

PUMP AND

PRESSURE GAGE

COUPLER (AS NECESSARY)

PVC TUBE (BOND-BREAKER),

IF NEEDED

MICROPILE BAR
GROUT
MICROPILE TEST ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA:

DIAL GAGES ATTACHED TO

INDEPENDENT SUPPORT

REFERENCE PLATE

HYDRAULIC RAM

STEEL BASE PLATE

WOOD TIMBERS
I
I
I- - C) L1.I z....l
z
L1.I co
....J <{
~ 0 S:2
L1.I ....J
0 0 0.. ..- z 0..
0 <{
co!:::::
z-
::J
I
I-C)
z
L1.I z
...J ~ 0
w 0
0 .,-
z
w
Ill
• THE SLOPE OF THE LOAD VERSUS DISPLACEMENT CURVE IS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.025 IN/KIP AT 2.00 DL. • THE TOTAL MOVEMENT AT 1.3 DL (CREEP) DOES NOT EXCEED 0.04 INCHES BETWEEN 1 AND 10 MINUTE READINGS, OR THE TOTAL MOVEMENT DOES NOT EXCEED 0.08 INCHES BETWEEN 6 AND 60 MINUTE READINGS.

SHEET REVISIONS PROJECT NAME:

PROOF MICROPILE TESTING PROCEDURE AND EQUIPMENT:
• THE REACTION FRAME WILL BE SUFFICIENTLY RIGID AND OF ADEQUATE DIMENSIONS SO THAT EXCESSIVE DEFORMATION OF THE TESTING EQUIPMENT DOES NOT OCCUR. THE REACTION FRAME WILL BE SUPPORTED INDEPENDENTLY OF THE MICROPILE BAR. THE CONFIGURATION OF

THE TESTING APPARATUS WILL BE POSITIONED TO REDUCE THE POTENTIAL OF THE NEED FOR THE RAM, BEARING PLATES, AND STRESSING ANCHORAGE TO BE REPOSITIONED DURING A TEST.
• THE LOAD WILL BE APPLIED WITH A HYDRAULIC RAM AND MEASURED WITH A PRESSURE GAUGE. THE PRESSURE GAUGE WILL BE GRADUATED IN 100 PSI INCREMENTS OR LESS. THE RAM, PRESSURE GAUGES, AND PUMPS WILL HAVE BEEN CALIBRATED WITH EACH OTHER WITHIN THE LAST YEAR BY AN INDEPENDENT AASHTO ACCREDITED LABORATORY OR BY A DEPARTMENT LABORATORY. • MOVEMENT OF THE BAR HEAD SHALL BE MEASURED WITH AT LEAST ONE DIAL GAUGE CAPABLE OF MEASURING TO THE NEAREST 0.001 INCH. THE

GAUGE WILL BE VISUALLY ALIGNED TO BE PARALLEL WITH THE AXIS OF THE BAR AND SHALL BE SUPPORTED INDEPENDENTLY OF THE RAM AND REACTION FRAME. GENERALLY TWO DIAL GAUGES ARE UTILIZED, IF POSSIBLE. • TESTING SHALL BE PERFORMED BY INCREMENTALLY LOADING THE BAR PER TO THE LOADING SCHEDULE PROVIDED BELOW. THE BAR HEAD MOVEMENTS SHALL BE RECORDED AT EACH LOAD INCREMENT WITH THE DIAL GAUGE(S).

DESIGN LOAD (DL):
• LOADING ON THE BAR SHALL BE APPLIED BASED ON THE DESIGN LOAD AS DETERMINED BY FHWA PUBLICATION NHI 05-039, MICROPILE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION.
• DESIGN BOND STRENGTH FOR THIS PROJECT IS 615 LB/FT OF BOND. • THE DESIGN LOAD (DL) IS DETERMINED BY MULTIPLYING THE DESIGN BOND VALUES BY THE BOND LENGTH OF MICROPILE.

THE BOND LENGTH FOR TESTING SHOULD BE AT LEAST 10-FT.

TESTING OF MICROPILES:
• PROOF TESTING WILL BE PERFORMED ON 5% OF PRODUCTION MICROPILES. LOADING WILL BE APPLIED IN TENSION. • A MINIMUM 48-HOUR NOTICE WILL BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY'S REPRESENTATIVES PROVIDED THEY WISH TO OBSERVE MICROPILE TESTING AT THE SITE.
• TESTS SHALL OCCUR IN LOCATIONS DETERMINED BY GSI FIELD PERSONNEL ON SITE. • THE ALIGNMENT LOAD (AL) SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALIGN THE TESTING APPARATUS. DIAL GAUGES FOR MEASURING THE MOVEMENT OF THE TEST NAIL SHALL BE SET TO "ZERO" AFTER THE ALIGNMENT LOAD HAS BEEN APPLIED.

LOADING SCHEDULE FOR PROOF TEST

LOADING LOAD HOLD TIME
AL 0.025 DL MAX 2.5 MINUTES
LOAD CYCLE 0.30 DL 2.5 MINUTES

0.45 DL 2.5 MINUTES

0.60 DL 2.5 MINUTES

0.75 DL 2.5 MINUTES

0.90 DL 2.5 MINUTES

1.00 DL 2.5 MINUTES

1.15 DL 2.5 MINUTES
HOLD 1.30 DL ABOVE FOR 10 MINUTES WHILE RECORDING MOVEMENT AT 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, AND 10 MINUTES. IF TOTAL MOVEMENT MEASURED DURING LOAD EXCEEDS 0.04 INCHES BETWEEN THE 1 AND 10 MINUTE AVERAGE READINGS THEN THE LOAD SHOULD BE HELD ON MICROPILE FOR AN ADDITIONAL 50 MINUTES, RECORDING MOVEMENT AT 20, 30, 40, 50, AND 60 MINUTES.

LOAD CYCLE 1.45 DL 2.5 MINUTES

1.60 DL 2.5 MINUTE
UNLOAD CYCLE 1.30 DL 4 MINUTES

1.00 DL 4 MINUTES

0.75 DL 4 MINUTES

0.50 DL 4 MINUTES

0.25 DL 4 MINUTES
AL 0.025 DL MAX 4 MINUTES

DATE DESCRIPTION NO
09/01/21 ISSUED FOR REVIEW IFR
10/20/21 ISSUED FOR PERMIT IFP LAS BRISAS CONDOMINIUMS
t---+-------------+----1 SHEET TITLE:

THIS DRAWING IS FURNISHED SOLELY FOR THE USE OF OR IN CONNECTION >'>1TH THIS

PROJECT AND THE PROPRIETARY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON IS NOT TO BE

DRAWN BY:

MAC

MICROPILE TESTING DETAILS
CHECKED BY: DATE:

JDR 10/20/21
PROJECT NUMBER:
210487CA01
SHEET
C-08
&eo!itablllza1:lon lntemat:lonal®
Phone: 855.579.0536 I Fax: 970.245.7737
www.geostabilization.com
C75196
DATE

MICROPILE ID

DRILLED GROUTED
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 SHEET REVISIONS

DATE DESCRIPTION NO
09/01/21 ISSUED FOR REVIEW IFR
10/20/21 ISSUED FOR PERMIT IFP

THIS DRAWING IS FURNISHED SOLELY FOR THE USE OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS

PROJECT AND THE PROPRIETARY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON IS NOTTO BE

TRANSMITTED TO ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION WITHOUT SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATION BY GEOSTABILIZATION INTERNATIONAL. (GS!). THE DESIGN IS ONLY VALID IF CONSTRUCTED AND SUPERVISED BY GSI OR ITS AUTHORIZED SUBCONTRACTOR.

