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: [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.
ATTACHMENT 6
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
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
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 CTE Job No. 10-15983G
City of Solana Beach
Attention: Ms. Corey Andrews
635 South Highway 101
Solana Beach, California 92075
Office: (858) 720-2434 Via Email: candre\vs(a'icosb.org Subject:
References:
Ms. Andrews:
Application Submittal Second Geotechnical Review
Las Brisas Condominiums
135 South Sierra Avenue
Solana Beach, California 92075
At End of Document
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
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
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 Englneering
Coastal Engineering
Marltlme Engmeenng
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 A VENUE
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 GSTABL 7. GSTABL 7 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 3890 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 200 • San Diego, California 92123 • (858) 573-6900 voice • (858) 573-8900 fax www.terracosta.com
ATTACHMENT 7
Ms. Renee Resler and Mr. Brian Caine
LAS BRISAS HOA
Project No. 1848-02
September 25, 2020
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 comer 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 comer 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.
K:\18\1848\1848 TCG Letters\1848-01 L02 Las Brisas HOA docx Ms. Renee Resler and Mr. Brian Caine
LAS BRISAS HOA
Project No. 1848-02
September 25, 2020
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,
Walter . Cr pton, Principal Engineer
R.C.E. 23792, R.G.E. 245
WFC/jg
Attachments
K:\18\1848\1848 TCG Letters\1848-01 L02 Las Brisas HOA docx ---r.-Z:_--
SCALE: 1"=20'
L_J /-~ \,
V
\
\
'
_J ---=--- _1 - / ~ \_ ~ ---.,-- PPROXIMATE Ul)!llFS" ,:e~ F {3t:UFF FAtlURE / ,,-- ~y - -
/ ( / ~- -~-- - - ---=J / ~-=- ~ ~-=====--====- ~'§..!..,.-~,-,,,=_) ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ....3=
-~ :-----....,,?- 1::--.:::.,.~_-:.::-~:~~:~;;;;:::;-a::::--:::::;:;e:: ____ ,._. _ _.__,,__ - = =-~ ~" --=__ -:::it~ f~7'~i;'.~~i~~i~_:i!~(i,i::~:~:~~_ 1 ~ic1~!~i~~i~i---- tt}~;=-~:=:~:-~-;-:----~~
- - - -- - ;: ;::---;,-._-~-- -----f~--- ~~~:::::-__.... / ----- ----- __.... / ----
. ~ rb
~
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
Las Brisas Condominiums Stability Section 1
s:\matt m\las brisas\stability section 1.pl2 Run By: Usemame 4/21 /2020 1 O: 18AM 100 ,;:::==:::;-;::::=::::::i======:i========i=======i====:::;--------r------,---------,-----7 # FS
a 1.021
b 1.022
C 1.027
d 1.028
e 1.031
f 1.032
Soil
Desc.
Terrace
Low Ter
Tt
Trans
Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez.
Type Unit \M. Unit \M. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pd) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No.
1 120.0 120.0 300.0 3310 i 0.00 e 0.0 o
2 120.0 120.0 0.0 3 .0 d .00 0.0 22 0
3 125.0 125.0 3000.0 h9 . o 1 4 110.0 110.0 0.0 0
80 g 1.034 ~-------------=-----+'_,_- -+------~
h 1.034
60 40
20 26
3 6.3
1.035
03f
1 3
2 3
26.3 23
2 24
3 46.3 66.3 86.3 106.3 126.3
GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.021
Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method 146.3 166.3
FIGURE 2
Las Brisas Condominiums Stability Section 2
s:\matt m\las brisas\stability section 2.pl2 Run By: Usemame 4/21 /2020 1 O: 16AM 100 ,;:::==:::;-;::::=::::::i======:i========i=======i====:::;--------r------,---------,-----7 80 60
40 20
# FS Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. a 1.175 Desc. Type Unit wt. Unit wt. Intercept Angle Pressure ConstanaSurface b 1.182 No. (pd) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (,>i~ ) No.
c 1.183 Terrace 1 120.0 120.0 300.0 33.0 0.00 O_ij f d el d 1.183 LowTer 2 120.0 120.0 0.0 33.0 0.00 'L oCflb 2§) e 1.188 Tt 3 125.0 125.0 3000.0 36.0 0. ~ ,11:1,Tifhr-f-r70- t-- ---eo f 1.188 Trans 4 110.0 110.0 0.0 30.0 01 1
g 1.188 ~-------------------+.1- ~ '!l-+-I..,__,-+--~
h 1.189
1.190
1 4
11 1
12 1
23 2
24 3
26 3
6.3 26.3 46.3 66.3 86.3 106.3 126.3
GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.175
Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method 146.3 166.3
FIGURE 3
100
# FS
a 1.231
b 1.238
C 1.242
d 1.243
e 1.244
f 1.245
80 g 1.246
h 1.249
1.252
.25,
60 40
20 1
3 27
3 6.3
2 Las Brisas Condominiums Stability Section 1
s:\matt m\Jas brisas\stability section 1, terminate at building.pl2 Run By: Usemame 4/22/2020 12:51 PM Soil Soil Total
Desc. Type Unit \M.
No. (pd)
Terrace 1 120.0
Low Ter 2 120.0
Tt 3 125.0
Trans 4 110.0
3 26.3
Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez.
Unit \M. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface
(pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No.
120.0 300.0 33.0 0.00 0.0 0
120.0 0.0 33.0 0.00 0.0 22 0
125.o 3000.0 36.!Jo 1 110.0 0.0 jJp. 1 0
16 1
46.3 17
1 1
1 24
2 25
3 66.3 86.3
a
GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.231
106.3 126.3
Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method 146.3 166.3
FIGURE 4
100
# FS
a 1.309
b 1.309
C 1.311
d 1.311
e 1.312
f 1.313
80 g 1.313
h 1.314
1.315
315
60 40
20 4
26 3
6.3 Soil
Desc.
Terrace
LowTer
Tt
Trans
Las Brisas Condominiums Stability Section 2
s:\matt m\Jas brisas\stability section 2, terminate at building.pl2 Run By: Usemame 4/22/2020 12:56PM Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez.
Type Unit wt. Unit wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pd) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No.
1 120.0 120.0 300.0 33.0 0.00 0.0 0
2 120.0 120.0 0.0 33.0 0.00 0.0 .fu
3 125.0 125.0 3000.0 36.0 0. 1 4 110.0 110.0 0.0 30.0 01 1 13 1
12 1
11 1
1 9 1
1 23
2 24
3 a
26.3 46.3 66.3 86.3 106.3 126.3
GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.309
Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method 146.3 166.3
FIGURE 5
&eo!itabilization International®
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®
C75196
Cameron Lobato, P.E.
Senior Vice President
1 Jody Robinson, P.E.
Regional Engineer
Table of Contents
Micropile Cutoff Wall ....................................................................................................... 3 Project Description ....................................................................................................... 3 Design Requirements .................................................................................................. 4 Micro pile 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 - Micro pile Testing ..................................................................................... E-1 Testing Procedure and Equipment ........................................................................... E-2 Testing on Micropiles ... ... ...... ......... ...... .. .................................... ............................. .. E-2 Appendix F - Construction Details ................................................................................ F-1 2 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.
GSl'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 Terra Costa. 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. 3 Design Requirements
The permanent micro pile cutoff wall will comprise the installation of an array of hollow bar micro piles 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 Bare 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 51 mm 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 1 O feet east of the bluff edge and structurally connect to the micro piles 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 ACl-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 ACl-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 4 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 micro pile 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 20 2021. Once a baseline model was calibrated, a secondary analysis was completed using the three-dimensional finite element software PLAXIS 30 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:
5 • 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 HoekBrown 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 MohrCoulomb failure criterion.
The table below summarizes the estimated engineering properties for each subsurface unit at the site.
Design Material Properties
Material
Reference Parameter Terrace Loose Torrey
Deposits Sand
RSSFill Sandstone
Formation
Unit Weiqht (lb/ft3) 110 105 120 120
Peak Friction Anqle, cp' (deqrees) 34 32 40 NIA
Effective Cohesion, C (lb/ft2) 5 5 10 NIA
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
6 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
Moment of In-Plane Axial Out-of-Plane Nominal
Structural Area, A Inertia, Ix Stiffness, EA1 Axial Stiffness, Moment Element (ft2) (ft') (lb/ft) EA2 (lb/ft) Capacity,
M., (lb-ft)
X51 0.11 0.97E-3 63.1E6 63.1 E6 6,304
PYRAMAT®75 - - 4,000 2,000 -
7 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 sequentia I 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.
PLAX/5 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 micro piles 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
8 • 51 mm hollow bars
• Steel bearing plates
• Hex nuts
• Couplers
9 Appendix A - Construction Sequence
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 micro pile 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 micro pile 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.
A-1
Appendix B - Design Analyses Output
Approx. scarp north
of proposal repair
PLAXIS 3D STABILITY MODEL INPUT
construction/vehicular
surcharge
blue surface
represents proposed
~----+-f-____ shotcrete surface for
cutoff wall
100 ft
PLAXIS 3D STABILITY MODEL INPUT
proposed X51 --- micropiles
z
light blue is proposed
reinforced soil slope
PLAXIS 3D STABILITY MODEL INPUT
blue is 8" nominal
I ------f ----reinforced shotcrete ~- surface
PLAXIS 3D STABILITY MODEL INPUT
70% opacity
---- perspective view to
illustrate pile
embedments
z
y
PLAXIS 3D STABILITY MODEL INPUT
___ ....__...,,_...__...._ ____ ~ ----x
-----
70% opacity side
view to illustrate 5'
pile embedment in
Torrey Sandstone
z
PLAXIS 30 STABILITY MODEL INPUT
- ~ y
Grid geometry shown
for Reinforced Soil
Slope
grid layers are UX1500 grid
~------+---------(EA1
4000 (in-plane stiffness)= lbs/ft; EA2 (out-of-plane
stiffness) = 2000 lbs/ft
z
000
-25.00
-50.00
.;5_00
-100.00
PLAXIS 3D STABILITY MODEL INPUT
1 •150.00
I I I I I
-125.00
I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
1 •100.00
I I I
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 1 O'. The
added benefit of the anchors to
global stability was conservatively
ignored in our analysis.
1 •75.00
I I
1-50 00
I I
• •
• •
• •
• •
• •
•• •
y
1000
I I
X
125.00
t I
15000
I I
e
PLAXIS 3D STABILITY MODEL INPUT
3D
PLAXIS Report
3D
1.1.2.1.1 Materials - Soil and interfaces - HS small
Identification T eITace Deposits Fill Loose Sand
Identification number 1 4 5
Drainage type Drained Drained Drained
Colour □
Comments (Nl)60 = 50 (Nl )60 = 50 (Nl)60 = 50
Y unsat lbf/ft3 110.0 120.0 105.0
'Y sat lbf/ft3 115.0 125.0 110.0
Dilatancy cut-off No No No
e irut 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000
e m,n 0.000 0.000 0.000
e max 999.0 999.0 999.0
E so
ref lbf/ft2 l.140E6 l.140E6 l.140E6
E oed
ref lbf/ft2 l.140E6 l.140E6 l.140E6
E ur
ref lbf/ft2 3.430E6 3.430E6 3.430E6
Identification
power(m)
Use alternatives
C c
C ,
e irnt
C ref
cp (phi)
'l' (psi)
Y 07
G 0r ef
Set to default values
V ur
P ref
K O nc
C inc
Z ref
Rf
Generally some cohesion
required in PLAXIS to
prevent singularity in
solver matrix
Terrace Deposits
\ 0.5000
\ No
\ 6.321£-3
\ 1.891£-3
' 0._i0Q_Q ______
r .
lbf/ft2 5.000 .
0 --------
34.00 0 4.000
0.1090£-3
lbf/ft2 2.550£6
No
0.2000
lbf/ft2 2089
0.4408
lbf/ft2/ft 0.000
ft 0.000
0.9500
3D
Fill Loose Sand
0.5000 0.5000
No No
6.321£-3 6.321£-3
1.891£-3 1.891£-3
Q..5__Q0Q__ ______ !).i()0__Q10.00 5.000 J --------- - - - 40.00 32.00
10.00 0.000
0.1090£-3 0.1090£-3
2.550£6 2.550£6
No No
0.2000 0.2000
2089 2089
0.3572 0.4701
0.000 0.000
0.000 0.000
0.9500 0.9500
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
Yu 0.4950 0.4950 0.4950
K w,rer In lbf/ft2 140.5E6 140.5E6 140.5E6
Failure criterion Mohr-Coulomb Mohr-Coulomb Mohr-Coulomb Stiffn~ Standard Standard Standard
Strength Manual Rigid Manual
R inter 0.7000 1.000 0.7000
Consider gap closure Yes Yes Yes
0 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 fP/day/ft 0.000 0.000 0.000 K o determination Automatic Automatic Automatic
K o,x = K O,y Yes Yes Yes
3D
Identification Terrace Deposits Fill Loose Sand
K O,x 0.4408 0.3572 0.4701
K O,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
ky ft/day 0.8607 0.8607 0.8607
kz ft/day 0.8607 0.8607 0.8607
e ,mt 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000
s s lift 0.000 0.000 0.000
Ck 1000E12 1000E12 1000E12
3D
1.1.2.1.2 Materials - Soil and interfaces - Hoek-Brown
Identification Terry Sandstone
Identification munber 2
Drainage type Drained
Colour ■
Comments
Y unsat lbf7ft3 120.0
Y sat lbf7ft3 125.0
Dilatancy cut-off No
e irnt 0.5000
e m,n 0.000
e max 999.0
E' rm lbf7fl2 20.89E6
v (nu) 0.1500
la c,I lbf7fl2 3.655E6
3D
Identification Terry Sandstone
m i 17.00
GSI 80.00
D 0.000
ill b 8.322
s 0.1084
a 0.5006
CT t lbf7fl2 47.59E3
CT C lbflfl2 -1.202E6
'I' max 0 0.000
CT 'I' lbflfl2 0.000
Undrained behaviour Standard
Sti:ffn~ Standard
Strength Manual
R inter 0.7000
Consider gap closure Yes
0 inter 0.000
Cross permeability Impermeable
3D
Identification Terry Sandstone
Drainage conductivity 1 , dk ft3/day/ft 0.000
Drainage conductivity 2 , dk ft3
/day/ft 0.000
K o detennination Manual
K O,x = K O,y Yes
K O,x 1.000
K O,y 1.000
k x ft/day 0.000
ky ft/day 0.000
kz ft/day 0.000
e imt 0.5000
Ck 1000E12
3D
1.1.2.1.3 Materials - Soil and interfaces - Concrete
Identification Concrete 4ksi
Identification number 3
Drainage type Non-porous
Colour ■
Comments
Y unsat lbf/ft3 145.0
'Y sat lbf/ft3 145.0
Dilatancy cut-off No
e irut 0.5000
e m,n 0.000
e max 999.0
E 28 lbf/ft2 734.0E6
v (nu) 0.1000
f c,28 lbf/ft2 1.150£6
3D
Identification Concrete 4ksi
f con 0.1500
f cfn 0.000
f cun 0.000
G c.za lbf7ft 7341
(j) max 0 37.00
"' 0 5.000
?re 1.000
ft,28 lbf/ft2 80.64E3
f b.m 0.000
G1,2a lbf7ft 734.0
"{ft 1.000
Time dependent behaviour No
E 1IE 2a 1.000
L,1ff c,2a 1.000
S cp /\p -l.400E-3
a 18.00
Shrinkage behaviour No
3D
Identification Concrete 4ksi
~ /\shr 0.000
t 50.shr /\p day 0.000
Creep behaviour No
q> /\er 0.000
t so /\er day 0.000
Stiffness Standard
Strength Rigid
R inter 1.000
Consider gap closure Yes
8 inter 0.000
Cross permeability Impermeable
Drainage conductivity 1 , dk fP/day/ft 0.000
Drainage conductivity 2 , dk ft3/day/ft 0.000
K o determination Automatic
K O,x = K O,y Yes
K O,x 0.3982
K O,y 0.3982
3D
Identification Concrete 4ksi
k x ft/day 0.000
ky ft/day 0.000
k z ft/day 0.000
e irnt 0.5000
C k 1000E12
3D
1.1.2.2 Materials - Geogrids -
Identification Pyrawall 75 UX1700
Identification number 1 2
Comments
Colour ■ ■
Material t)pe Elastic Elastic
Isotropic No Yes
EA1 lbf/ft 4000 3840
EA 2 lbf/ft 2000 3840
GA lbf/ft 1000 1920
Identification number 1 2
Identification number 1 2
3D
1.1.2.3 Materials - Plates -
Identification SC 8in
Identification number 1
Comments 6ksi
Colour ■
Material t)pe Elastic
d ft 0.6700
'Y lbf/ft3 140.0
Isotropic Yes
E 1 lbf/ft2 3.000E9
E2 lbf/ft2 3.000E9
V 12 0.2500
G12 lbf/ft2 1.200E9
G 13 lbf/ft2 1.200E9
G 23 lbf/ft2 1.200E9
3D
Identification SC 8in
Rayleigh a 0.000
Rayleigh~ 0.000
Prevent punching No
Identification number 1
1.1.2.4 Materials - Beams -
Identification
Identification number
Comments
Colour
Material t)pe
E lbf/ft2
'Y lbf/ft3
Beam type
Predefined beam type
Diameter ft
A ft2
I 2 ft4
I 3 ft4
Yield stress CTy lbf/ft2
Equivalent stiffness based on 4.5"
drillhole with X51 mm steel bar;
contribution of grout stiffness ignored
assuming fully cracked condition
I
\ X51
\ 1
\
\ ■
\.
rJllliil'OpMsl~ (
( 572.0E6 . . ~ - - - -
50.00 Predefined
3D
Massive circular beam
0.3750
0.1104
0.9707E-3
0.9707E-3
1.239E6 ~
"'- corresponding
"-._ nominal moment of
6.304 kip-ft per steel
section
3D
Identification X51
Critical direction Local direction 2
W 2 f t3 5.177E-3
Rayleigh a 0.000
Rayleigh~ 0.000
Identification number 1
Geogrid - Pyramat 75
Mechanical Thermal
Property
Material set
Identification
Comments
Colour
Material type
Properties
Isotropic
Unit
lbf/ft
lbf/ft
PLAXIS 3D STABILITY MODEL INPUT
Value
Pyramat 75
l~ss, o, o
Elastic
□
4000
2000
Colour
Red
Green
Blue
1255 1;11 Hue Elriil
1° 1~1 Saturation 1100 I: 1%
~ Lightness lso l': 1% Favourites
I 1 I
L
' Save colour as favourite 1 7
OK Cancel
PLAXIS 3D STABILITY MODEL OUTPUT
-170.00 -160,00 -150,00 -130,00 -120.00 -110,00 -100.00 -'J0,00 -80.00 -70.00 ~.00 -50.00 -'!0.00 -30.00 -20.00 -10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 'I0.00 so.co ii ' ' ' "t ' I ' I ' ' ' ti ' ' t ' j ' I ' t j j I I ti I " ' I , ' ' ' I ' I I ' I ' ' I t I' ' I I I ' t ' ' I 1 ' ' ' I I I ' " ' ' ' ' I ' ' I I t ' ' ' I I t " I I ' t ' I I ' ' I ' ] ' ' ' ' I t ' ' ' I ' f ' ' I ' t ' t I ' ' I "' ' ' I I I ' ' ' l ' ' ' ' 1 , " ,I' ' ' ii' ' ' t I 1 ' ' ' I ' ' I ' j ' I I ti' ' ' ti' ' II I ' I ' ' I ' ' ' t I ' ' I ,I I II I I 1 ' I ' I ' I ' ' I ' I I ' I' ' ' ' I ' ' ' I I 1 ' ' ' I ' Critical 2D Section pulled from 3D
analysis - Back Analyzed Factor of Safety
(FS) of 1.0 with pre-failure geometry
y
X
deformed piles from
pushover analysis.
System designed to
accommodate up to 1"
of total pile deformation.
PLAXIS 30 STABILITY MODEL OUTPUT
-- 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
Axial forocs N (sea~ up 0.100* 10 -3 times)
Maxm.rn value• 679.9 bf (Element 602 at Node 221) ! Minimum value • -39.88*10 3 bf (Element 136 at Node 2647) l
-- 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
Shear forces Q 12 (scaled up s .. 00* 10 •3 times)
Maximum value • 551. 1 t 586 at Node 279
MnTunvalue • -387.3bf~t354atNode 2444)
-- 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
Bending mom~nts M3 (scaled up s .. 00• 10 -3 times)
Maxm.rn value - 364.3 bf ft (Element 265 at Node 295S)
lMinimum value - -985.4 l>f ft (El~t 592at Node 280)!
-- Moment Utilization
= 986*1 .1 lbs-ft /
6400 lbs-ft = 17%
-- Accounts for up to
6ft of material loss
below shotcrete
facing.
•
Critical 2D section pulled
from 3D analysis - max strain
increment in the grid
reinforcement is ~1 % of
ultimate value.
PLAXIS 3D STABILITY MODEL OUTPUT
... Total principal strain 1:1 {Kated up 1.00•103 times} MaxiTunvU • 1.ni• 1o•IS (Elenent2"9S atStresspoht29937) f.lrirl.mvb•-1.632•10-J ~t-«>86atStressl)Cli'lt<ffl23)
·l.00
·1.25
·1.SO
·l.7S
-2,00
·2.25
·2.50
-2.75
-3.00
-3,2S
.3.50
.3.75
-1,00
-1,25
.... 50
. ...,,
a
Critical 2D section pulled from 3D
analysis.
-- static global stability FS = 1.51
-- seismic global stability FS = 1.12
-160.00 -152,00
•
PLAXIS 3D STABILITY MODEL OUTPUT
Totalprirtcipalstraine1 (scaled upSO.OtimH)
MaXJl'UT1vau!: • 0.019n•10~ (Element350ta t5tressp(lrlt 2006) t-nn:.rnvb ■ -0.1509 (Elerner,l 3882atSlrtss poi-It '46574)
6'1.00 n.oo 80.00 88,00 96.00 IM,00 112,I
-<0,00
·50.00
-<o.00
-70.00
-80,00
..0,00
·100.00
-110,00
-120.00
·lll.00
-1-10.00
·150.00
-160,00
Appendix C - Calculations
Facing Calculations
Design Approach/Assumptions -
• AC/ 318-14 Code Edition.
• Reinforced shotcrete facing treated as a cantilevered beam/one-way slab. o UH ratio> 2
• Conservatively assumed full lateral earlh 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 earlh 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 seam Geomerrie.s:
heigr,t oftl'le beam h •
width of Che beam I>. -
cover cov •
distance to rebar d •
0 for beam, 1 for sJab var •
0. 1, for spiral, 0_6!1 for other var 2 •
p
18 in
8 in
2 In
16 in
1 0.65
~ - 60000 psi
Strength Reduction Fact.or
Steel in Member
r, - 4000 psi
, ,. 085
Q> • 0_90
A. • 2.05 in2
Check Min Steel:
Mm amount of steel
Slee/ to be used·
A..-,• 026i02
A.• 2-05 in2
Check TensiOn Cont rOlled:
Find Compress,on t1epttt·
T en&on contro' cheek:
a• 4.532353 in
C • 5.33218
£1 • 0.006002
Tenlion Controled
Solve lor Capacity:
.!i!&::!E..
1)
2)
Created using ACI 318-1 4
M. • 1693106 I1:Hn
1523795 ll);n
127.0 k.ft
lf•1isgreater than 0.005, the beamfstab is t ension controlled. tf•1i s less t han 0.002, the beam'slab is colf1)ression controlled. If it i s bdween the two, the beanv'sliib is in transition (See f igu re 2~ Concrete Beam/1-way Slab Calculator
Figure 1: Concrete Beam Diagram in a
balanced condition
rt - 0 002 ,., • 0.005
~ - osoo ; .. o.375
"-tionanc.11,. Spj,.,,~075,0,15~- fl
Ott.t= 0.65+ 0.25(~- ¾f
Figure 2: Tension/Compression/Transition zones with
corresponding Strength ReducHon Factors
C-1
Equations Used:
I (bm ) 3fl'b,.d 200b,d .-l1 --=- ms - ~ :S: ---y;-
.~, .... (slabs)- 0.002b,.dl
.v , :I "= 0.851,'b
BJ I•, -ooo{d~') I
I·"· -A,.f,(d- f> I
Reinforced Shotcrete Design - Check Against Loads
,_ f'c (psi] 4,000 psi fy 60 psi
,_ L [ft) 144 in. (j) 0.9 in.
L.R. W4.0 mesh+ #5 bar+ X51 bar Area= 1.94 T.R. W4.0mesh +#5bar Area=0.13 b 8 in.
DL 4 k LL 1 k
= 0.9 --- ---.. h= 18 in.
d= 16 in.
- .. Wo,= 3.5 k/ft
WLL= 1.4 k/ft -- W= u 6.5 k/ft
M.= 117.5 k-ft
Rn= 0.7648 ksi
- p= 0.0127 %
Pmin= 0.0033 %
Pmax= 18.0625 %
Steel Percentage is Satisfactory I
Steel to be Used, As 2.07 in 2
A,,mesh *2 layers+ (A,,#sb,,*2/ft of
wall) +A,, x51*1full bar between in 2
As ca/c.
each span
o_ 119• 2+[ 0_3•2;12J+ 1.2•2•0.5 in 2
- Mn 127.0000 k-ft
Mn> Mu I Design is Satisfactory T
C-2
Reinforced Shotcrete Design - Check Against Loads - Formulas Shown •= 0.9
h= ... 18 J in.
- d= =B61-2 in. ... WoL= =( o.s •o. 39•125*( B55/12) "2) •o. 001 k/ft - - Wu= =2169.41 *0.00l*(B57/12) k/ft --- - - Wu= =( 1.2 *B63)+(864 *1.6) k/ft Mu= =((B65*(855/12)"2)/8) k-ft --- - Rn= =B66*12/(B60*B57*B62"2) ksi -- - p= =( (0.85*854 )/E54}*( 1-(SQRT( 1-(2*867)/(0.85* B54)))) % Pmin;;;; =200/(E54*1000) %
Pmilx= =(3/8)*((0.85*854*1000*0.85}/(60*1000)} %
=IF(AN D(B68>869,B68<870), "Steel Percentage is Satisfactory" ,"Steel Percentage is not Satisfactory") Steel to be Used, As =0.119*2+( 0. 3*2/ B61) + 1.8*2*0.5 in z - A,, mesh *2 layers+ (A,,#s bar*2/ft of wall)+ A,, xsi *1 full bar between each in z
As calc. span
0.119*2+(0.3*2/18}+ 1. 8*2 *0.5 in z
Mn 127 k-ft
Mn> Mu =IF(B76>866, "Design is Satisfactory", "Design is not Satisfactory") C-3
Tensile and Compression Capacity
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
FHWA Sacrificial Steel Calculations
[(
4 . A ) ]o.s Do= : C + (dn
Do
X
X
Deft = D0 - 2X
Deff
A _ n • D;ed r ed - 4
Areduced
1nDi ----
4 Rr = Areduced * [y
RT
(!)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 Sacrificial Steel metric
Thickness of Sacrificial Steel uses
Effective Bar Diameter
Reduced Steel Area
Nominal Tensile Capacity
ASTM A615 Tensile Resistance
Reduced Tensile capacity
Static l oad Combination Factor
Design Tensile capacity
Bar tensile capacity for 75-yr design life - Static condition C-4
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;;)1i~fulations
Do
X
X
D•tt = D0 -2X
Deft
D2
'Tt * r ed
A r ed = 4
Areduced
Rr = Areduced * [y
RT
(J)T
T Reduced
rr * D2 '"·
4 Load Combination Factor
T Design
XSl
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
Calculated Outer Diameter
Thickness of Sacrif icial Steel met
Thickness of Sacrificial 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
Bar tensile capacity for 75-yr design life - Seismic condition C-5
Allowable Compression Loads • Micropiles
Pile Dimensions/ Properties
BarType
Bar Dia. (OD)
Bar Dia. (ID)
Hole Dia,
Reduced Area of Steel
Area of Grout
Steel Fy
Grout f'c
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,.uflowoN, = (o.4J; x Agro,,/ +0.47 F, -bo, x A,,.,,,) P _c-allowable
Max Compression Load
Structural Check
61 kips
40 kips
OK
Bar compression capacity for 75-yr design life
C-6
<= Reduced for Corrosion
(Eq. 5-7)
Appendix D - Material Properties
Self-Drilling SuperNails TM
• Hollow bar: X51
o Nominal Diameter: 51 mm (or equivalent) 0.0.