EMBEDMENT LENGTH (ft) DATE EMBEDMENT LENGTH (ft)

MICROPILE ID

SOIL ROCK DRILLED GROUTED SOIL ROCK
48 PROJECT NAME:

LAS BRISAS CONDOMINIUMS
SHEET TITLE:

DRILL LOGS
DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: PROJECT NUMBER:
210487CA01
SHEET
MAC JDR 10/20/21 C-13

MUD BALANCE READINGS

READINGS
DATE (1.75-1.84, TYP. FOR GSl'S 5-BAG MIX, SEE
SHEET C-03 FOR FURTHER DETAILS))
&eo!itablllzatlon lntematlonal~
Phone: 855.579.0536 I Fax: 970.245.7737
www.geostabilization.com

GEOTECHNICAL UPDATE AND RESPONSE TO THIRD-PARTY

GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW, LAS BRISAS CONDOMINIUMS
BLUFF STABILIZATION, 135 SOUTH SIERRA AVENUE
SOLANA BEACH, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 92075
CUP20-004
FOR
MS. RENEE RESLER, PRESIDENT
LAS BRISAS HOMEOWNER’S ASSOCIATION

C/O THE TRETTIN COMPANY
1195 LA MOREE ROAD, #18
SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA 92078
W.O. 8157-A-SC OCTOBER 22, 2021
Geotechnical C Geologic C Coastal C Environmental
5741 Palmer Way C Carlsbad, California 92010 C (760) 438-3155 C FAX (760) 931-0915 C www.geosoilsinc.com October 22, 2021
W.O. 8157-A-SC
Ms. Renee Resler, President
Las Brisas Homeowner’s Association
c/o The Trettin Company
1195 La Moree Road, #18
San Marcos, California 92078
Attention: Mr. Bob Trettin
Subject: Geotechnical Update and Response to Third-Party Geotechnical Review, Las Brisas Condominiums Bluff Stabilization, 135 South Sierra Avenue, Solana Beach, San Diego County, California 92075, CUP20-004 Dear Mr. Trettin:

In accordance with your request and authorization, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) has prepared this geotechnical update and response to the review comments provided by the City of Solana Beach’s Third-Party Geotechnical Consultant, relative to the proposed stabilization of the coastal bluff at the subject site (Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. [CTE], 2021 [see Appendix A]). This report also provides supplements to the global stability analyses previously performed by Terracosta Consulting Group (TCG) that accompanied their letter dated September 25, 2020 (TCG, 2020b). The scope of services performed for this study included reviews of previous site-specific geotechnical reports for the subject property (Anthony-Taylor Consultants [ATC], 2004b; TCG, 2021), geologic mapping, geotechnical engineering analysis, including slope stability, and the preparation of this report.

SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Site Description
The Las Brisas Condominium property is located at 135 South Sierra Avenue in the City of Solana Beach, San Diego County, California 92075 (see Figure1, Site Location Map).

The geographic coordinates of the approximate centroid of the site are 32.9906" North, -117.2734" West. The property includes an approximately 74-foot high coastal bluff slope, ascending from the Pacific Ocean shoreline. The property is bounded by South Sierra Avenue to the east, by the Pacific Ocean shoreline to the west, by Fletcher Cove Beach Park and the City of Solana Beach Marine Safety Department to the north, and by United States Postal Service property and existing multi-family residential development (Surfsong Condominiums) to the remaining quadrant.

W.O.

SITE LOCATION MAP
Figure 1
8157-A-SC
Base Map: TOPO!® ©2003 National Geographic, U.S.G.S. Del Mar Quadrangle, California -- San Diego Co., 7.5 Minute, dated 1994, current, 1994.

Base Map: Google Maps, Copyright 2021 Google, Map Data Copyright 2021 Google 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
This map is copyrighted by Google 2021. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for
personal use or resale, without permission. All rights
reserved.

NOT TO SCALE
SITE
SITE
.__ ________ ...., ,
N

PACIFIC
OCEAN
"
CLlfSI
--- ---- - -
I
i1
E!e ~ a
S yhr,e O
Schoel Y
C
San a Fen
C IISU n Sch ols Y

LACOLONIA

OE EDEN

GARDENS
GeoSoils, Inc.

Topographically, the subject site occurs upon a relatively flat-lying to moderately sloping anthropogenically modified coastal terrace and a steeply sloping coastal bluff. The coastal bluff edge divides the coastal terrace from the coastal bluff.

According to the topographic survey prepared by Pasco, Laret, Suiter, and Associates ([PLS&A], 2020), the coastal terrace generally slopes to the east and north at gradients on the order of 1.6:1 (horizontal:vertical [h:v]) or flatter. However, localized anthropogenic alterations have created small slopes with gradients as steep as approximately ½:1 (h:v), near the eastern property margin. PLS&A (2020) indicates that slope gradients are as steep as 0.7:1 (h:v) along the upper portion of the coastal bluff and near-vertical along its exposed toe. However, the failure head scarp, created by the recent bluff failure, has resulted in localized near-vertical slope gradients in the upper bluff.

PLS&A (2020) shows that site elevations vary between approximately 11 and 90 feet (datum = North American Vertical Datum [NAVD88]). Thus, the overall relief across the Las Brisas Condominiums property is roughly 79 feet.

In general, site drainage is primarily accommodated by sheet-flow runoff that follows the site topography. However, a private storm drain system assists in the collection and conveyance of surface runoff toward South Sierra Avenue, within the developed portion of the subject property.

Onsite improvements consist of two (2), four-story and one (1) three-story condominium buildings, a one-story clubhouse, a swimming pool, a tennis court, and associated underground utilities, retaining walls, and vehicular and pedestrian pavements. Existing landscaping generally consists of sparse trees, shrubbery, flowers, and artificial turf. At their closest point, the horizontal separation between the seaward foundation of the westernmost condominium building (referred to hereinafter as Building 3) and the coastal bluff edge is approximately 27 feet.

The basal portion of the coastal bluff at the subject site is currently afforded protection from marine erosion by an existing seawall consisting of an approximately 120-foot long hand-sculpted and colored shotcrete wall restrained by three (3) rows of 75-foot long tiebacks (Soil Engineering Construction, Inc., personal communication). The top of the shotcrete wall extends to elevation 35 mean sea level (MSL) or approximately 37 feet NAVD88. Geogrid-reinforced fill was placed above the top of the seawall to approximate elevation 45 feet MSL or roughly 47 feet NAVD88 to create a relatively uninterrupted transition between the top of the seawall and the upper bluff slope.

Based on our review of an application letter for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) amendment, prepared by The Trettin Company ([TC], 2020) it is our understanding that a significant failure of the coastal bluff occurred immediately south of the existing seawall in August 2019. According to TC (2020), the failure has undergone progressive headward retreat since that time, and has impacted a recorded easement for public Resler W.O. 8157-A-SC
135 South Sierra Avenue, Solana Beach October 22, 2021
File:e:\wp21\8100\8157a.gue Page 3
GeoSoils, Inc.
agency vehicles, including emergency vehicles. In addition, it necessitated a City of Solana Beach-mandated closure of public pedestrian access from nearby Fletcher Cove, across the Las Brisas property, into a public open space area on the adjacent Surfsong Condominium property to the south. This bluff failure is the focus of this geotechnical update evaluation.