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-lnch 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
• Stee I Nuts: Sha II conform to ASTM A 108
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 06364. 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, 1/11, 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-1
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
D-2
...............
Geo-Drill Injection Anchor System
The Williams Geo-Drill Injection Anch:Jr System is today's solution for a fast and efficient anchoring system into virtually any type of soil. The system has historically been kno.vn as a "self-drilling anchoring" because the hollow fully-threaded bar serves as both the drill string and the grouted anchor, thus installation is performed in a sil'l;jle operation.
The sacrificial drill bit is thrEaded onto the end of the H oil o,v Injection Bar and left in place following drilli llJ. The drilling fluid (air. water, or grout) is introduced through the hollow bar and allows the spoils to flush from the boreh:Jle.
The Geo-Drill System is particularly suitable for soils that do not allow for open-hole drilling O .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 GeoDrill Injection Anchor System should be considered on any project requirillj fast producfi on that would otherwise need to involve a casing system in order to maintain borEhole stability.
Advantages of the Williams Geo--Drill frtjeetion Anchor System • Fully domestic system available.
• Fast, single-step anchoring system with simple equipment. • Elim in ates the need for a cased borehole in collapsing soils. • Efficient installation since drilling and groutillj can be performed in a single operation, saving both fime and money. • Continuously drilling and grouting under high prEssurE causes the grout to permeate into I ooser soils <11d crEates a bub-effect for increased bond capacity. • Suitable for wor1<ing in limited space and arEas of diffi cu t access. • M utiple ranges of drill bits suitable for most soil condifions. • Installed with standard track drill (top hammer) or hand-held drillillJ equipment, eliminating the need for larger casing rigs.
• Continuously threaded bar pattern can be ct.t and coupled anywherE along its length. • Domestic available in 1 O' 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 Infection Bar
Bar Average
- Minrrum Mininun HorTinal Port In.- Nel- Ultimm, Yield Dia......, Diameter - Strennth Sire......, Weight Nunt>er
32 mm 0.787" 0.556 in: 58.4 kips 47.2 kips 2.1 lbs/II B7X1 .032N (1-1 /4") (20.0 mm) (359 mm') (260 kN) (21 0 kN) (3.1 kg.In) 32S mm 0.626" 0.776 in' 81.S kips 66.0 kips 2.7 lbs/II 8 7X1-032S (1-1 /4") (15.9 mm) (501 mm') (363 kN) (294 kN) (4.0 kg.In) 38 mm 0.830" 1.067 in: 112 kips 90.7 kips 3.76 lbs/ft B7X1 .038N (1-1 /2') {21.1 mm) (688 mm'> (498 kN) (404 kN) t 5.6 kaJn) 51 mm 1.187" 1.795 in= 188 kips 152 kips 6.26 lbs/ft 8 7X1.051 N (2'' (30.1 mm) (1158 mm ') (837 kN) (677 kN) (9.3 kg.In) 76 mm 1.890" 3.880 in: 407 kips 329 kips 13.79 l)s/ft B7X1 .076N (3") (48.0 mm) (2503 mm ') (181 1 kN) (1466 kN) (20.5 kg/m ) B7Y1 Non-Domestic Hollow lniltt!tion Bar
Bar O esignation Average
- MinimJm "6ninun Noninal Port &OUler In.- NelAree Ultimate Yield Weight Nunt>er Dia......, Diameter - Strennth s1rT30S - 30 mm 11 mm 0.662 in: 71 .9 kips 58.5 kips 2.42 lbs/ft B7Y1-030S (1.18") (0.43") (427 mm') (320 kN) (260 kN) (3.6 Kg,M) T40N - 40 mm 20 mm 1.046 in' 121 kips 96.7 kips 4.23 lbs/II 87Y1.040N (1.57") (0.79") (675mm') (539 kN) (430 kN) (6.3 Kg,M) T40S - 40 mm 16 mm 1.222 in: 148 kips 118 kips 4.84 lbs/ft B7Y1-040S (1.57") (0.63"') (788 mm') (660 kN) (525 kN) (7.2 K91M) T52N - 52 mm 24 mm 1.874 jnl 209 kips 164 kips 6.92 lbs/ft 8 7Y1.052N (2.05") (0.94") (1209 mm') (929 kN) (730 kN) (1 0.3 Kgllv1) • T73N. 73 mm 53 mm 2.5 jnZ 260 kips 21 8 kips 8.9 lbs/II 8 7Y1-073N • (2.87") (2.08"') (1615 mm') (1160 kN) (970 kN) (1 3.2 Kg/M) T76S - 76 mm 45 mm 3.891 in: 427 kips 337 kips 13.23 bs/ft 87Y1-076S (2.99") (1 .77") (2510 mm') (1900 kN) (15 00 kN) (1 9.7 Kgllv1) • T103N - 103 mm 78 mm 4.87 in: 510 kips 405 kips 17.0 lbs/ft 8 7Y1-103N • (4.06") (3.07") (31 40 mm') (2270 kN) (1 800 kN) (25.3 Kgllv1) • T130N - 130 mm 60 mm 16.2 jnl 1785 kips 1180 kips 50.4 lbs/II 8 7Y1-130N • (5.1 2") (2.36"') (10452 mm ') (7940 kN) (5250 kN) (78 Kg/M) • Diameter available on special order. Contad yourWlhams representative for fastener anddnll bi 1nformat1on.
D-3
...............
Accessories
Threaded Bar Profile
The Hollow Injection Bar is a high strength, impact resi stant heavy wall steel tubing conforming to AS TM A519 or A513 and is continuously threaded over its entire length with a heavy duty left hand thread/deformation pattern. The steel tubing proVides maximum flow with minimum resistar,;:e dunng high pressure flushing and grouting operations. The thread form (similar for all diameters) is a unique Williams feature that i:x-ovides a lower thread pitch angle to provide easier coupling disengagement wittout" locking up", than conventional rope threads dunng drilling operations. This thread form provides more surface area and tlTead/defonmations per unit length for superior bond capabilities over that f1 competifive drill steel thread forms. The bar s tlTead/defonmation pattern has also shown to exceed the bond charactenstics of ASTM A615 reinforcing steel. The lower thread angle allows the installed anchor to be torque-tensioned. The Geo-Drill Injection Anctor system is available with enhanced corrosion protection with hot-dip galvanized/epoxy coated bars and components. Installation adapters for the Geo-Dnll Injection Anctors are available for al l dnll Jigs.
Couplings The Hollow lnjecfion Bar Coll)lings
ha\.€ a U1ique tapered center stop which
seals the Injection Bar connection to minim ize grout leakage dunng sin ultaneous grouting and ctilling operations. The internal stop design also assu-es a full postive thread connecfion in both Injection Bar
ends while providing a matching end
bearing between bars that reduces percussion energy loss to the dnll bit. The co43lings are mactined from ASTM A?3 grade C1045 high strength steel to provide 100% ulfimate tensile or compression stre~ th capacity of the installed anchorage. The coupling OD is tapered on beth ends to allow drill cuttings and grout displacement duri~ dlillilg while the ID has internal chamfers to assist alignmert and connecfion of the bars. The Non-Domestic Hollow I rjection Bar Couplings do not crntain a tapered center stop, but instead ha\.€ an o-nng gasket to minimize grout leakage.
Hex Nuts
The Hex Nuts designed
exclusively for the Geo-Drill
Injection Anchor system are a
full 1 00% ultimate tension or
compression strength component. They are manufactured
from a high strength steel complying with AS TM A 108.
RBM Beveled Washers
Bar
32mm
38mm
51 mm
76mm
T30
T40
T52
T76
2 -1 /6"
54 mm
2~ 4"
70 mm
3 -3/4"
95 mm
f>-art
N...-ber
B7X2-032
B7X2-038
B7X2-051
B7X2-076
B7Y2-030
B7Y2-040
B7Y2-052
B7Y2-076
Thickness Part
NUfTber
B7X3-032
B7X3-038
B7X3-051
B7X3-076
B7Y3-030
B7Y3-040
B7Y3-052
B7Y3-076
Bar Degree Outside Inside Ma Kirn.Im Mninun Part
<#Ba,a Diameter Diameter lhickre• Thickness Nunt>er R9F Hardened Washers 32mm 15• 2-13116" 1-5116" 1" 511 6" R8~-09S & T30 (71 mm) (33 m m) (25 mm) (8 mm) Bar Outside Diameter
38mm 15• 3-3/6" 1-3/4" 1-114" 3/6" R8"1 -12S"38 (86 mm) (45 m m) (32 mm) (1 0 mm) 32 mm 2-112"
& T30 (64 m m)
T40 15• 3-112" 2" 1-114" 3/6" R8M-13S (89 mm) (51 m m) (32 mm) (1 0 mm) 38 mm ~
& T40 (76 m m)
51 mm 15• $-1/4" 2-9/32" 1-518" 711 6" RSM -16-1 50 & T52 '1 33 mm l (58 m ml (41 mml (11 mml 51 mm 3-314" & T52 (95 m ml
76mm 15• 6" 3-112" 2-7164" 112· R8M-24B7X & T76 '1 52 mm l {89 m ml (54 mml (1 3 mml 76 mm 5-112" & T76 ' 140 mml
•uaeveled \A.eshers must be used 1n conJund1on w th hardened V\eSher .•u B7XC Centralizers
The bar can be centralized in the dlill hole rn 1 O' centers by attaching a steel centralizer in frort of the coupling duri~ the dolling operation. Avalable plain or hot dip galvarized to ASTM A 123. State drill hole diameter and bar size when ordering.
D-4
Inside Tnckness Part
Diameter Nu..-
1-318" 5132" R9F-10-436 (35 mm ) (4 mm)
1-518" 5132" R9F-1 2-436 (41 mm ) (4 mm)
2-118" 7132" R9F-16-436 (54 mm l (6 mml
3-118" 9132" R9F-24-436 {80 mm l (7 mml
...........
_
Accessories
B1XB Drill Bits Nominal
Soll Nails
HC Hardened Bit
Hardened cross ctt drill bit, suitable for the majority of applications including narrow baids of soft rock.
Soil Types: Fills and Medium Dense Gravels
cc Carbide Bit
Tull)sten caroide cross-cut m ll bit. Excellent choice for majooty of !T<3nuIar soils with mixed hard form ations.
Soil Types: Fills. Gravels , Shale & Seamy Rock
Formations
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
BB Button Bit
Tungsten carbide hemispherical button dlill bit for
moderately strong to strong rock, boulders am rubble.
Rock Types: Mudstone. Limestone, and Granite
CB Cobble Bit
Offset face cross cut dlill bit suitable for drilling in cobbles with silt and gravel as well as sedimentary
bedrock material.
Bar
Diwneler
32 mm (1- 1/4)
38 mm ( 1- 1/Z')
130
T40
5 1 mm
(2')
T52
76 mm (3')
T76
Applications
HC
2"
'51 mm'l
2-1/Z' -. mm'l
3"
176 mm'l
3,1/Z' tRC mm)
4"
( 102 mm)
2-112'
(65 mm)
3"
(76 mm)
3-1/Z'
(89 mm)
4"
( 102 mm)
A•ailable Drill Bit Diameters
cc SB BB CB
z· 2-1,Z'
'51 mm'l (65 mm)
2-1/Z' 3" -. mm'l '76 mm) ~- 5' 3-1/Z' 4"
'76 mm'l (127 mm) <BQ mm'l (102 mm)
3-112." .-Ra mm) 4"
4' ( 102 mm) ' 102 mm)
2-112' 2-11.2" l'ffi. mm) 5' t'l¥i.mm)
3" ( 127 mm) 3"
n 6 mm' n 5 m m'
3-1/Z' 3-112' 4"
"°° mm'l '89 m m't (102 mm)
4" 6" 4"
102 mm'I { 102 mm)
4 1/Z' ( 152 mm) 5" . ... _, ,, __ _,
3" 3" '76 mm)
3- 112'' 6" (76 mm) 4-314' «n mm) ( 152 mm) (121 mm)
4" 3-1'2"
' 102 mm) (9) mm)
4 1/Z' 4''
"114 mm'l (102
5" 8" mm) f:/'
,{ 127 mm'l (203 5" (152
6" mm) (127 mm)
" 152 mm'l mm)
4" 7" ' 102 mm) ( 178 mm)
5" 7" 5" ' 125 mm) (178 mm) (125 mm) 6" ' 152 mm) 10' 6" 7" "175 mm'l ( 254mm) (152 mm)
Soil Nails are rem-tensioned, in-situ reinforcement for the stabilly of excavations and embankments in top-down constrix- tion. The Williams Geo-Dlill Injection Anchor System is an ideal choice for sot nailing i1 difficult soils as it offers high installation rates. HollDN bar sot nails have been used extensiliety on private aid select DOT permanent soil nail walls tor years. With the 2015 edition of the FHWA Gedechrical Engineering Circular #7, hcitow bar soil nails are specifically addressed am allowed for use in non-corrosive ground com itions. Consult your \Mlliam s' Technical Representative for more information.
Prestresnd Ground Anchors
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 tree length must be installed orto the anchor if the project specifications call for a pretension 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 aw ropliate level of corrosion protection if prestressed ground anchors are intended to be used for a permanent aw lication.
M~':~ allow Injection Bar offer an excellent choice for micro piles in difficult ground conditions where open-hole drilling isn't possible. The continuously threaded bar profile lends itself perfectly for restricted headroom aw rications because the bar can be ctt and coupled at any length. The FHWA has approved hol lO# bar anchors for permanent use in mi cropile applications.
ruv~~~~nfe~ o~il~ em is often used for spil ing in NA TM tunneling. Spiles are continuously drilled and grouted pre-support reinforcement to enable the heading of a tunnel to advance without the Jisk of falling debris. The anchors can also be used as face stabilization of portals.
Limitations of System In general, Williams recommends using the Geo-Drill Injection Anch:Jr Sy stem in difficult soils that do not allow for open-hole drilling. Ground conditions featuri ng large voids or the presence of an artesian water condition are generally not suitable for a ctilled am 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.