GEOTECHNICAL BACKGROUND
In 2004, ATC completed a geotechnical evaluation of the subject site to study the coastal bluff conditions present at that time and to assess the potential for bluff instability, resulting from marine and subaerial erosional processes. ATC’s study included: reviews of available proprietary and nonproprietary photographs, maps, reports and other pertinent documents; a review of the subsurface findings and laboratory test data obtained from their previous, onsite study; reconnaissance observations, mapping, and photographic documentation of the site and coastal bluff; topographic surveying of the lower and middle coastal bluff areas; the preparation of representative geologic cross sections; engineering and geologic analyses of the collected data, including quantitative slope stability analyses; and the preparation of a summary report presenting their engineering geological, and geotechnical findings related to the existing bluff conditions, and providing recommendations for mitigation of progressive coastal bluff retreat occurring at the time of their evaluation (ATC, 2004b).

The earth materials encountered during ATC’s previous (November 2003) field exploration and their more recent site reconnaissance, performed in preparation of ATC (2004b), included: transient, Quaternary-age beach deposits along the shoreline; a localized mantle of artificial fill with a maximum estimated thickness of approximately 12 feet within the developed portion of the subject property; Quaternary-age Bay Point Formation (now referred to as Quaternary-age old paralic deposits on recent regional geologic maps [Kennedy and Tan, 2008]) in the upper portion of the coastal bluff, and in the near-surface within the developed portion of the subject property; and Tertiary-age sedimentary bedrock, belonging to the Torrey Sandstone, exposed in the basal portion of the coastal bluff (i.e., sea cliff) and unconformably underlying the Bay Point Formation and beach deposits. ATC also encountered offsite landslide debris within the lower portion of the north-facing bluff descending toward nearby Fletcher Cove. Given their location relative to the bluff failure under the purview of this report, the landslide deposits described in ATC (2004b) are not considered relevant to this update; and therefore, not further discussed herein.

ATC (2004b) stated that the artificial fill materials they encountered were reportedly placed during original site development. Their review of the original grading plans for the Las Brisas Condominiums complex indicated that approximately 7 to 10 feet of planned fill was necessary to create the design grades near the northeastern portion of the property, and original planned fill thicknesses varying between approximately 6 and 10 feet Resler W.O. 8157-A-SC
135 South Sierra Avenue, Solana Beach October 22, 2021
File:e:\wp21\8100\8157a.gue Page 4
GeoSoils, Inc.
were required to attain the design grades in the southeastern and central portions of the subject address. ATC reported that no significant fills occurred within the vicinity of the coastal bluff, and no fill was placed beneath Building 3. ATC concluded that the overall thickness of fill materials at the subject site ranged between approximately 2 and 12 feet, with the deepest fill occurring as backfill for the retaining walls associated with the subterranean parking levels for the two (2) eastern condominium buildings.

According to ATC (2004b), the beach deposits generally consisted of loose, unconsolidated, sand with gravels and cobbles. At the time of their study, ATC estimated the thickness of the beach deposits varied between approximately 3 and 7 feet, depending on seasonal, tidal, and storm conditions.

ATC (2004b) reported that the Bay Point Formation at the subject property consisted of three (3) distinct parts or subunits. They described the upper part as dense, reddish brown, slightly clayey sand with an approximate thickness of 6 to 10 feet; the middle part as approximately 39 to 44 feet of moderately loose to dense, light tan to gray sand; and the lower part as a roughly 3- to 5-foot thick, fining-upward sequence of clean sand, underlain by coarse sand and pebbles.

According to ATC (2004b), the Torrey Sandstone in the bluff outcrop consisted of indurated yellowish brown and grayish brown silty and clayey fine-grained sandstone with occasional, local interbeds and/or lenses of siltstone and claystone. ATC indicated the Torrey Sandstone was generally massive but included distinct cross bedding.

In regards to geologic structures within the Bay Point Formation and Torrey Sandstone, ATC stated that the geologic maps and documents they reviewed described Bay Point Formation bedding as nearly horizontal. Based on their observations, ATC reported that Torrey Sandstone bedding was mostly subhorizontal with a localized siltstone/claystone bed inclined 4 degrees to the northeast. ATC also observed steeply inclined fractures and joints within the Torrey Sandstone that trend at an oblique angle relative to the orientation of the coastal bluff.

ATC did not encounter evidence of groundwater in their borings to the explored depths.

They did, however, observe minor to moderate groundwater seepage emanating from siltstone/claystone bedding within the Torrey Sandstone, near the base of the north-facing bluff descending toward Fletcher Cove, and along soil contacts within the west-facing bluff outcrop, west of the Marine Safety Department headquarters. In addition, ATC observed minor groundwater seepage emanating from the westerly exposed surfaces of the existing sea cave infill and from the upper portion of a fracture coincident with the sea cave. ATC opined that groundwater seepage may be originating from tidal water entering joints and fractures, and possibly infiltrated irrigation and storm runoff from inland sites. ATC also stated that the groundwater was likely migrating along zones of contrasting permeabilities, such as geologic contacts, fractures, joints, and bedding planes.

Resler W.O. 8157-A-SC
135 South Sierra Avenue, Solana Beach October 22, 2021
File:e:\wp21\8100\8157a.gue Page 5
GeoSoils, Inc.

ATC’s observations along the coastal bluff at the subject site and adjacent areas indicated localized erosion and scouring from wave action, controlled in part by depleted beach sand levels and variable cementation, and discontinuities within the Torrey Sandstone, exposed in the sea cliff. ATC indicated that marine erosion created nips or sea caves within the lower approximately 10 feet of the sea cliff, reducing support of the overlying materials and increasing the risks of bluff failure/collapse.

As part of their study, ATC evaluated geologic and seismic hazards that could affect the subject property. They concluded that the subject site was susceptible to severe ground shaking resulting from the maximum credible earthquake occurring on the nearby Rose Canyon fault. In addition, ATC surmised that the risks to the coastal bluff at the subject site and the proximal existing structures from landslides was moderate to high.

ATC determined that the risks from secondary seismic hazards, such as liquefaction, lateral spreading, and seismic settlement, were relatively low.

In regards to coastal bluff retreat, ATC (2004b) concluded that the “normal” bluff erosion rate at the subject site is on the order of 0.2 to 0.4 feet per year (ft/yr). However, due to the episodic nature of bluff retreat, which is often influenced by meteorological, tidal, wave, and site-specific conditions, ATC suggested that periods of accelerated bluff retreat are likely, especially when moderate to significant undercutting along the toe of the bluff coincides with depleted beach sand levels, as was the case at the time of their 2004 investigation.

Based on their observations, ATC surmised that there was significant likelihood for bluff failures to occur where undercutting and sea cave formation were present along the onsite coastal bluff. ATC admonished that if left unmitigated, the marine erosion impacting the basal portion of the onsite coastal bluff presented a real and imminent threat to Building 3, the public access corridor that services the Las Brisas Condominiums development and the adjacent Surfsong Condominiums development to the south, and the fire access road that provides ingress/egress for fire suppression equipment, along the southern side of the Las Brisas Condominiums property. Given these factors, ATC (2004b) stated that the observed conditions within the onsite coastal bluff jeopardized the health and safety of the beach-going public, pedestrians traveling along the public-access corridor, and the stability of Building 3.

To support their conclusions pertaining to the perilous conditions at the subject property, ATC performed quantitative slope stability analyses along five (5) representative geologic cross sections. Of the five sections, Geologic Cross Sections A-A’, B-B’, and C-C’ traversed the coastal bluff and Building 3. The results of these analyses showed that the static factors-of-safety (FOS) for the most critical theorized failure surfaces ranged between

1.07 and 1.33, with the lowest FOS occurring along ATC’s Geologic Cross Section A-A’, which was located near the southern end of the aforementioned building.

Resler W.O. 8157-A-SC
135 South Sierra Avenue, Solana Beach October 22, 2021
File:e:\wp21\8100\8157a.gue Page 6
GeoSoils, Inc.

For mitigation, ATC recommended two (2) alternative remedial measures. One alternative involved infilling the undercut portions and sea caves within the lower bluff with erodible concrete. The second alternative included similar infill of the undercut areas and sea caves, and the construction of an approximately 120-foot long seawall extending to elevation 35 feet MSL. The second alternative would also include a subdrain system to reduce the buildup of hydrostatic pressure behind the seawall. ATC considered the seawall alternative to be the more effective form of mitigation.

As requested by the City of Solana Beach, GSI performed a third-party review of ATC (2004b) and the undated seawall plans prepared by Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. (SEC), in which we provided review comments specific to ATC (2004) and SEC’s plans (GSI, 2004b). Following our reviews of the responses by ATC (ATC, 2004a) and plan corrections by SEC (SEC, 2004), we concluded that ATC’s geotechnical studies fulfilled the requirements of the Solana Beach Municipal Code (GSI, 2004a), and SEC’s seawall plans were in conformance with ATC’s recommendations (GSI, 2006).

In 2020, TCG evaluated coastal bluff stability at the subject property in response to the aforementioned progressive bluff failures occurring near the southwestern property corner (TCG, 2020b). TCG’s study included several site inspections that involved mapping the approximate limits of the slope failure on PLS&A (2020) and reconstructing the approximate bluff contours to reflect the failure limits, as they existed during their initial site inspection on April 16, 2020.

TCG also performed quantitative slope stability analyses using representative geologic cross sections traversing the bluff failure. These analyses demonstrated that the coastal bluff failure reduced the static global stability factor-of-safety (FOS) of the existing public easement/public agency vehicle access and the southwest corner of Building 3 to as low as 1.021 and 1.231, respectively. Since these static global stability FOS were below the generally recognized acceptable static short-term (temporary) global stability FOS of 1.25, TCG admonished that the southwest corner of the condominium structure could be imminently threatened following a single additional failure event. Given the results of their analyses, TCG recommended that the Las Brisas Condominiums Homeowner’s Association (HOA) begin the process of acquiring the necessary permits to construct a “caisson/grade beam/tieback lateral wall that would extend up the coastal bluff from the southern terminus of the existing permitted seawall to the top of the bluff. TCG’s letter report dated September 25, 2020 (TCG, 2020b) provided a summary of their coastal bluff stability evaluation.

TCG also prepared conceptual plans illustrating their proposed wall design (TCG, 2020a).

This wall concept included the installation of nine (9), 30-inch diameter, reinforced cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) concrete piles with a reinforced structural concrete wall facing between and in front of the southern sides of the piles. The wall would extend through the failure area from the southern terminus of the existing seawall to the top of the coastal bluff.

One (1) additional CIDH pile would be installed east of the bluff failure for future Resler W.O. 8157-A-SC
135 South Sierra Avenue, Solana Beach October 22, 2021
File:e:\wp21\8100\8157a.gue Page 7
GeoSoils, Inc.
maintenance/repair purposes. The exposed concrete wall facing would be textured and colored to resemble the nearby coastal bluffs. The failed bluff area to the north of the piles and concrete wall facing would be regraded to an approximate 1:1 ( h:v) or flatter gradient using geogrid reinforcement. The temporary working bench, immediately south of the proposed wall, would be restored via grading to roughly match the adjacent topographic conditions to the south.

RECENT FIELD STUDIES
On May 26, 2021, a GSI representative visited the subject site to map the approximate location of the coastal bluff edge. GSI returned to the site on June 30, 2021 to perform geologic mapping of the coastal bluff in the vicinity of the bluff failure near the southwestern property corner. In addition, in preparation of a separate geotechnical study, GSI advanced two (2) borings near the southeastern corner of the westernmost condominium building on June 2, 2021. Our interpreted coastal bluff edge location, the geologic conditions exposed in the coastal bluff, and the approximate locations of the aforementioned borings are shown in plan view on Plate 1 (Geotechnical Map), which uses PLS&A (2020) as a base. The geologic conditions within the failed portion of the coastal bluff are also shown in profile on Plate 2 (Geologic Cross Sections A-A’ and B-B’). Logs of pertinent ATC (2004b) and GSI borings are included in Appendix B.

GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS IN THE VICINITY OF THE SOUTHWESTERN CORNER

OF THE LAS BRISAS CONDOMINIUMS PROPERTY
Our observations along the portion of the coastal bluff in proximity to the southwestern corner of the subject site indicated that the geologic conditions therein are generally similar to those described in ATC (2004b). We observed the Torrey Sandstone (Map Symbol - Tt) below approximate elevation 30 feet NAVD88 and old paralic deposits between approximate elevations 30 feet and 87 feet NAVD88. Transient beach deposits (Map Symbol - Qb) occur along the shoreline, seaward of the coastal bluff. The existing seawall (Map Symbol - Afw) and the overlying geogrid-reinforced fill (Map Symbol - Afr) occur along the basal portion of the coastal bluff, to the north of the bluff failure. A relatively thin layer of older artificial fill (Map Symbol - Afo), possibly associated with the original grading of the Las Brisas Condominiums property, was encountered at the surface in our Boring B-1. Based on its placement atop colluvial soils (Map Symbol - Qcol) and possible asphaltic concrete pavement, the older artificial fill may have not been intended for engineering purposes.

Based on our observations of the geologic conditions exposed along the failure scarp, it is our opinion that the old paralic deposits may be subdivided into four (4) parts or subunits. From top to bottom these include an approximately 12-foot thick, near-vertical section of partially cemented, iron-oxide stained silty to clayey sand (Map Symbol - Qop4), Resler W.O. 8157-A-SC
135 South Sierra Avenue, Solana Beach October 22, 2021
File:e:\wp21\8100\8157a.gue Page 8
GeoSoils, Inc.
an approximately 25-foot thick section of friable, poorly graded sand (Map Symbol - Qop3), an approximately 12-foot thick, near-vertical section of silty sand (Map Symbol -Qop2), and an approximately 8-foot thick section of friable, poorly graded sand (Map Symbol - Qop1).

The Torrey Sandstone exposed in the sea cliff portion of the coastal bluff generally consisted of silty sandstone. The Torrey Sandstone included a localized siltstone bed roughly oriented N 60" W and dipping approximately 10 degrees to the southwest.

There were no indications of groundwater exiting the coastal bluff during our field mapping.

The elevation of the regional groundwater table is inferred to be generally coincident with sea level or approximately NAVD88.