D-5
Welded Wire Mesh Reinforcement
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
W16 .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
W10.5 .366 .357 .42 .315 .21 .105 .Q70
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 .Q70 .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 L
.11 9 .14 .105 .07 .035
W3 .195 .102 .12 .09 .06 .030
W2.9 .192 .098 .116 .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 12X12 -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) Nole: The aboYe listing ol plain m sizes represents \\ires nonnaly selected to maoofactue welded m reinfortement styles to specific areas of retnforrement ~ may be deformed~ prefix D, except IYhefe only Wis requied oo blilding codes (usualy less than W4). Wre sizes other than those isled above may be available W the quantity requred is sufficient to justify maoofactue. ' The number follolYlng the prefix W Identifies the cross-seci,onal area or the wire ,n hundredlhs or a square inch.
The nomnat <mleler ol a delomed mis~ 10 lhe <m1e1er ol a i;lail...,, haW1g \he saroo welfl( per l:iot as lhe debrned-Y,te.
Refer to ACI 318 fo, The ACI Building Code requirements fo, tension development lengths and tensioo lap splices or welded wire reinf0<cement Fo, additional info,matioo see Welded Wire Reinfo,cement Manual of Standard Pracbce and Structural Welded Wire Reinfo,cement Detailing Manual, published by the Wire Reinfo,cemenl lnstiMe.
Welded Wire Reinforcement Institute
D-6
19 Prefabricated Drainage Material
SITEDRAIN™ STRIP 6600
PREFABRICATED STRIP DRAIN
PRODUCT OVERVIEW
~ AWD
AMERI CAN WICk DRAIN
SITCDRAIN Slnp 6600 geocomposile strip drain products are composed of a dimpled polymeric perlorated co,e fully wrapped ma nonwoven geo1ex11le. The geotextile allows water 10 pass through wrule retaining backfil matenals. The perforated rore aBows water collection from al sides and provides a cootinuous flow path to designated drainage exits.
SITEDRAIN Strip 6600 p,oducts provide a value engineered alternative 10 perforated pipe and aggregate subsurface drainage systems requinng moderate strength. high llow capaci11, and a geotex11le meeting A ASH TO H288 Class 2 subsurface drainage requirements.
PROPERTY I TEST HETHOO UNIT OF HEASURE Typical Value HARV
GEO TEXTILE
Nateria1 1 PP, NPNW PP, NPNW HOO[L WIOIH
Survivabilili AASHTD H288 Class 2 2 ~
Grab Tensile lbs 195 160
ASTH 04632 Strength N 867 712
Grab Elongation ASTH 04632 % 60 5D 12'
lbs 505 410
CSR Puncture ASTH D6241 18'
N 2.246 t824
lbs 85 60 Ir
Trapezoidal Tear ASTH 04533
N 378 267 24'
UV Resistance ASTH 04355 % I 5DD Hrs 70 70 1''
Apparent Opening sieve 70 70
ASTH D4751 SizelAOS)' mm 0.212 0.212 36'
Permittivity ASTH 04491 sec1 2.1 t5
gp,n lfl' 155 l10 Waler Flow Rate ASTH Ot,1,91
Lpmlm' 6.315 4,482
CORE
Compressive ASTH 06364 psf 6.000
Strength ASTH 01621 kPa 287
In 1.0
Thickness ASTH D5199 mm 25.4
In-Plane Flow Rate' ASTH 04716 gpm/ft
Lpm/m
21 261
Un~ ott-erw1se noted all physical and performance proptrtits ils1ed are Typteal Yah.ie Of N1r.mum Average Roi Valtiel'1m) as defll'led in ASl N 04439 PP - Pot~propylenP NPNW - Nfflh-f'unched N(m~en WM • Woven Nonof1iamenl: S8NW - SJ)l,NlbondP.d Nonwo,l?fl YaliJts for ADS rt pr twit Ha, mom A~rJ9! Roi v,1i,;,. (Na~ARV} • ln--ptane !low rate measured at 3 600 psf On kPa) compreSSNe load and a hrdrau11c grad ent al 0.1.
ROU
LENGTH
ISO'
!00
ISO'
!00
l!iO'
!00
Ill'
Al IKtincal informal on conta ried In lh1s doculN"t'W 1s 1C:ura1, as of pi.ibl1 .. alt0n AWO ~vtS !he nghl lo PHke cttangn to prot Is am-I ltr ur,v.1lhf)UI notice Please 1efe, to our webs,te for tttt most curr1:1 t tect\l'ilcal form&1100 d'la•lable Amerocan Wick Dram • 1209 Airport Road, Monroe NC 28110 USA , IF: •1.800.242.9425 • PH: •1704.238.9100 , EHAIL: mlo@awd-usacom D-7
:~~' l lT[H CODE
:Ilk 114!0
"'f4
rn•, l1llO
n•, 111111
1<0k ll200
.... 11481
31a, 11210
.... 1 114W
WEB: awd-usacom
Appendix E - Micropile Testing
E-1
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.
E-2
Appendix F - Construction Details
BLUFF STABILIZATION PLANS
...
i ~· ~ ?
:z.' ,,. 'P t, .£ i ~ i p
;~APPROXIMATE
,PROJECT LOCATION
'LAT: 32.Ql029
LONG;.117.2f 413 ••
.. ~
VICINITY MAP
(liO T TO SCAL ~
LAS BRISAS CONDOMINIUMS
CITY OF SOLANA BEACH, CA
LAS BRISAS HOA
SHEET INDEX
NO. DESCRIPTION
C-01 COVER SHEET
C-02 GENERAL NOTES
C-03 GENERAL NOTES (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 MICR OPILE ANCHOR DETAILS
C-09 MICR OPILE CAP DETAILS
C-10 SECTION VIEW· RSS SYSTEM
C-11 PHASE II MITIGATION SECTION
C-12 MICR OPILE TESTING DETAILS
C-13 DRILL LOGS
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 DUST PRODUCING ACTIVITIES, AND GLOVES.
• GSI WILL GENERATE 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 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:
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 04
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 SILTY 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
09/27/21 ISSUED FOR PERMIT IFP LAS BRISAS CONDOMINIUMS
1----+--------------+-----1 SHEET TITLE:
THIS DRAWING IS FURNISHED SOLELY FOR THE USE OF OR IN CONNECTION WTH 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
MAC
GENERAL NOTES
CHECKED BY: DATE:
JDR 09/27/21
PROJECT NUMBER:
210487CA01
SHEET
C-02
lie o!ita biliza tio n Inte rna tio n a l®
Phone: 855.579.0536 I Fax: 970.245.7737
www.geostabilization.com
RSS ANCHOR DETAILS
TYPE B3 ANCHOR PROPERTIES
Component Materials
Anchor Head
Cable Tendon
Material Composition
Hot Dip Galvanized Ductile
Iron
Ga Iva nized St eel
Physical Properties
t>.~ 1n x i84 m x 2.36 In
(163.3 mm x 46. 7 mm x 59.9 mm)
Bearino Area: 10.3 in• 166.5 cm•l
Diameter: 0.1875 In (4.8 mm)
Lower Termination Aluminum Length: 0.65 in (16.5 mm), Wal l Thickness: 0.11 in (2.8 mm) Load Bearing Plate Zinc-Alum inum
5.98 in x 6.6 In x 0. 75 In
(15i9 mm x 167.6 mm x 19.1 mm)
Bearing Area: 17.43 in• (112.5 cm')
Top Termination Zinc-Alum inum
Circumferential Tripple Wedge Grip Assembly to Eliminate cable Pinch Points Grip to Cable Conwct Surface Area: 0.505 in2 (3.3 cm 2) Grip to Cable Contact Ratio: 97% of Cable Diameter
Performance Properties
Ult imate 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,
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 Yfi3)
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 FOR C 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 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 I/11/V 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 (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 IFR
09/27/21 ISSUED FOR PERMIT IFP LAS BRISAS CONDOMINIUMS
1-----+----------------------1 SHEET TITLE:
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
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 (CONT)
CHECKED BY: DATE:
JDR 09/27/21
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
DILL LOGS
PROOF NAIL TEST
MUD BALANCE
READINGS (SPECIFIC
GRAVITY)
GROUT CUBES
SHOTCRETE PANELS
FREQUENCY
EVERY MICROPILE
5% OF PRODUCTION NAILS,
TEST AFTER 48 HRS
ONCE EACH DAY OF
GROUTING
1 SET OF 3 CUBES PER
EVERY 10 PILES INSTALLED
2 PRODUCTION PANELS
THROUGHOUT PROJECT
lieo!it abiliza tio n Intern a tio n a l ®
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.
OVERSPRAY BARRIER
(SEE NOTE 5)
...
EROSION CONTROL BMPs
WILL BE PLACED AT THE
SEAWALL WITHIN THE
CONSTRUCTION ZONE
30' WIDE CONSTRUCTION
WORK ZONE (SEE NOTE 4)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I - - ----- - -- .J. - J
6' PAST THE END OF THE
SEAWALL END OF
CONSTRUCTION ZONE
••
...
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.
w
~ ~
0 10' 20' 40'
!
~L-...:...._:.......::. _______ -r--_-=::.,_ _____ --=-----------------r----....L...------.--~:;;;~:=;;::;::;:---, { SHEET REVISIONS PROJE i I--D-A=TE ........... -------=-D=Es::-,:c=-=R=1 p=T::-:1o=N-:-------.----::N-:-::0::--1 I 09/01/21 ISSUED FOR REVIEW IFR I 09127121 ISSUED FOR PERMIT IFP 5 l------+------------+-------1 SHEET TITLE: ~ ~ l------+------------+-------1
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
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
LAS BRISAS CONDOMINIUMS
EXISTING SITE & ACCESS PLAN
CHECKED BY: DATE:
JDR 09/27/21
PROJECT NUMBER:
210487CA01
SHEET
C-04
lieo!itabilization International®
Phone: 855.579.0536 I Fax: 970.245.7737
www.geostabilization.com
REINFORCED
REINFORCED Ml
POST-CONSTRUCTION
GEOGRID REINFORCED SLOPE
ROXIMATE LOCA
EXISTING TIED-BAG
. ELEV. 35'
SHEET REVISIONS PROJECT NAME:
DATE DESCRIPTION NO
09/01/21 ISSUED FOR REVIEW IFR
09/27/21 ISSUED FOR PERMIT IFP
1----1---------------+----t SHEET TITLE:
THl~gi;E'6~~~~ ~~~N~~~~~1~~~~~y1~~iRT:!\~i~ i:o~~~~~~i~~;~i/i~~~HIS ORA WN BY: TRANSMITTED TO ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION WITHOUT SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATION BY coN~~~~~~~ !~~~~~~~~;:; ~~~~1 ~~
1 /TsT~G~H~~~tE~ iuNi;ovN~~~;TOR MAC
'r .;"
r "'
DRILL LOWER MICROPILE
INTO EXISTING SEAWALL
RETURN TO REPAIR
BREACH IN WALL.
LAS BRISAS CONDOMINIUMS
PROJECT SITE PLAN
CHECKED BY: DATE:
JDR 09/27/21
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
♦~ ~
0 10' 20' 40'
lieo!itabilization International®
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 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"
@ A BETWEEN -1
18" SPACING
C-07 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
09/27/21 ISSUED FOR PERMIT IFP
1------+-------------+----1 SHEET TITLE:
LAS BRISAS CONDOMINIUMS
SECTION VIEW - CUTOFF WALL
THIS DRAWING IS FURNISHED SOLELY FOR THE USE OF OR IN CONNECTION WTH 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
MAC
CHECKED BY:
JDR
DATE:
09/27/21
PROJECT NUMBER:
210487CA01
SHEET
C-06
LASBRISASCONDOMINIUMS
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
lieo!itabilization International®
Phone: 855.579.0536 I Fax: 970.245.7737
www.geostabilization.com
z
0 ~ ~
0:::
0 LL
1-
z
0 0...
~ co
UJ
>- z
UJ 0
0::: l- o::: (/)
00 I- z
<(
Cf)
TWO LAYERS W4.0x4x4 EPOXY C
(OR GALVANIZED) MESH; ONE
ON EACH SIDE OF MICRO
OATED~
LAYER
PILES
NOMINAL 8" REINFORCE
SHOTCRET
~ ------------
CONTINUOUS NO.5 EPOXY COATED
(OR GALVANIZED) WALERS, SPACING
18". PLACED ON TOP OF MESH ON
SOUTH SIDE OF MICROPILES
SPLICE LENGTH OF 30
,
II
KEY IN SHOTCRETE
BASE MINIMUM 6" BELOW
SURROUNDING GRADE
~
['.
r---
"
--
LESS
ILITY)
18" SPACING, GALVANIZED (OR STAIN
STEEL PENDING MATERIAL AVAi LAB
X51 MICROPILES. PILES SHOU
EMBEDDED A MIN. OF 5' INTO UNDER
TORREY SANDSTONE FORM
LO BE
ATION
LYING ~
NVIEW
SHEET REVISIONS PROJECT NAME:
DATE DESCRIPTION NO
09/01/21 ISSUED FOR REVIEW IFR
09/27/21 ISSUED FOR PERMIT IFP
l-----+-----------+--------1 SHEET TITLE:
THIS DRAWING IS FURNISHED SOLELY FOR THE USE OF OR IN CONNECTION WTH 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
MAC
1 -- - r -- -
-- -
-- -
-- -
-- - r--,- -- - r---
r--~ -- - -- rI'- r--
~" """- - -- - -- rr-~
1-t- - - t--- t- -- ._ __ 1--- --1-t- -
SELF-DRILLING MICROPILE
4.5" BIT TYP
8"
NOMINAL
0 ~T~CTIONAL VIEW
SHOTCRETE
4" DRAIN PIPE DRAIN STRIP
j
co
~ 8" 4-
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
CAP
FRONT VIEW
4" DRAIN PIPE
0 ~T~AIN CONNECTION DETAIL
LAS BRISAS CONDOMINIUMS
CUTOFF WALL DETAILS
CHECKED BY: DATE:
JDR 09/27/21
PROJECT NUMBER:
210487CA01
SHEET
C-07
lieo!itabilization International®
Phone: 855.579.0536 I Fax: 970.245.7737
www.geostabilization.com
~ BEARING PLATE WITH
~ NUT TOP AND BOTTOM
GROUND SURFACE
GROUT
SELF-DRILLING
MICROPILE
4.5" MIN. BIT
DIAMETER
s
w
>
z
0 lo
w
Cf)
w
w
Cf)
Cf)
w
0:::
~
0 ~T~CHOR DETAIL
SHEET REVISIONS PROJECT NAME:
DATE DESCRIPTION NO
09/01/21 ISSUED FOR REVIEW IFR
09/27/21 ISSUED FOR PERMIT IFP LAS BRISAS CONDOMINIUMS
1---~>-------------+-----1 SHEET TITLE:
FIELD INSTALLED GROUT
GROUT ABSORPTION
BEYOND BORE HOLE 0
INJECTION ANCHOR
BORE HOLE
0 ~l~ROPILE SECTION
MICROPILE HOLE
DIAMETER= 2-1/4"
6" I.. ~ I
~ j
1/2"
0 ~l~ROPILE BEARING PLATE
MICROPILE ANCHOR DETAILS lieo!itabilization International®
THIS DRAWING IS FURNISHED SOLELY FOR THE USE OF OR IN CONNECTION WTH 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
MAC
CHECKED BY: DATE:
JDR 09/27/21
PROJECT NUMBER:
210487CA01
SHEET
C-08
Phone: 855.579.0536 I Fax: 970.245.7737
www.geostabilization.com
NO. 5 GRADE 60 TOP AND
BOTTOM MAT 16-IN O.C
RETAINED SIDE
3" MIN.