UPDATED SEISMIC SHAKING PARAMETERS
The following table summarizes the updated site-specific seismic design criteria obtained from the 2019 CBC, Chapter 16 Structural Design, Section 1613, Earthquake Loads and American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7-16 (ASCE, 2017). The computer program Seismic Design Maps, provided by the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) and the StructuralEngineersAssociation of California (SEAOC) has been used to assist in the design (https://seismicmaps.org). The short spectral response utilizes a period of 0.2 seconds. Based on our understanding of the subsurface setting, it is our opinion that Site Class “D” conditions exist within the study area. 2019 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS

PARAMETER
VALUE per

OSHPD/SEAOC

SEISMIC

DESIGN MAPS
VALUE per
ASCE 7-16 2019 CBC or REFERENCE
Risk Category(1)II II Table 1604.5
Site Class D D
Section 1613.2.2/Chap. 20
ASCE 7-16 (p. 203-204)
Spectral Response - (0.2 sec), Ss 1.240 g 0.911 g
Section 1613.2.1
Figure 1613.2.1(1)
Spectral Response - (1 sec), S1 0.440 g 0.751 g
Section 1613.2.1
Figure 1613.2.1(2)
Site Coefficient, Fa 1.2 1.0 Table 1613.2.3(1)
Site Coefficient, Fv
null - see Section

11.48 ASCE 7-16

2.5(2)
(Section 21.3) Table 1613.2.3(2)
Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral
Response Acceleration (0.2 sec), SMS

1.488 g

1.40 g
(3)
(Section 21.4)
Section 1613.2.3
(Eqn 16-36)
Resler W.O. 8157-A-SC
135 South Sierra Avenue, Solana Beach October 22, 2021
File:e:\wp21\8100\8157a.gue Page 9
GeoSoils, Inc.
2019 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS

PARAMETER
VALUE per

OSHPD/SEAOC

SEISMIC

DESIGN MAPS
VALUE per
ASCE 7-16 2019 CBC or REFERENCE
Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral
Response Acceleration (1 sec),SM1
null - see Section

11.48 ASCE 7-16

1.20 g
(4)
(Section 21.4)
Section 1613.2.3
(Eqn 16-37)
5% Damped Design Spectral Response
Acceleration (0.2 sec), SDS

0.992 g 0.933 g
(5) Section 1613.2.4
(Eqn 16-38)
5% Damped Design Spectral Response
Acceleration (1 sec), SD1
null - see Section

11.48 ASCE 7-16

0.798 g
(6)
(Section 21.4)
Section 1613.2.4
(Eqn 16-39)
PGAM - Probabilistic Vertical Ground
Acceleration may be assumed as about
50% of these values.

0.67 g 0.608 g- ASCE 7-16 (Eqn 11.8-1)
Seismic Design Category null - see Section

11.48 ASCE 7-16
D
(7)
(Section 11.6)
Section 1613.2.5/ASCE 7-16
(p. 85: Table 11.6-1 or 11.6-2)

1. Risk Category to be confirmed by the Project Architect.

2. Per Table 11.4-1 of ASCE 7-16, since S1 > 0.2, Fv is taken as 2.5.

3. Per Section 21.4 of ASCE 7-16, SMS
= (1.5)(SDS
) = (1.5)(0.933 g) = 1.40 g

4. Per Section 21.4 of ASCE 7-16, SM1 = (1.5)(SD1) = (1.5)(0.798 g) = 1.20 g

5. Per Section 21.4 of ASCE 7-16, SDS shall be taken as 90 percent of the maximum spectral acceleration (Sa) obtained from the site-specific spectrum at any period within the range from 0.2 to 5 seconds, inclusive.

6. Per Section 21.4 of ASCE 7-16, SD1
shall be taken as the maximum value of the product TSa
obtained from the site-specific spectrum from the
period within the range of 1 to 5 seconds, inclusive.

7. Per Table 11.6-1 of ASCE 7-16, 0.50 g # SDS => 0.50 g # 0.933 g. Thus, the site is within Seismic Design Category “D.” Conformance to the criteria above for seismic design does not constitute any kind of guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not occur in the event of a large earthquake. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life, not to eliminate all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive. Cumulative effects of seismic events are not addressed in the 2019 CBC (CBSC, 2019) and regular maintenance and repair following locally significant seismic events (i.e., Mw5.5) will likely be necessary.

COASTAL BLUFF GEOMORPHOLOGY
The typical coastal-bluff profile may be divided into three zones: the shore platform; a lower near-vertical cliff surface termed the sea cliff; and an upper-bluff slope generally ranging in inclination between about 20 and 80 degrees (measured from the horizontal). The bluff top or bluff edge is the boundary between the upper bluff slope and the relatively flat lying to gently sloping coastal terrace.

Offshore from the sea cliff is an area of indefinite extent termed the near-shore zone. The bedrock surface in the near-shore zone, which extends out to sea from the base of the sea cliff, is the shore platform. As pointed out by Trenhaile (1987), worldwide, the shore platform may vary in inclination from near horizontal to as steep as 3:1 (h:v). In the Resler W.O. 8157-A-SC
135 South Sierra Avenue, Solana Beach October 22, 2021
File:e:\wp21\8100\8157a.gue Page 10
GeoSoils, Inc.

Encinitas and Solana Beach areas, the shore platform extends 500 to 900 feet offshore at a 1 to 2 percent slope (United States Army Corps of Engineers [USACE], 2015). The boundary between the sea cliff and the shore platform is called the cliff-platform junction, or sometimes the shoreline angle. Within the near-shore zone, is a subdivision called the inshore zone, where the waves begin to break. This boundary varies with time because the point at which waves begin to break changes dramatically with changes in wave size and tidal level. During low tides, large waves will begin to break further away from shore.

During high tides, waves may not break at all, or they may break directly on the lower sea cliff. Closer to shore is the foreshore zone, or the portion of the shoreline lying between the upper limit of wave wash at high tide and the ordinary low water mark. Both of these boundaries often lie on a sand or cobble beach. In this case, a shoreline with a bluff, the foreshore zone extends from low water to the lower face of the bluff.

Emery and Kuhn (1982) developed a global system of classification of coastal bluff profiles, and applied that system to the San Diego County coastline from San Onofre State Park to the southerly tip of Point Loma. Emery and Kuhn (1982) designated the Solana Beach coastline as “active” and “Type A-c.” The letter “A” designates coastal bluffs having a homogeneous geologic formation along the base of the bluff and in the upper portions of the bluff. The relative effectiveness of marine erosion compared to subaerial erosion of the bluff produces a characteristic profile. The letter “c” indicates that the long-term rate of marine erosion is approximately equal to that of subaerial erosion.

SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
GSI performed quantitative slope stability analysis to evaluate the existing, global static factor-of-safety of Building 3, in light of the nearby bluff failure. The geologic conditions shown on Geologic Cross Section A-A’ were used as a model in the analysis, since this traverse represents the closest distance between the bluff edge (top of the failure head scarp) and the foundation of Building 3. The two-dimensional slope stability analysis software program “GEOSTASE” version 4.30.31, developed by Gregory (2018), facilitated the quantitative slope stability analysis. For more information regarding the “GEOSTASE” slope stability analysis software program, please refer to the user manual available on the Gregory Geotechnical, Geotechnical Engineering and Consulting website (https://www. gregeo.com/software/).

For the analysis, we incorporated a distributed load of 250 pounds per square foot (psf) to simulate surcharge applied by heavy axle (HS20) vehicles, such as fire suppression equipment within the emergency vehicle access road (fire access road), near the southwest corner of the Las Brisas Condominiums property. We also applied a 3,000 psf distributed load to replicate surcharge from Building 3. The soil strengths modeled in our analyses were based on the results of shear testing performed by ATC (2004b) and GSI (see Appendix C), as well as our professional judgement. Isotropic soil strengths were applied to all geologic units included in the analyses.

Resler W.O. 8157-A-SC
135 South Sierra Avenue, Solana Beach October 22, 2021
File:e:\wp21\8100\8157a.gue Page 11
GeoSoils, Inc.

GSI searched for theoretical failure surfaces within the Quaternary-age old paralic deposits in the upper bluff, since progressive retreat of the existing failure scarp is the most likely bluff failure mechanism in the near term. Given the modeled failure mechanics, our analysis did not consider every geologic unit and corresponding soil strength entered into “GEOSTASE”.

The following table summarizes the soil strengths assigned to the geologic units entered into the analysis:

SOIL MATERIALS

SOIL UNIT
WEIGHT
(pounds per cubic foot [pcf])
SHEAR

STRENGTH PARAMETERS
Moist Saturated C (psf) M (degrees)
Quaternary Beach Deposits
(Qb) 105 110 0 33
Artificial Fill - Older
(Afo) 110 N/A 50 32
Quaternary Colluvium
(Qcol) 105 N/A 50 29
Weathered Quaternary Old Paralic Deposits -
Subunit 4
(Qop)
108 N/A 100 30
Quaternary Old Paralic Deposits - Subunit 4
(Qop4) 114 N/A 230 32
Quaternary Old Paralic Deposits - Subunit 3
(Qop3) 107 N/A 190 34
Quaternary Old Paralic Deposits - Subunit 2
(Qop2) 105 N/A 150 40
Quaternary Old Paralic Deposits - Subunit 1
(Qop1) 107 N/A 50 33
Tertiary Torrey Sandstone
(Tt) 102 N/A 290 37
Our search for theoretical failure surfaces in the upper bluff was initiated within Subunit 1 of the old paralic deposits (Map Symbol - Qop1) and terminated within the footprint of Building 3. Slope stability was analyzed using Spencer’s Method to satisfy all conditions of force and moment equilibrium. GSI allowed “GEOSTASE” to search for 4,999 potential theoretical failure planes.

The results of the analysis are shown on Plate D-1 (Appendix D), and indicate that the theoretical failure surface with a static factor-of-safety (FOS) equal to 1.19 would daylight the ground surface within the footprint of Building 3. Thus, our global stability analysis indicates that the southwestern corner of Building 3 is subject to impending catastrophic failure unless remedial measures are undertaken in the near term. An additional failure of Resler W.O. 8157-A-SC
135 South Sierra Avenue, Solana Beach October 22, 2021
File:e:\wp21\8100\8157a.gue Page 12

I I I I I I
GeoSoils, Inc.
the head scarp that results in the loss of several feet of land between the scarp and the seaward foundation of Building 3 has high potential to trigger such an event. Similarly, portions of the existing fire access road, near the failure head scarp are also subject to imminent failure. Failure of this road could present a danger to the life and safety of the building occupants if fire suppression and rescue equipment are unable to travel along the designated pathway.

PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
As previously stated, the southwestern corner of Building 3 and the existing fire access road have been imperiled by the nearby bluff failure. Thus, emergency measures should be taken to stabilize the failed portion of the coastal bluff.

The Las Brisas Condominiums HOA has retained the services of the design-build consultant Geostabilization International (GI) to develop a plan to stabilize the failed portion of the coastal bluff. This plan (GI, 2021a, 2021b) includes remedial measures similar to those proposed by TCG (2020a). However, rather than supporting the shotcrete wall by CIDH piles, GI is proposing to use an array of 51 micropiles for the wall foundation. Each micropile will extend a minimum of 5 feet into the Torrey Sandstone. The wall would retain a reinforced soil slope that restores the failed portion of the bluff to its north side.

GSI has performed a review of GI (2021b) and the supporting calculations included in GI (2021a). Based on our review, the proposed mitigation would return the static and seismic global FOS of Building 3 to at least 1.5 and 1.1, respectively. It is our opinion that GI has used reasonably conservative parameters for soil strengths and seismic loading in their slope stability and structural analyses.

FINAL PLAN REVIEW
As the Geotechnical Consultant-of-Record, GSI should perform a final geotechnical review of the bluff stabilization plans and supporting structural calculations, following review by the regulatory agencies.

RESPONSES TO CTE (2021)
Based on our review of CTE (2021), GSI understands that it is our responsibility to respond to comment nos. 2, 5, 7, and 8a. The CTE (2021) review comments requiring our attention are repeated below in italics, followed by our response.

Resler W.O. 8157-A-SC
135 South Sierra Avenue, Solana Beach October 22, 2021
File:e:\wp21\8100\8157a.gue Page 13
GeoSoils, Inc.

CTE Comment No. 2
Per the permit application, question 5, please provide a geotechnical report prepared to meet the requirements of the City and the California Coastal Commission (CCC) signed and stamped by both a Registered Civil Engineer (RCE) and Certified Engineering Geologist (CEG). A previously prepared geotechnical report associated with the previous wall construction, updated to current standard of practice and signed and stamped by a RCE and CEG, may be suitable.

GSI Response to CTE Comment No. 2
GSI respectfully refers the reviewer to the geotechnical update evaluation that precedes this response.

CTE Comment No. 5
Please provide a site plan and geologic cross-section of the existing slope failure that depicts the underlying geology; the limits of the public access easement; the seaward side of the nearest principal structure foundational element; and verified top-of-bluff and corresponding minimum setbacks.

GSI Response to CTE Comment No. 5
GSI respectfully directs the reviewer to the attached Plates 1 and 2.

CTE Comment No. 7
Noting that the LCP defines City Infrastructure as “City owned roads and City owned utilities located therein and thereon,” please comment as to whether a bluff failure is imminent that would threaten city infrastructure and/or a principal structure with danger from erosion, per LCP Policy 4.52(a)(1). Additionally, please comment as to whether city infrastructure and/or a principal structure is more likely than not to be in danger within approximately one year, per LCP Policy 4.52(a)(2).

GSI Response to CTE Comment No. 7
As stated previously in this report, our global slope stability analyses indicates that the southwestern corner of Building 3 currently has a static FOS of 1.19. This is less than the static short-term FOS of 1.25 recognized by major municipalities in southern California (City of San Diego, 2018; City of Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety, 2020).

Thus, it is our opinion that the southwestern corner of Building 3 is in danger of structural damage at this time. In addition, the slope stability analyses indicate that the fire access road for fire suppression and rescue equipment, adjacent to the top of the failure scarp, is also threatened at this time. A failure of this road could limit access of such emergency vehicles, which presents a life and safety issue to the occupants of Building 3.

Resler W.O. 8157-A-SC
135 South Sierra Avenue, Solana Beach October 22, 2021
File:e:\wp21\8100\8157a.gue Page 14
GeoSoils, Inc.