NO. 5 GRADE 60 TOP AND
BOTTOM CONTINUOUS.
SPLICE LAP SHALL BE MIN. 30" 18"
C__~====--===-.....::.....==t_~====--====--===-_____),~~-=fl-F-====--====--====--====--====--=i:F-====--====--====--====--====--====--J-====--------,~====--====--====--====--1+=-====--====--====--====--====---d n
NUT TOP & BOTTOM
6-IN X 6-IN X 1/2-IN
STEEL PLATE
EXCAVATION SIDE
SHOTCRETE TO CAP
CONNECTION, EXTEND
REBAR MIN 36" INTO
SHOTCRETE FACING
NOTE:
VIEW LOOKING NORTH AT
FACE OF SHOTCRETE WALL
SHEET REVISIONS
DATE DESCRIPTION
09/01/21 ISSUED FOR REVIEW
09/27/21 ISSUED FOR PERMIT
NO
IFR
IFP
[:]
18", oc
0 ~l?ROPILES - TOP VIEW
NO. 5 GRADE
60 TOP MAT
16"
NO. 5 GRADE
60 BOTTOM MAT
2 - NO. 5 GRADE 60
CONTINUOUS
30" SPLICE LENGTH
0 ~l?ROPILES - SIDE VIEW
PROJECT NAME:
0 N
..----
LAS BRISAS CONDOMINIUMS
SHEET TITLE:
MICROPILE CAP DETAILS
THIS DRAWING IS FURNISHED SOLELY FOR THE USE OF OR IN CONNECTION WTH THIS DRAWN BY·. 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 CHECKED BY: DATE: PROJECT NUMBER:
CONSTRUCTED AND SUPERVISED BY GSI OR ITS AUTHORIZED SUBCONTRACTOR MAC JDR 09/27/21 210487CA01 SHEET
N
..----
SELF-DRILLING
MICROPILE
® ~l?ROPILES - END VIEW
3"MIN
r= 3" MIN
NO.5GRADE60 ----,---,st- N
..----
CONTINUOUS
I 18" 3" MIN i--•-------------1•-il
® ~T~INFORCEMENT - END VIEW
C-09
lieo!itabilization International®
Phone: 855.579.0536 I Fax: 970.245.7737
www.geostabilization.com
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
~ -~--~...----------,, ' ',
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
SUB 90% COMPA TION IN
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. ~ ~-------~, ~ ~------~ ' / ',,
FRONT 12" OF R S DUE TO LACK
OF CONFINEMEN AT THE FACE
GEOGRID WILL BE HIGH PERFORMANCE TURF
REINFORCEMENT MATS (HPTRM) OR EQUIVALENT
RI ENFORCED 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
SLOTTED PVC DRAINS,
SPACED 5' HORIZONTALLY
KEY IN BOTTOM LIFT 6"-12"
BELOW TOP OF SEAWALL
EXISTING SEAWALL ~
F-----,~------~'
/-~-------1 ',,
' -· - ---~-- ' --z---~',
SHAPE TOE TO OBT: I:',,
MIN 4' LONG GRID LENGTH
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ',
'
0 ~T~INFORCED SOIL SLOPE SECTION
SHEET REVISIONS PROJECT NAME:
DATE DESCRIPTION NO
09/01/21 ISSUED FOR REVIEW IFR
09/27/21 ISSUED FOR PERMIT IFP
----+-------------'---- SHEET TITLE:
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
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
LAS BRISAS CONDOMINIUMS
SECTION VIEW - RSS SYSTEM
CHECKED BY: DATE:
JDR 09/27/21
PROJECT NUMBER:
210487CA01
SHEET
' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
MIN 90% COMPACTION IN FILL
BEHIND FRONT 12" OF RSS
B3 ANCHOR AND PLATE SHALL BE USED
EVERY 3RD LIFT OF GEOGRID (SEE BELOW
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.
C-10
lieo!itabilization International®
Phone: 855.579.0536 I Fax: 970.245.7737
www.geostabilization.com
LASBRISASCONDOMINIUMS
10'
SHEET REVISIONS
DATE DESCRIPTION
09/01/21 ISSUED FOR REVIEW
09/27/21 ISSUED FOR PERMIT
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NO
IFR
IFP
PHASE I REINFORCED
SHOTCRETE CUTOFF WALL
PROJECT NAME:
1--------jl--------------t-------i SHEET TITLE:
LAS BRISAS CONDOMINIUMS
J 1-----1--------------t-------i PHASE II MITIGATION SECTION 11-----1-------------;-------1
! 1-----1--------------t-------i
ll-__J _______ __j_------1,-----~-----r-------.::":"'=="'."'.'."'.':::--T:".".':::~---, I THISDRAWINGISFURNISHEDSOLELYFORTHEUSEOFORINCONNECTIONWTHTHIS DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: PROJECT NUMBER: SHEET ' PROJECT AND THE PROPRIETARY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON IS NOT TO BE i 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 MAC JDR 09/27/21 210487CA01 C-11
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.
lieo!itabilization International®
Phone: 855.579.0536 I Fax: 970.245.7737
www.geostabilization.com
TO HYDRAULIC
PUMP AND
PRESSURE GAGE
COUPLER (AS NECESSARY)
PVC TUBE (BOND-BREAKER),
IF NEEDED
MICROPILE BAR
MICROPILE TEST ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA:
DIAL GAGES ATTACHED TO
INDEPENDENT SUPPORT
REFERENCE PLATE
HYDRAULIC RAM
STEEL BASE PLATE
WOOD TIMBERS
I
I
f- ,...._ C) UJ
z _J
UJ Ill
z _J <(
~ 0~
UJ _J
0 0 a.. .- z a..
0 <(
Ill !:!::
z-----
=>
I
fC)
z
UJ z _J
~ 0
UJ 0
0 .-
z
UJ
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
09/27/21 ISSUED FOR PERMIT IFP LAS BRISAS CONDOMINIUMS
1----+--------------+-----1 SHEET TITLE:
THIS DRAWING IS FURNISHED SOLELY FOR THE USE OF OR IN CONNECTION WTH 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
MAC
MICROPILE TESTING DETAILS
CHECKED BY: DATE:
JDR 09/27/21
PROJECT NUMBER:
210487CA01
SHEET
C-08
lieo!itabilization International®
Phone: 855.579.0536 I Fax: 970.245.7737
www.geostabilization.com
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
09/27/21 ISSUED FOR PERMIT IFP
THIS DRAWING IS FURNISHED SOLELY FOR THE USE OF OR IN CONNECTION WTH 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 EMBEDMENTLENGTH(m DATE EMBEDMENTLENGTH(m MICROPILE ID
SOIL ROCK DRILLED GROUTED SOIL ROCK
48 PROJECT NAME:
LAS BRISAS CONDOMINIUMS
SHEET TITLE:
DRILL LOGS
DRAWN BY
MAC
CHECKED BY: DATE: PROJECT NUMBER:
210487CA01
SHEET
JDR 09/27/21 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))
lieo!itabiliz ation International®
Phone: 855.579.0536 I Fax: 970.245.7737
www.geostabilization.com
GEOTECHNICAL UPDATE AND RESPONSE TO THIRD-PARTY
GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW, LAS BRISA$ CONDOMINIUMS
BLUFF STABILIZATION, 135 SOUTH SIERRA AVENUE
SOLANA BE e Fr,SAN OIEGOflO0N'fY, CA IFORN~A 92075
OUP.20-004
MS. R NE'5t -SL :R, PRESICi>ENT
LAS -~ GME w~ ssdclAilQ. C/O THE TRETTIN COMPANY
1195 LA MOREE ROAD, #18
SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA 92078
W.O. 8157-A-SC OCTOBER 22, 2021
•
ATTACHMENT 9
•
Geotechnical •Geologic• Coastal• Environmental
5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 • www.geosoilsinc.com October 22, 2021
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
W.O. 8157-A-SC
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 byTerracosta 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.
Solan
.__ SITE _______ ~, ., --- ---- - - Base Map: TOPO!® ©2003 National Geographic, U.S.G.S. Del Mar Quadrangle, California -- San Diego Co., 7.5 Minute, dated 1994, current, 1994.
PACIFIC
OCEAN
SITE
l
11 9 CS~
E IW rrtcn dSh l's ~
K!dl,,, Sc col
San a Fe n
C ns!J n Sch els Y ,A 1nybr
U-.COLONIA
OE EDEN
GARDENS
NOTTO SCALE
Base Map: Google Maps, Copyright 2021 Google, Map Data Copyright 2021 Google 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.
N
~-
w.o.
8157-A-SC
SITE LOCATION MAP
Figure 1
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. Geog rid-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
135 South Sierra Avenue, Solana Beach
File:e:\wp21\8100\8157a.gue GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O. 8157-A-SC
October 22, 2021
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 I abo ratory 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
135 South Sierra Avenue, Solana Beach
File:e:\wp21\8100\8157a.gue GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O. 8157-A-SC
October 22, 2021
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 1 0 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
135 South Sierra Avenue, Solana Beach
File:e:\wp21\8100\8157a.gue GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O. 8157-A-SC
October 22, 2021
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 1 O 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 I iq uefaction, 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
135 South Sierra Avenue, Solana Beach
File:e:\wp21\8100\8157a.gue GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O. 8157-A-SC
October 22, 2021
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
135 South Sierra Avenue, Solana Beach
File:e:\wp21\8100\8157a.gue GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O. 8157-A-SC
October 22, 2021
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 thatthe 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
135 South Sierra Avenue, Solana Beach
File:e:\wp21\8100\8157a.gue GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O. 8157-A-SC
October 22, 2021
an approximately 25-foot thick section of friable, poorly graded sand (Map Symbol - Qop3), an approximately 12-footthick, 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° Wand dipping approximately 1 O 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 (OSH PD) and the Structural Engineers Association 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
Risk Category111
Site Class
Spectral Response - (0.2 sec), s.
Spectral Response - (1 sec), S1
Site Coefficient, Fa
Site Coefficient, Fv
Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral
Response Acceleration (0.2 sec), SMs
Resler
135 South Sierra Avenue, Solana Beach
File:e:\wp21\8100\8157a.gue
VALUE per
OSHPD/SEAOC VALUE per
SEISMIC ASCE 7-16
DESIGN MAPS
II II
D D
1.240 g 0.911 g
0.440 g 0.751 g
1.2 1.0
null - see Section 2.512)
11 .48 ASCE 7-16 (Section 21.3)
1.488 g
1.40 gl
3l
(Section 21.4)
GeoSoils, Inc.
2019 CBC or REFERENCE
Table 1604.5
Section 1613.2.2/Chap. 20
ASCE 7-1 6 (p. 203-204)
Section 1613.2.1
Figure 1613.2.1111
Section 1613.2.1
Figure 1613.2.1121
Table 1613.2.3111
Table 1613.2.3121
Section 1613.2.3
(Eqn 16-36)
W.O. 8157-A-SC
October 22, 2021
2019 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
VALUE per
PARAMETER OSHPD/SEAOC VALUE per 2019 CBC or REFERENCE SEISMIC ASCE 7-16
DESIGN MAPS
Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral null - see Section 1.20 g<•l Section 1613.2.3 Response Acceleration (1 sec) ,SM, 11.48 ASCE 7 -16 (Section 21.4) (Eqn 16-37) 5% Damped Design Spectral Response 0.992 g 0.933 g<5
) Section 1613.2.4
Acceleration (0.2 sec), Sos (Eqn 16-38)
5% Damped Design Spectral Response null - see Section 0.798 g<S) Section 1613.2.4 Acceleration (1 sec), S0 1 11.48 ASCE 7 -16 (Section 21.4) (Eqn 16-39) PGAM - Probabilistic Vertical Ground
Acceleration may be assumed as about 0.67 g 0.608 g- ASCE 7-16 (Eqn 11.8-1) 50% of these values.