CTE Comment No. 8
Please address the proposed project’s impact on the southerly neighbor, including but not limited to:
a. What impact will the proposed wall have on the future erosion of the remaining exposed scarp on the southerly neighbor’s property? GSI Response to CTE Comment No. 8a
The proposed mitigation shown on GI (2021b) will have no impact on the future erosion of the remaining exposed scarp on the southerly neighbor’s property (i.e., Surfsong Condominiums). The proposed bluff restoration and protective measures do not extend to the south of the Las Brisas Condominiums’ property, since the adjacent Surfsong Condominiums HOA does not want to participate in the repair at this time. Thus, the remaining exposed failure scarp, located on the adjacent Surfsong Condominiums’ property, will be subject to additional headward retreat. As indicated on Sheet C-11 of GI (2021b), additional reinforced shotcrete and bluff stabilization will be required to mitigate global failure of the cutoff wall should erosion on the Surfsong Condominium’s property expose 6 feet or more of the micropiles below the base of the shotcrete facing and/or if the reinforced soil slope backfill begins to run between the micropiles.

LIMITATIONS
The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors.

Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty, either express or implied, is given. Standards of practice are subject to change with time.

GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their inaction; or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of services for this portion of the project.

Resler W.O. 8157-A-SC
135 South Sierra Avenue, Solana Beach October 22, 2021
File:e:\wp21\8100\8157a.gue Page 15
GeoSoils, Inc.

The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office.

Respectfully submitted,
GeoSoils, Inc.

Robert G. Crisman Stephen J. Coover
Engineering Geologist, CEG 1934 Geotechnical Engineer, GE 2057 Ryan B. Boehmer
Staff Geologist
RBB/RGC/SJC/sh
Attachments: Appendix A - References
Appendix B - GSI and ATC (2004b) Boring Logs
Appendix C - GSI and ATC (2004b) Shear Strength Test Results Appendix D - Slope Stability Analysis
Plate 1 - Geotechnical Map
Plate 2 - Geologic Cross Sections A-A’ and B-B’
Distribution: (1) Addressee (PDF via email)
Resler W.O. 8157-A-SC
135 South Sierra Avenue, Solana Beach October 22, 2021
File:e:\wp21\8100\8157a.gue Page 16
GeoSoils, Inc.

APPENDIX A

REFERENCES
GeoSoils, Inc.

APPENDIX A

REFERENCES
Anthony-Taylor Consultants, 2004a, Response to third-party geotechnical review, emergency permit request, Las Brisas Condominiums, 135 South Sierra Avenue, Solana Beach, California, project no.: 03-2283, dated October 4. _____, 2004b, Geotechnical/geologic evaluation, bluff conditions, Las Brisas Condominiums, 135 South Sierra Avenue, Solana Beach, California 92076, project no.: 03-2283, dated June 22.

City of San Diego, 2018, Guidelines for geotechnical reports, 2018.

City of Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety, 2020, Construction upon slopes steeper than two horizontal to one vertical, information bulletin / public - building code, reference no.: LABC 7014.1, document no.: P/BC 2020-050, dated January 1.

Construction Testing and Engineering, Inc., 2021, Application submittal geotechnical review, Las Brisas Condominiums, 135 South Sierra Avenue, Solana Beach, California 92075, CTE job no: 10-15983G, dated March 7.

Emery, K.O., and Kuhn, G.G., 1982, Sea cliffs: their processes, profiles, and classification:

Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 93, no 7.

GeoSoils, Inc., 2006, Final geotechnical review of plans for shoreline stabilization project, 135 South Sierra Avenue, Solana Beach, San Diego County, California, W.O. 4458-A-SC, dated September 5.
_____, Supplemental geotechnical review of documents pertaining to the proposed shoreline stabilization project, 135 South Sierra Avenue, Solana Beach, San Diego County, California, W.O. 4458-A-SC, dated October 22.
_____, 2004b, Preliminary geotechnical review of documents pertaining to the proposed shoreline stabilization project, 135 South Sierra Avenue, Solana Beach, San Diego County, California, W.O. 4458-A-SC, dated July 27.

Geostabilization International, 2021a, Las Brisas Condominiums bluff stabilization engineering design submittal, dated October 21.
_____, 2021b, Bluff stabilization plans, Las Brisas Condominiums, City of Solana Beach, CA, Las Brisas HOA, 14 sheets, various scales, project no. 210487CA01, dated September 27.

Gregory, G.H., 2019, GEOSTASE slope stability analysis program; Version 4.30.31.

GeoSoils, Inc.

Kennedy, M.P., 1975, Geology of the San Diego metropolitan area, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 200, Section A, Western San Diego Metropolitan Area, Del Mar, La Jolla, and Point Loma, 7½ minute quadrangles.

Kennedy, M.P., and Tan, SS., 2008, Geologic map of the San Diego 30' by 60' quadrangle, California, Map no. 3, scale 1:100,000,CaliforniaGeologic Survey and U.S. Geologic Survey.

Krinitzsky, E.L., Gould, J.P., and Edinger, P.H., 1993, Fundamentals of earthquake resistant construction: John H. Wiley & Sons, Inc., 299 p.

Pasco, Laret, Suiter, & Associates, 2020, Topographic survey map, Las Brisas, 135 S.

Sierra Ave., 2 sheets, various scales, PLSA job no.: 2710, dated January 13.

Structural Engineers Association of California and California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, 2019, Seismic design maps, https://seismicmaps.org/ Tan, S.S., and Giffen, D.G., 1995, Landslide hazards in the northern part of the San Diego Metropolitan area, San Diego County, California, Landslide hazard identification map no. 35, Plate 35G, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, DMG Open File Report 95-04.

Taniguchi, E., and Sasaki, Y., 1986, Back analysis of landslide due to Naganoken Seibu Earthquake of September 14, 1984; Proceedings, XI ISSMFE Conference, Session 7B, San Francisco, California. Rolla, MO: University of Missouri.

TerraCosta Consulting Group, 2020a, Plans for: Las Brisas Condominiums bluff stabilization, 5 sheets, various scales, project no.: 1848-02, dated September 28. _____, 2020b, Coastal bluff evaluation/project recommendations, Las Brisas Condominiums, 135 South Sierra Avenue, Solana Beach, California, project no.:
1848-02, dated September 25.

Trenhaile, A.S., 1987, The geomorphology of rock coasts: Clarendon Press, Oxford.

The Trettin Company, 2020, Application for Conditional Use Permit amendment, coastal bluff failure repair, Las Brisas Condominiums, dated December 16.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, 2015, Encinitas-Solana Beach coastal storm damage reduction project integrated feasibility study, dated April.

United States Geological Survey, 1994, Topographic survey of the Del Mar quadrangle,

7.5-minute series, 1:24,000-scale.

Resler Appendix A
File:e:\wp21\8100\8157a.gue Page 2
GeoSoils, Inc.