Seismic Design Category
null - see Section D(7) Section 1613.2.5/ASCE 7-16
11.48 ASCE 7-16 (Section 11.6) (o. 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 2'._ 0.2, F, is taken as 2.5.
3. Per Section 21.4 of ASCE 7-16, SMs = (1.5) (Sos) = (1.5)(0.933 g) = 1.40 g
4. Per Section 21.4 of ASCE 7-16, s.1 = (1.5)(S0 1) = (1.5)(0.798 g) = 1.20 g
5. Per Section 21.4 of ASCE 7-16, S0 s shall be taken as 90 percent of the maximum spectral acceleration (S,) 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, S01 shall be taken as the maximum value of the product TS, 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 a < SD. = > 0.50 a < 0.933 a. Thus, the site is within Seismic Desian Cateaorv "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
135 South Sierra Avenue, Solana Beach
File:e:\wp21\8100\8157a.gue GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O. 8157-A-SC
October 22, 2021
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 [USAGE], 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. g regeo.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
135 South Sierra Avenue, Solana Beach
File:e:\wp21\8100\8157a.gue GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O. 8157-A-SC
October 22, 2021
GSI searched for theoretical failure surfaces within the Quaternary-age old paralicdeposits 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 UNIT SHEAR WEIGHT
SOIL MATERIALS (pounds per cubic foot [pcf)) STRENGTH PARAMETERS Moist Saturated C (psf) ¢1 (degrees)
Quaternary Beach Deposits 105 110 0 33 (Qb)
Artificial Fill - Older 110 N/A 50 32 (Afo)
Quaternary Colluvium 105 N/A 50 29 (Qcol)
Weathered Quaternary Old Paralic Deposits -
Subunit 4 108 N/A 100 30
(Qop)
Quaternary Old Paralic Deposits - Subunit 4 114 N/A 230 32 (Qop4) Quaternary Old Paralic Deposits - Subunit 3 107 N/A 190 34 (Qop3) Quaternary Old Paralic Deposits - Subunit 2 105 N/A 150 40 (Qop2) Quaternary Old Paralic Deposits - Subunit 1 107 N/A 50 33 (Qop1) Tertiary Torrey Sandstone 102 N/A 290 37 (Tl)
Our search for theoretical failure surfaces in the upper bluff was initiated within Subunit 1 of the old paralic deposits (Map Symbol - Qop,) 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
135 South Sierra Avenue, Solana Beach
File:e:\wp21\8100\8157a.gue GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O. 8157-A-SC
October 22, 2021
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, 2021 a, 2021 b) 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 (2021 b) and the supporting calculations included in GI (2021 a). 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
135 South Sierra Avenue, Solana Beach
File:e:\wp21\8100\8157a.gue GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O. 8157-A-SC
October 22, 2021
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
135 South Sierra Avenue, Solana Beach
File:e:\wp21\8100\8157a.gue GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O. 8157-A-SC
October 22, 2021
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. Sa
The proposed mitigation shown on GI (2021 b) 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 (2021 b), 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
135 South Sierra Avenue, Solana Beach
File:e:\wp21\8100\8157a.gue GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O. 8157-A-SC
October 22, 2021
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 Stephe J. Coover
Engineering Geologist, CEG 1934 Geotechnical Engineer, GE 2057 ,1-a!___
Ryan B. Boehmer
Staff Geologist
RBB/RGC/SJC/sh
Attachments:
Distribution:
Resler
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'
(1) Addressee (PDF via email)
135 South Sierra Avenue, Solana Beach
File:e:\wp21\8100\8157a.gue GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O. 8157-A-SC
October 22, 2021
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, GTE 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, 2021 a, Las Brisas Condominiums bluff stabilization engineering design submittal, dated October 21.
__ , 2021 b, 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
File:e:\wp21\8100\8157a.gue GeoSoils, Inc. Appendix A
APPENDIX B
GSI AND ATC (2004b) BORING LOGS
GeoSoils, Inc.
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Major Divisions
C C rn -o W C - rn (J (/)
Group
Symbols
GW
GP
GM
GC
SW
SP
SM
SC
ML
Typical Names
Well-graded gravels and gravelsand mixtures, little or no fines Poorly graded gravels and
gravel-sand mixtures, little or no
fines
Silty gravels gravel-sand-silt
mixtures
Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay
mixtures
Well-graded sands and gravelly
sands, little or no fines
Poorly graded sands and
gravelly sands, little or no fines
Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures
Clayey sands, sand-clay
mixtures
Inorganic silts, very fine sands,
rock flour, silty or clayey fine
sands
CONSISTENCY OR RELATIVE DENSITY
CRITERIA
Standard Penetration Test
Penetration
Resistance N Relative
(blows/fl) Density
0 - 4 Very loose
4 - 10 Loose
10 - 30 Medium
30 - 50 Dense
> 50 Very dense
Standard Penetration Test
Unconfined
CL
Inorganic clays of low to
medium plasticity, gravelly clays,
sandy clays, silty clays, lean
clays
Penetration
Resistance N
(blows/fl) Consistency
Compressive
Strength
(tons/ft')
(/) 8 iti':t:: I!)
[5 ~ ffi "O "O .c C ·-.,....
rn a " 0- w .¥! ::::i rn = Q)
(/) " 0,
Highly Organic Soils
Unified Soil
Classification Cobbles
OL
MH
CH
OH
PT
3"
coarse
Organic silts and organic silty
clays of low plasticity
Inorganic silts, micaceous or
diatomaceous fine sands or silts,
elastic silts
Inorganic clays of high plasticity,
fat clays
Organic clays of medium to high
plasticity
Peat, mucic, and other highly
organic soils
3/4" #4
Gravel
I fine coarse
<2
2 - 4
4 - 8
8 - 15
15 - 30
>30
#10
I
Sand
medium
MOISTURE CONDITIONS MATERIAL QUANTITY
Dry
Slightly Moist
Moist
Very Moist
Wet
Absence of moisture: dusty, dry to the touch
Below optimum moisture content for compaction
Near optimum moisture content
Above optimum moisture content
Visible free water; below water table
BASIC LOG FORMAT:
trace
few
little
some
0-5 %
5 - 10 %
10 - 25 %
25 - 45 %
Very Soft <0.25
Soft 0.25 - .050
Medium 0.50 - 1.00
Stiff 1.00 - 2.00
Very Stiff 2.00 - 4.00
Hard >4.00
#40 #200 U.S. Standard Sieve
I
Silt or Clay
fine
OTHER SYMBOLS
C Core Sample
S SPT Sample
B Bulk Sample
:..._ • Groundwater
Qp Pocket Penetrometer
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 8-1
GeoSoils, Inc. BORING LOG
PROJECT: 135 S. SIERRA AVENUE, SOLANA BEACH
92075 WO. 8157-A-SC BORING B-1 SHEET 1 OF 1 -- -
DA TE EXCAVATED 6-2-21 LOGGED BY: RB APPROX ELEV.:+86'NAVD88 SAMPLE METHOD: Modified California Sampler, 140Ib Hammer @30-in Drop Sample
~
u a .e, ;, ~ ~ ;: ;, ,_, Material Description
"' w E ,_, C £ i ~ 0 !S 0 "' ·a ~
~ 1, ~ "' 0
C. ~ "' ~ u :::, 1,
w ~ " C "' "' ·5 0 "' :::, ai :::, 0 :e "' 0 SP- /)i}i ARTIFICIAL FILL - OLDER:
SM In~:,:
tu,J: @O', SILTY SAND and SAND, variegated reddish brown, brown, and Fi"F.-i: dark gray, damp, loose; fine to medium grained. rtJJ.,:
i_-fr.:1:
tu,J: i.m:t:
l"tJ,.1:
rUJ-1:
~-
SP /.Hi/.\"@ 4', Asphaltic concrete pavement
5 _l_ 12 SP 97.5 5.1 18.7 nu:, UATERNARY COLLUVIUM: PI @4 1/4', SAND, dark brown, damp, loose; fine to medium grained, trace I
PI SILT.
16 105.7 2.7 12.8 PI WEATHERED QUATERNARY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS: PI @5', SAND, dark yellowish brown, dry, medium dense; fine to medium i(::i( grained, trace SILT.
10- . ,, @ 7', SAND, dark yellowish brown, dry, medium dense . 27 SM 110.0 5.6 29.4 ::\: QUATERNARY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS:
@10 1/3', SIL TY SAND, reddish yellow, damp, medium dense; fine 25 SP 108.5 5.6 28.4
!:lll!:l
grained.
@121/2', SAND, dark yellowish brown, damp, medium dense; fine to medium grained, trace SILT.
15- 25 SP 110.4 4.5 24.1 @141/2', SAND, dark yellowish brown and dark gray, dry, medium ------ dense; fine to medium grained.
T 21 SP 97.1 1.5 5.7 @181/2', SAND, yellowish gray, dry, medium dense; fine to medium 20- arained.
Total Depth = Approximately 19 1 /2'
No Groundwater/No Caving Encountered
Backfilled 6-2-21
25-
30-
u Standard Penetration Test ~ Groundwater
I Undisturbed, Ring Sample 0 Seepage
GeoSoils, Inc.
PLATE B-2
GeoSoils, Inc. BORING LOG
PROJECT: 135 S. SIERRA AVENUE, SOLANA BEACH
92075 WO. _81_5_7_-A_-_s_c ____ BORING ___ B_-2 ___ SHEET OF 1 DATEEXCAVATED _~6~-2=-=21~_ LOGGED BY: RB APPROX ELEV.:+76'NAVDBB SAMPLE METHOD: Modified California Sampler, 1401b Hammer @30-in Drop Sample
~
u a .e, ~ ~ ;: "' w E
£ i ~
!S 0 "' ·a 1, "' :::, ~ "' ~ u
" C "' "' "' :::, ai :::, 0
Material Description
SPSM o----t-----+----1l)l}:' RTIFICIAL FILL - OLDER:
16 SP
19 SP
23 SP
SP
20 25
30 U Standard Penetration Test
I Undisturbed, Ring Sample
104.9
102.3
104.4
(l:l'I @O', SILTY SAND, dark gray, dry, very loose; very fine grained; trace flit\ roots to soil . .-rn.1:
H:f;' QUATERNARY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS:
mt: @ 1/2', SAND, dark yellowish brown and dark gray, dry. Becoming damp rn~:1: :.1:r:c at approximately 1', loose. Becoming medium dense at approximately 1'; flit\ fine grained. .:m;:•\
2.2 100 !/( @6', SAND, grayish brown and dark gray, dry, medium dense; fine to medium grained, friable.
9.8 2.0
B 1111
..1111
@ 1 O', SAND, brownish gray and dark gray, dry, medium dense; fine to medium grained, friable .
@141/2', 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 rained, friable.
Total Depth = Approximately 15 1 /2'
No Groundwater Encountered
Caving Below Approximately 13'
Backfilled 6-2-21
GeoSoils, Inc.
Groundwater
Seepage
PLATE B-3
II
• i
i j
·l
Geologic/Gcolechnical Evaluation of Bluff Conditions
Las Brisas Condominiums
Project No. 03-2283
135 South Sierra, Solana Beach, Ca.
June 22, 2004
V . Subsurface Exploration
As pai1 of the site evaluation, we performed four exploratory subsurface soil borings to evaluate the underlying soil materials. Our exploratory test borings were advanced using a combination of the track mounted limited access drill rig, with continuous flight auger with a 140-pound drive hammer (Borings I and 2), as well as portable, 5-inch diameter hand auger equipment (Borings 3 and 4 ). Our exploratory borings were performed on November 28, 2003, at the locations shown on the attached Geologic/Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. A log of the soil conditions encountered within the individual borings is presented below:
Boring No. 1 (B-1)
Soil Conditions Encountered: Terrace Deposits (Bay Point Formation): Brown to reddish brown, dry to slightly moist, slightly cemented, medium dense to dense. silty fine to medium sa11d.
(i}} 2.00 Becomes reddish-brown.
(il), 4.5'-5.5': Drive Sample: Blow Counts 15/6" and 19/6", Moisture Content (MC) = 2.6%, Dry Density (DD) = 111.l pcf.
(ij). 6.0': Becomes gray-brown to brown. less silty, micaceous. (al 7.5 ': Becomes reddish-brown, slightly moist, silty, medium sand. (cl) 9.5'-10.5': Drive Sample: Blow Counts 18/6" and 28/6". MC= 5.0 %, DD = 108. l pcf.
(q), 14.5'-15.5': Drive Sample: Blow Cmmts 19/6" and 24/6", MC= 3.7 %, DD = 112.2 pcf.
(cµ 17 O': Noticeably easier driJling conditions reported. (c1\ l 9.5'-2O.5': Drive Sample: Blow Counts 21/6" and 24/6", MC= 2.3 %.
DD= 106.2 pcf.
(a) 22.0': Brown to light brown. slightly moist, dense, slightly silty fine to medium sand, dense, friable.
@ 24.5'-25.5': Light brown to light gray, slightly moist, medium dense to dense, clean to slightly silty, fine to medium sand, friable.
Drive Sample: Blow Counts 26/6" and 34/6". MC= 1.4 %, DD = 99.7 pcf,
({1l 29.5'-30.5': Light brown to light gray, slightly moist, medium dense to dense, clean. medium sand, friable.
Drive Sample: Blow Counts 3-l/6" and 38/6", MC= 1.4 %, DD= 104.l pcf.
(a) 34.5'-35.5' Light brown to light gray-brown, slightly moist. medium dense to dense, clean, medium sand. friable.
Drive Sample Blow Counts 23/6" and 31/6" , MC= 1.6 %, DD= 99.l pcf.
B-4
11 n
Geologic/Gcotechnical Evaluation of Bluff Conditions
Las Brisas Condominiums
Project No. 03-2283
135 South Sierra, Solana Beach, Ca.
June 22, 2004
Boring No. 1 (B-1) Continued
Soil Conditions Encow1tered:
Boring No. 2 (B-2)
Soil Conditions Encountered:
(ci) 39.5'-40.5': Light brown to light gray-brown, slightly moist, medium dense to dense, clean, medium sand. friable.
Drive Sample: Blow Counts 26/6" and 29/6", MC = 2.0 %, DD= 102.2 pcf ..
Total De1>th: 40.5 feet.
No Water.
Minor Caving between 35 and 40 feet.
Backfilled with Sand/Bentonite/Water.
No Groundwater Was Encountered.
Landscape Topsoil: Brown to dark brown, wet, loose to medium dense, silty sand.
(co, 1.0': Terrace Deposits (Bay Point Formation): Brown to reddish brown. moist. medium dense to dense, silty fine to medium sand. (i'll, 2.0': Becomes reddish-brown.
((i) 8.5'-9.51 Drive Sample: Blow Counts 13/6" and 18/6", Moisture Content (MC)= 3 .0 %. Dry Density (DD)= 111.5 pcf.
(q), 16.5'-17.5': Brown to gray-brown slightly moist to moist silty fine to medium sand. micaceous. friable. Drive Sample: Blow Counts 12/6" and 16/6", MC= 2.4 %. DD = 104.4 pcf.
(ii\ 24.5'-25.5': Light brown to gray brown slightly moist, medium dense to dense. clean sand. micaceous, friable. Drive Sample: Blow Counts 20/6" and 21/6", MC= 1.4 %, DD = 99.7 pcf.
@ 32.5'-33.5': Drive Smnple: Blow Counts 21/6" and 25/6". MC= 2.3 %.
DD = !02. l pcf.
((f!. 40.5'-4 l.5': Light brown to light gray, slightly moist, medium dense to dense. clean to slightly silty, fine to medium sand, friable .
Drive Sample: Blow Counts 24/6" and 26/6". MC= 3.7 %, DD= 106.5 pcf.
(i1\ 48.5'-49.5': Gray brown slightly silty, medium dense to dense, slightly silty, fine to medimn sm1d. micaceous. Drive Sample: Blow Counts 24/6" and 50/G". MC= :u %. DD= 103.5 pcf.
({I), 56' Torrey Sandstone Formation: Light brown to yellowish -brown, silty medium to coarse sandstone, moderately cemented.
(ii), 56 5'-57.5' Drive Sample Blow Counts 70/4" MC= 6.1 %, DD=
96.2 pcf
((1: 60.0'-60 5': Drive Sample Blow Counts 70/3" No Sample Recovery.
Drive Sample: Blow Counts 26/6" and 29/6".
Total Depth: 60.5 feet
No Groundwater Was Encountered
Minor Caving between 25 and 35 feet
Backfilled with Sand/Bentonite/Water.
B-5
APPENDIX C
GSI AND ATC (2004b) SHEAR STRENGTH TEST RESULTS
GeoSoils, Inc.
3000 Fa ii. U It. >-+-+---+--+---+-+------+ /-+-l ,, .,,..~,,,--+---+-+---+----+----l C, psf 125 76 >-+-+---+--+---+-+---~"--------l, /,,__,,-+-" -+- · --+--+-e-----+----t_____. /,,,, <!>, deg 33 32 / / "------+----+--+----+---+-+------+-+-------< 1---I-'---=--=:_;:,___--+-_ __-..._ ____ ---=-=:___---t---J---t------t-----t-------t-v -t::v~,,.,,.,- T an( (j>) 0.64 0.62 / i ,,,/ I
I
I
)I(
I
I
I
~ I,,/
2000 1-+------+--+-+-----+----+-+--+-+-+------+--+-/.,,~,._~_·,,-+---+-+------+----+-+----+---+-+-----+-t--------i .,,-1 / ~.,.,,,..,. -+------t--+-+-----+----+-t--+-+-+-- /--c/7 +-+---+---+----+-+-------t-+-+----+----+-+--+---+----i t-t------+--+-+-----+----+-+--+-+----- ~"'--,,,.---+-+---+--+-----J-----i-----+---+-+----+-----J-----i----+-------t-----t 1000 ,,
,, ,,
~.,,,, ,,,,
I /" , ,, ,;),, "),,,,,,
1,,
1-+------t--+-+-h' - ,,_ --+,,"',,~"
/ 1 .,.., --+----+-+---+--+-+------+-+---+--+---+-+----+---+-+----+---+-+---+----+----l l-+-- -----h,i';.-i'--------1-------+----,--l-----l----+--------1----1------+-----+-----l--1---------+-----1----1------+-----l--1------1--l----l 1000
3000
2500
- 2000 Cl)
a.
rJl
Cl)
~ 1500 - u5 Ir/
V -....._
,.._
ro
Q)
..c: /
(/) 1000 I
/ V r--
500
re
Strain,%
Sample Type: Natural
Description: Reddish Brown Sand w/Silt
Specific Gravity= 2.65
Remarks:
Plate
Tested By: TR
2000
3 2
1 20
3000 4000
Normal Stress, psf
Sample No.
Water Content, %
Dry Density, pcf
ro Saturation, % ~
.£ Void Ratio
Diameter, in.
Heiaht, in.
Water Content, %
Dry Density, pcf
vi
Q) Saturation, %
I-
<( Void Ratio
Diameter, in.
HeiQht, in.
Normal Stress, psf
Fail. Stress, psf
Strain, %
Ult. Stress, psf
Strain,%
Strain rate, in./min.
Client: Las Brisas HOA
Project: 135 South Sierra Ave.
Source of Sample: B-1
Sample Number: B-1 Proj.
No.: 8157-A-SC
Checked By: TR
5000 6000
1 2 3
3.2 3.2 8.8
98.7 100.3 93.6
12.5 13.1 30.4
0.6768 0.6490 0.7681
2.38 2.38 2.38
1.00 1.00 1.00
19.3 21.5 21.8
98.9 100.8 95.0
76.1 88.9 77.9
0.6735 0.6407 0.7415
2.38 2.38 2.38
1.00 1.00 0.98
550 1100 2200
420 915 1505
6.1 5.9 8.1
388 803 1427
9.8 11.5 11.8
0.004 0.005 0.004
Depth: 5.0
Date Sampled:
W.O. 8157-A-SC
PLATE C-1
6000 Fail.
C, psf 162
<!> , deg 37
Tan(<!>) 0.77
I
I
I
)I( 4000 I
I
I
'en 't; a. a.
- (/) (/) (/)
(/) (!) (!) ....
~u5
..;= 2000 ~ ,, - ro / J ,,,,, ...... ," ::> LL
V ;!.,,,.,
W'·11 __ 1 .. --
,; ,,,,
0 l,•
0 2000
6000
5000
- 4000 (/)
a.
(/) -r--.-. (/) I/
~ " 3000 I u5 '" c--~
....
ro
(!)
..c:
(/) 2000 I
L I
,.....____
I'--.
r ------....
1000 ,.--1----...
0 0 5 10 15
Strain,%
Sample Type: Natural
Description: Pale Yellow Sand w/Silt
Specific Gravity= 2.65
Remarks:
Plate
Tested By: TR
Ult. / ,,
,,v' ,"
29 ,,,"
/ ,,,
33 / ,,,"
0.64 ,,,,/
/ ,,,"
,/ ,, ,,,, ,,
/ ,,, ,,,,
/,,, " ,,," ,,
I/ ;!.,,,.,,,.
..... ,,,,
,,,,v ,,," ,,
l,,,,- ,,,,
"'
4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Normal Stress, psf
Sample No. 1 2 3
Water Content, % 1.5 1.5 1.5
Dry Density, pcf 97.3 97.4 96.6
ro Saturation, % 5.7 5.7 5.6 ~
.£ Void Ratio 0.7010 0.6980 0.7129
Diameter, in. 2.38 2.38 2.38
Heiaht, in. 1.00 1.00 1.00
3 Water Content, % 22.9 20.5 22.3
Dry Density, pcf 97.6 98.0 97.6
vi
(!) Saturation, % 87.3 78.9 85.0
I-
<( Void Ratio 0.6959 0.6878 0.6958
2 Diameter, in. 2.38 2.38 2.38
1 HeiQht, in. 1.00 0.99 0.99
Normal Stress, psf 1100 2200 4400
Fail. Stress, psf 978 1888 3520
20 Strain, % 3.5 3.3 5.0
Ult. Stress, psf 776 1388 2882
Strain,% 9.2 9.6 10.7
Strain rate, in./min. 0.004 0.004 0.004
Client: Las Brisas HOA
Project: 135 South Sierra Ave.
Source of Sample: B-1 Depth: 18.5
Sample Number: B-1 Proj.
No.: 8157-A-SC Date Sampled:
~~H·
Checked By: TR W.O. 8157-A-SC
PLATE C-2
DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
3000 I ' I ' I
! I I
I I I I
I I
I
' I
I I
I . I I
2500 I
I I ~
i I .,. I ' ~
I I '/ V
i I ' I ,, I I ,,, I~
! I I !..,. i/ i
' I I / I .... I i
---- Li... 2000
(/)
a..
...__..,
I I ,, i
! I I I II vt-- !~
I I .,, .... I I I "' iJ ,, I
I I I I-' I
I !~ .,,, ' I/ V I
I I I ,, ,, I- ,, !~
t, I I I/ I,' I
z
w 1500
0:::
I-
(/)
I I ,, ,, I .,,,, ,, I 1,,r-1 I~
I /i I .... I .... I II'"
,, I ,~ '
! ,, / I
0::: ! I ,, y I ' I
<{
w
I
(/) 1000
I I II'" I
i I I i,..-,-., ~ I : I I I .,,n / I I
I I .... I/ , ,, I I i 11 , - / !
I , I . ..,. ..,. i I I ' / v ,. I 1' I
I .
.
I ,, I I
I ,, ..,. I I, I ..,. ,, '· ! AT '/ ,,, I II ,._,, ,I I i ! ' ,,,,, / ' 1'
500 I 1 .....r-r '/ I I ! I I
I ,, , ' I ' I I I I, I ,, ' I i, I
,..,. [.; I I I I I I I I
/i .... , ' I ,, I I I ! ,, ~ I I I I ' / /i I I ,, I ' ,, I I II 0 A I ,I I,
0 500 577 1 000 11 54 1050 1731 2000 2308 2500 3000
NORMAL PRESSURE (PSF)
SYMBOL SAMPLE LOCATION COHESION (psf) FRICTION() ANGLE D REMARKS • 8-1 @ 9.5' TO 10.01' 119 39
NORMAL PRESSURE (psf) SHEAR STRENGTH (psf) TERRACE DEPOSITS 577
NATURAL FIELD SHEARS, .606 SATURATED.
1154 1.011
2308 1.986
II A~::!:!~~-~:~ ~.~~~."s~~~!!,~~~~Ts
JOB NAME: LAS BRISAS
SITE ADDRESS: 135 SOUTH SIERRA AVE.
W.O. 8157-A-SC SOI ANA BEACH CA 92075
PLATE C-3 JOB NUMBER: I REVIEWED BY: I DATE: I FIG. NO. E1 03-2283 OM/HE 2/5/04 J
i
,......,_
u...
(11
a...
....__,,
I
Ic.,
z
w
a:::
I-
(11
a:::
<(
w
I
(11
DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
3000 ' ' I j I I I
I II
-+- I I ,1 i I I I I I I I ' I' /
I I II ,
' I I
2500 I I' I-"'
I II I/
I I ,.... / I I " ,, I I II .... ,, i I I, ... .... ' I V I I/ i I l ff. V
I I I I I .... I ! I I i.,!'--.. 1..- I
2000 I I I / .... I I ' I
I
, V ,, :r
I I , .... I I : .... 1-" !
I V / I
I I ,, , I ,, ,, ' I .... ....
I I I,' I I/
1500 I .,, V
I I I
' I .... ~ ! I / .... I I I,' I
., ,, I _,._ " y I
I '\ I
L,' J I-"' , I ,, ~..- 1...- I I I I
' ,, V I I I I,
1000 I I I , ,, i I I
I I ,, .... I I i I / t.,, ! I I I I V V I ' ! I
' I , . ' I I II
i /. '>I ,, I 1,
I I. !JI .... I l j
I 'll' I I/ / I i
I .., .,, I I I,
I I ,, I I 1'
500 ! A 1, .... I I ! I I
I I/ I , ... I 1,
,; Vi' I I I I , i ... V ' I I i I I I
... I ,, I I I i ... ... I I i I
V I I I I
VI ' I
" I .... I I I I
0 .... I I I I
0 500 577 1000 1154 1050 1731 2000 2308 2500 3000
NORMAL PRESSURE (PSF)
SYMBOL COHESION (psf) FRICTION
SAMPLE LOCATION ANGLE (
0 ) REMARKS
• 81 @ 14.5' TO 15' 200 39
NORMAL PRESSURE (psf) SHEAR STRENGTH (psf) TERRACE DEPOSITS NATURAL FIELD SHEARS.
577 .668 SATURATED.
1154 1. 156
2308 2.089
Ill A~2'!!.9r~!;::. ~.~9.~ . .,S~~~!:1?:.?:.~;.:TS
JOB NAME: LAS BRISAS
SITE ADDRESS: 1 35 SOUTH SIERRA AVE.
W.O. 8157-A-SC SOLANA REACH CA 92075
PLATE C-4 JOB NUMBER: I REVIEWED BY:
l~?J104
I FIG. NO. E2
03-2283 OM/HE
~'
~~ DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
' 3000 I ' I ' I
I I I ,, I
' I ... I i I I l
m I I '
tJl
·=
I
'
I I , I
, ,,
~ 2500
L_
I ~ ,
' I
I ' C , I I ,, I I I
, , , I I ,
l I I ,, , ,, , ;
--..
u.. 2000
!:~ (/)
a.. j '--"
I i ,, ,, I I I I ,, ,, ! I I '
I ' I ,r ,, ,, I
' I , , I
I , , I "' ,
, , I I , I'[ I
rn
I0
z
w 1500
0::::
·-·◄ I-
(/)
:'• , , I
I , , I
I , ,, I I , , 1 I
I , , I I
I , ,1 I ' I , , ,-.~ , I
I I Jr l, I
0:::: ' , I
<(
ii w
I
(/) 1000
' I/ ,, ' I
I , , I
I I/ ,
, , '
I II' I/ I
, , ,I I
I II' II' i I' I
~ I , , I I II
L , , I ' I
/ ,. !,' , I I' !
" , II I ' X 1-' I I ; '
/ , I I ' I' ' I
500 / /I i II I
!/ / ' I ,i I,
I/ / I I ! I
V ., I II I
/I I/ ' I I 1,
!/ V ' I I I I
/ ., I I i I
/ , I I I I
/ / I I I
/ I I I I
0 / I I
0 500 577 1000 11 54 1050 1731 2000 2308 2500 3000
NORMAL PRESSURE (PSF)
SYMBOL SAMPLE LOCATION COHESION (psf) FRICTION ( ) ANGLE • REMARKS • 8 1 @ 30' TO 30.5' 51 46
NORMAL PRESSURE (psf) SHEAR STRENGTH (psf) TERRAC E DEPOSITS NATURAL FIELD SHEARS, 577 668 SATURATED.
1154 1.239
2308 2.473
II A~;~~~!;! ~.~~~'"s~~~!!r~:1:.t~TS
JOB NAME: LAS BRISAS
SITE ADDRESS: 135 SOUTH SIERRA AVE.
W.O. 8157-A-SC SOLANA BEACH CA 92075
JOB NUMBER: I REVIEWED BY: l~?J104 I FIG . NO. E3 PLATE C-5 03-2283 OM/HE J
DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS • 3000 ' I I I i I I -t-1---t,---t--t-t--t-+I +-+++-f-+---.J---jle-J I I I
I
II
I I
I II
I
25001-+-++---+-i-+--+-+-++-+1..+-1 1 -+---+-+--+-+--+-,f-+-+-+--+-+---+-i-+---+-+--+-+-+-h+-+-+--+-t----+-i-+---+-+--t--ir'---+-if-+-+-+-+-t-+-+-+-~1~,~' IA I I i i
I I ,, i ,
I
I v ,
' ' ' y ,....-..,_, I I /-., !.J
u.. 2 0 00 1-+-+-++-+-+-f-+-+-++i+-+l-+-+--t--t-t---t--t-+-t--+--t-+--+-!-+-+-+-t-t---t--tr+-t-+-t-+I --+-!-t-t-i' +-'lh,!'"'4-tt- \ lbl"-A+-++-t-+-l-+--H-11 {/) , L I I ,I 1 1 r II 1/ I
a..