APPENDIX B
GSI AND ATC (2004b) BORING LOGS

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CONSISTENCY OR RELATIVE DENSITY Major Divisions Group
Symbols Typical Names CRITERIA
Coarse-Grained Soils
More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve
Gravels
50% or more of
coarse fraction
retained on No. 4 sieve
Clean
Gravels
GW Well-graded gravels and gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines Standard Penetration Test Penetration
Resistance N Relative
(blows/ft) Density
0 - 4 Very loose
4 - 10 Loose
10 - 30 Medium
30 - 50 Dense
> 50 Very dense
GP
Poorly graded gravels and
gravel-sand mixtures, little or no
fines
Gravel
with
GM Silty gravels gravel-sand-silt
mixtures
GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay
mixtures
Sands
more than 50% of
coarse fraction
passes No. 4 sieve
Clean
Sands
SW Well-graded sands and gravelly
sands, little or no fines
SP Poorly graded sands and
gravelly sands, little or no fines
Sands
with
Fines
SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures
SC Clayey sands, sand-clay
mixtures
Fine-Grained Soils
50% or more passes No. 200 sieve
Silts and Clays
Liquid limit
50% or less
ML
Inorganic silts, very fine sands,
rock flour, silty or clayey fine
sands
Standard Penetration Test
Unconfined
Penetration Compressive
Resistance N Strength
(blows/ft) Consistency (tons/ft2
)
<2 Very Soft <0.25
2 - 4 Soft 0.25 - .050
4 - 8 Medium 0.50 - 1.00
8 - 15 Stiff 1.00 - 2.00
15 - 30 Very Stiff 2.00 - 4.00
>30 Hard >4.00
CL
Inorganic clays of low to
medium plasticity, gravelly clays,
sandy clays, silty clays, lean
clays
OL Organic silts and organic silty
clays of low plasticity
Silts and Clays
Liquid limit
greater than 50%
MH
Inorganic silts, micaceous or
diatomaceous fine sands or silts,
elastic silts
CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity,
fat clays
OH Organic clays of medium to high
plasticity
Highly Organic Soils PT Peat, mucic, and other highly
organic soils
3" 3/4" #4 #10 #40 #200 U.S. Standard Sieve
Unified Soil
Classification Cobbles
Gravel Sand Silt or Clay
coarse fine coarse medium fine

MOISTURE CONDITIONS MATERIAL QUANTITY OTHER SYMBOLS
Dry Absence of moisture: dusty, dry to the touch trace 0 - 5 % C Core Sample Slightly Moist Below optimum moisture content for compaction few 5 - 10 % S SPT Sample Moist Near optimum moisture content little 10 - 25 % B Bulk Sample Very Moist Above optimum moisture content some 25 - 45 % – Groundwater Wet Visible free water; below water table Qp Pocket Penetrometer BASIC LOG FORMAT:

Group name, Group symbol, (grain size), color, moisture, consistency or relative density. Additional comments: odor, presence of roots, mica, gypsum, coarse grained particles, etc.

EXAMPLE:

Sand (SP), fine to medium grained, brown, moist, loose, trace silt, little fine gravel, few cobbles up to 4" in size, some hair roots and rootlets.

File:Mgr: c;\SoilClassif.wpd PLATE B-1

I I I I I I I I I
-
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 12
16 27
25 25
21 SP-SM
SP
SP
SM
SP
SP
SP

97.5 105.7
110.0
108.5
110.4

97.1 5.1

2.7 5.6

5.6 4.5

1.5 18.7

12.8 29.4

28.4 24.1

5.7 ARTIFICIAL FILL - OLDER:
@ 0', SILTY SAND and SAND, variegated reddish brown, brown, and dark gray, damp, loose; fine to medium grained.
@ 4', Asphaltic concrete pavement.

QUATERNARY COLLUVIUM:
@ 4 1/4', SAND, dark brown, damp, loose; fine to medium grained, trace SILT.

WEATHERED QUATERNARY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS:
@ 5', SAND, dark yellowish brown, dry, medium dense; fine to medium grained, trace SILT.
@ 7', SAND, dark yellowish brown, dry, medium dense.

QUATERNARY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS:
@ 10 1/3', SILTY SAND, reddish yellow, damp, medium dense; fine grained.
@ 12 1/2', SAND, dark yellowish brown, damp, medium dense; fine to medium grained, trace SILT.
@ 14 1/2', SAND, dark yellowish brown and dark gray, dry, medium dense; fine to medium grained.
@ 18 1/2', SAND, yellowish gray, dry, medium dense; fine to medium grained.

Total Depth = Approximately 19 1/2'
No Groundwater/No Caving Encountered
Backfilled 6-2-21
GeoSoils, Inc. BORING LOG
PROJECT: 135 S. SIERRA AVENUE, SOLANA BEACH
92075 W.O. 8157-A-SC BORING B-1 SHEET 1 OF
DATE EXCAVATED 6-2-21 LOGGED BY: RB APPROX. ELEV.:±86'NAVD88 SAMPLE METHOD: Modified California Sampler, 140lb Hammer @30-in Drop Standard Penetration Test Groundwater
Undisturbed, Ring Sample Seepage
GeoSoils, Inc.

PLATE Depth (ft.) Bulk
Sample Undisturbed Blows/Ft. USCS Symbol Dry Unit Wt. (pcf) Moisture (%) Saturation (%) Material Description 1 B-2
H~ 1·········~·M··~HII I
(i::(i::(i::(i::(~::<::<::<::?il ••••••••••••••••••••~(i::(i::(i::(i::(i::(i::(~::(]~~:f~@~~:g:HJ ,...- , I , )
ro ,111-1
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 16
19 23
SP-SM
SP
SP
SP
SP
104.9
102.3
104.4

2.2 9.8

2.0 10.0

2.3 8.9
ARTIFICIAL FILL - OLDER:
@ 0', SILTY SAND, dark gray, dry, very loose; very fine grained; trace roots (topsoil).

QUATERNARY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS:
@ 1/2', SAND, dark yellowish brown and dark gray, dry. Becoming damp at approximately 1', loose. Becoming medium dense at approximately 1'; fine grained.
@ 6', SAND, grayish brown and dark gray, dry, medium dense; fine to medium grained, friable.
@ 10', SAND, brownish gray and dark gray, dry, medium dense; fine to medium grained, friable.
@ 14 1/2', SAND, brownish gray and dark gray, dry, medium dense; fine to medium grained, friable.
@ 15', SAND, yellowish gray and reddish yellow, dry, medium dense; medium to coarse grained, friable.

Total Depth = Approximately 15 1/2'
No Groundwater Encountered
Caving Below Approximately 13'
Backfilled 6-2-21
GeoSoils, Inc. BORING LOG
PROJECT: 135 S. SIERRA AVENUE, SOLANA BEACH
92075 W.O. 8157-A-SC BORING B-2 SHEET 1 OF
DATE EXCAVATED 6-2-21 LOGGED BY: RB APPROX. ELEV.:±76'NAVD88 SAMPLE METHOD: Modified California Sampler, 140lb Hammer @30-in Drop Standard Penetration Test Groundwater
Undisturbed, Ring Sample Seepage
GeoSoils, Inc.

PLATE Depth (ft.) Bulk
Sample Undisturbed Blows/Ft. USCS Symbol Dry Unit Wt. (pcf) Moisture (%) Saturation (%) Material Description 1 B-3
H~
;;:;: :;;:;: :;;:;: :;;:;: :;;:;: :;;:;: :;;:;: :;;:;: :;;:;: :;;:;: :;;:;: :;;1:: ::;::::. ::;::::. :;::::: :;:
,,i
B-4
Geologic/Gcolechnical Evaluation of Bluff Conditions
Las Brisas Condominiums
Project No. 03-2283
135 South Sierra, Solana Beach, Ca.

June 22, 2004

Page 7 ends

Solana Beach City CouncilFebruary 9, 2022

Solana Beach City Council
February 9, 2022