..__., I 1..- ~
! I
,r / I
I I I ~
~ I ~ ~
C., I r/ / JI
z ... ,, 1· W 1 5 00 1-+-++-+-+--t-+-+--+-+-+1 H-+-+--+-+-+-+---+-i--+-+-+-+-+---+-i--+-+-+-+-+~-j,Lir+,t-t-~----+-+-+-f-+-+-+-tt,-+1--t-t-t-++-+--t--+-1--+--+-+-i 0::: ' I ~ c,
~ ' ~" .-: {/) I ;I
I / II
0::: " ~ -~ ~
W I .- \ I , ' I I I I , / I ~ I I ' I
{/) 1 0 0 0 t---+-++-+-+-+-t- 1 +-+-++..+-I , -+---+-+-+-+--+,--- ~ ;-I' +--+-r--+,_,,,1;1'-1--,-+---+--+--+-1 -+-+-+--:;-+-++-+-+-+--1-+-+-+-+1---+-if-+-+-+-++-+-,f-+-+-+-+-1 ' I
I I C,
! I
I
I I '
I
500 r I ,
' i I ~ I '
I,' I I . I I' I ., ' I I
' I I
I I I
11 I I i i
~ I I I
0 "'-;1.....,___._,_..J....J-'-'-"--'-'-.L.1--J.-'-.....i..-'-'-..J....J-'-......_-'-'-1 ....__.__._.....__._,_........,..._, ._._......_ l ......._---+-iL...1..."-'--"-' -'-'-'-~' -'-'---'--'--'-'--'-.J....l 0 500 577 1000 1154 1050 1731 2000 230 8 2500 3000
NORMAL PRESSURE (PSF)
SYMBOL SAMPLE LOCATION COHESION (psf) FRICTIO"(N) ANGLE " REMARKS • 8-2 @ 16.0' TO 16.5' 175 39
NORMAL PRESSURE (psf) SHEAR STRENGTH (psf) TERRAC E DEPOSITS NATURAL FIELD SHEARS, 577 .616 SATURATED.
1154 1.156
2308 2.038
• A~;!!~!:,;! ~.~~-~,.,S~~~!!r~!.~;:!TS
JOB NAME: LAS BRISAS
SITE ADDRESS: 1 35 SOUTH SIERRA AVE.
W.O. 8157-A-SC SOLANA BEACH CA 92075
JOB NUMBER: I REVIEWED BY: l~?J104 I FIG. NO. E4 PLATE C-6 03-2283 OM/HE
DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
3000 I ! ' r ; ' I I l I
'I I I I I I
I i I - I I
I I I I I
I I I I
I I I I,;' 2500 I I , I ... I I i . I I ' ,.,, V
i I I I ; ,, I " ~.
' . 1 ...I I I I ! L,i /
I I l i V I y
I I ;/--. ... ~ I
--- I I I I L, '1 ., u... 2000 I .,,,, ) V I (/) I ' ... ,...., ... CL I : .___, I I 1..- I 1, ... i .,, I I/ I , , I :r: I I .... ,,
t; ·, I I 1..- I ... L,
z I i I I!.;' .... I
I .... ... w 1500 I , I , ... I
O:::'. I ~ IL, I I- I I .,, lo"! (/) I,;' ;r '
I ... I
O:::'. I, ~ L, I
<( !.,I I,;' I I
w I I Ill" ... I
:r: I I I I , ... I ,, I I VJ., I I (/) 1000 I I V I,;' I I I I I I ,,. ,. I I
I I ... 1~ I I I I I I I ,~ IA I I I
' I 1., V ' ' I IV. V I I
,n y ,. I I
I 1 .. L,, I I I I
r,;' V I i I I I I
500 i lo" 7 I I I I I I I ,, ,. I I I I ' I
i I/ L,, '· ' I i , i I
' ,.., I I,;' I I I I II i i
V ; ... I I I ! I ,, . i I I I . L,, i I I
V I,;' I ,, I I
~ i I I i i I
o' ... I ' I I I I I
0 500 577 1000 11 54 1050 1731 2000 2308 2500 3000
NORMAL PRESSURE (PSF)
i
t (psf) FRICTION
SYMBOL SAMPLE LOCATION COHESION ANGLE (") REMARKS
• 8- 2 @ 48.5' TO 49' 150 39
NORMAL PRESSURE (psf) SHEAR STRENGTH (psf) TERRAC E DEPOSITS NATURAL FIELD SHEARS, 577 .637 SATURATED .
1154 1.073
2308 2.048
II A~;'!!.9r::!;~ ~.~~-~ . .,~~~~,!:.~3~;.:TS
JOB NAME: LAS BRISAS
SITE ADDRESS: 135 SOUTH SIERRA AVE.
W.O. 8157-A-SC SOLANA BEACH CA 92075
JOB NUMBER: I REVI EWED BY:
l~?J104
I FIG. NO. ES PLATE C-7 03-2283 OM/HE
3000
2500
--.
l...i... 2000
(/)
(L
'--"
I
IC.,
z
W 1500 ~
I-
(/)
~
<(
w
I
(I) 1000
500
0 , ...
, ...
0 I
I
' 1 ...
V
"
I.,
V
. " j
SYMBOL
•
I
DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
' ' I 11 I I II I
' ' I I I I
I I
I I ' '
I I I r
' I I
! I .... I ' I . I i I 1' L, I
I I ' : I .... I
' I I ; ' 1. ...
I/; '/ 11 I ! II' ·"' I : ... I ,
I V J;,
, 1 I I I I ~ I
I I, I I I I !., ' I I., I J.ii'I'-.!!- V I
I I 1 ... II
I, I L, I, 1 ... I ' I V ; .... I I ... . ' ' ' ,, 1 ... I , ! ,, I
I J, I , I
I ,, I/, I
I I ,,
I 1 ... I ,, I I I
I V ,, .,,. ' I
' ... I I,' I
I I., "'I
' .... :.;r I I I . \ V . I'
I I..,' I I ,..- I I. Ii I I
I ·' ~-- I , i I, I
. '/ I ' I I
I V I , !I I
I
,,, ... I :! I
!., II' ,, I
, I .... I ! i ' / I .) 1 ... I
~ V I I !
I':: I LI . I I . I 1 ... I ' I
V V I I I
" I I I I I
I ! L, I I
I V I I I I I I I
. I I I I I
1 .... I I ' j
V I I I
I
'
-,
I I
' I
500 577 1000 1154 1050 1731 2000 2308 2500 3000
NORMAL PRESSURE (PSF)
SAMPLE LOCATION COHESION (psf) FRICTION(') ANGLE • REMARKS B-2 @ 56.0' TO 56.5' 290 37
NORMAL PRESSURE (psf) SHEAR STRENGTH (psf) TERRACE DEPOSITS NATURAL FIELD SHEARS, 577 .772 SATURATED.
1154 1.125
2308 2.089
II A ~2'!!.'?e~~:.: !~.~~-~ .tt92 ~~!!,!;:~3t;;;TS
JOB NAME: LAS BRISAS
SITE ADDRESS: 135 SOUTH SIERRA AVE.
W.O. 8157-A-SC SOLANA BEACH f,A 92075
JOB NUMBER: I REVIEWED BY:
l~?J104
I FIG . NO. E6 PLATE C-8 03-2283 OM/HE
APPENDIX D
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
GeoSoils, Inc.
LAS BRISAS HOA/ 8157-A-SC
A-A' EXISTING STATIC
GEOSOILS, INC.- RBB \A-A' Existing Static gsd
--------------------~180
No. FS Soil Moist Wt SatWt C Phi ru Pconst Piez Surf Soil 1 1.190 No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) (ratio) (psf) No. Options 2 1.191 1 Ob 105.D 110.0 0.0 33.0 0.050 0.0 1
3 1.194 2 Afo 110.D 0.0 50.D 32.0 0.050 0.0 0
4 1.194 3 Ocol 105.D 0.0 50.D 29.0 0.050 0.0 0
5 1.194 114 Qop4 (weathered) 108.D 0.0 100.0 32.0 0.050 0.0 0 140 6 1.196 D5 Oop4 114.D 0.0 230.0 32.0 0.010 0.0 0 140 7 1.197 6 Oop3 107.0 0.0 150.0 34.0 0.010 0.0 0
8 1.198 7 Oop2 105.D 0.0 150.0 40.0 0.010 0.0 0
9 1.199 B Oop1 107.0 0.0 50.D 33.0 0.010 0.0 0
10 1.201 9 Tt 102.D 0.0 290.0 37.0 0.000 0.0 1
100 100
827
60 .;. · -· ----· --------~ -----------------: -------------· · - 60 829
. ' . ' 20 ............. . :- · · - · · -· --· · · -· -: - -· ---· · --· --· · · : · -- -· ---· · --· --· :- · -· -- -· ---· · ---·: · -------· ---------: -----------------:- ------------· · · - 20 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' + ' ' . . ' ' . ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' . ·-.. ----------------·------------------·'- -----------------: -------------. . . . . . . ' ' . ' ' . . . ' . ' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' '
-20~---~---~----~---~----~---~----~---~-20
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320
GEOSTASE .
Slope Stability
Analvsis
GEOSTASE FS = 1.190
Spencer Method
GEOSTASE® by GREGORY GEO TECHNICAL SOF111VARE
GREGORY •
GEO TECHNICAL
PLATE D-1
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
(,,.-,2...,__
, r ;u ~ I
I
I
I
I
I
j,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
\ !
I I
I I
I I
I I
I 'f
1 I N.A.P.
I I
I I
I I
I I
I \
I \
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY MAP -- LAS BRISAS --
\
\
Qb
135 S SIERRA AVE
/1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/ D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(/)
0 C
-l
::r:
(/)
rn
~ ►
\
A \ I \
/ \ I \ i
// \ \\
I
\
I
\
I
I 1\
\\
3 \
~ I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D D
•
I'\
'-_,
l I
I I I
/ I I
I I I
/ I
I I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROX/MA TE
This document orefile is not a parl of the Construction Documents and should not be relied upon as being an
accurate depiction of design.
GS/ LEGEND
Qb QUATERNARY BEACH DEPOSITS
Afr
AfwAfo -
Qop4-
Qop3-
Qop2-
Qop1-
Tt
-?-
• • • •
• • • • •••
10':>-...
8-2
0 TD=191'
8-2
s
TD=Gof'
....• •--·ss .. · • - '••·
B B'
I I
N.A.P.
AR11FIC/AL FILL (GEOGRID REINFORCED)
AR11FIC/AL FILL (SEAWALL)
AR11FIC/AL FILL - OLDER (FILL PLACED DURING 7HE ORIGINAL GRADING OF 7HE SUBJECT PROPERTY)
QUA TERNARY OLD PARAUC DEPOSITS, SUBUNIT 4
QUA TERNARY OLD PARAUC DEPOSITS, SUBUNIT J
QUA TERNARY OLD PARAUC DEPOSITS, SUBUNIT 2
QUA TERNARY OLD PARAUC DEPOSITS, SUBUNIT 1
TER11ARY TORREY SANDSTONE
APPROX/MA TE LOCA 110N OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT, QUERIED
WHERE UNCERTAIN
APPROXIMATE LOCA110N OF FAILURE LIMITS PER TCG, 2020
APPROX/MA TE LOCA 110N OF BLUFF EDGE
BEDDING A mTUDE W/7H DIP IN DEGREES
APPROX/MA TE LOCA 110N OF EXPLORATORY BORING W/7H
TOTAL DEP7H IN FEET (GS/, 7HIS STUDY)
APPROX/MA TE LOCA 110N OF EXPLORATORY BORING W/7H
TOTAL DEP7H IN FEET (ATC, 2004)
ES11MATED POST-FAILURE ELEVA110N CONTOURS (TCG, 2020)
LOCA 110N OF GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION
NOT A PART OF 7HIS STUDY
GEOTECHNICAL
MAP
Plate 1
w.o. 8157-A-SC DATE: 10/21 SCALE: 1 "=20'
Qb
Afo
QcolGS/ LEGEND
QUA TERNARY BEACH OEPOSlTS
AR1IFICIAL FILL - OLDER (FILL PLACED DURING 1HE ORIGINAL GRADING OF 1HE SUBJECT PROPERTY)
QUA TERNARY COLLU\.1UM
Qop 4 - QUATERNARY OLD PARAUC DEPOSITS, SUBUNIT 4
Qop 3 - QUATERNARY OLD PARAUC DEPOSITS, SUBUNIT J
Qop 2 - QUATERNARY OLD PARAUC DEPOSITS. SUBUNIT 2
Qop 1- QUATERNARY OLD PARAUC DEPOSITS, SUBUNIT 1
Tt TE:R1IARY TORREY SANDSTONE
-- APPROXIMATE: LOCA1ION OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT
2 A
100
BO
20 Qb
o,----___ .1
Tt
PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN
ACCESS EASEMENT
H L_ EXISTING CONDOMINIUM _J I~ BUILDING ~I
APPROX/MA TE
LOCATION OF
BLUFF EDGE
EST/MA TED BLUFF
TOPOGRAPHY
PER TCG (2020)
B-2 (A TC, 2004)
PROJECTED~12'NW
Qcol
BLUFF
TOPOGRAPHY
PER PLS&A (2020)
/ : Qop4
I ,,)-----
,, /
/ ,,,," Qop 3
1/ ,,"~EST/MATED BLUFF
I ,,,," TOPOGRAPHY
,," ___ (GS/, THIS STUDY)
/(/
,) : Qop2
Tt
40-FOOT MINIMUM
SETBACK (PER CITY
OF SOLANA BEACH)
Tt
A'
B-1 (GS/, THIS STUDY) 100
PROJECTED~10'SE
0 Op 4 (weathered BO
is
"'
40 ~ <;:I
20 0
-20--l-------,----,-----,----r-----,-----,----r----,-----,-----t-20 0 20
B
100
BO
40 60 BO 100
DISTANCE (FEET)
N22°E
::>
PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN
ACCESS EASEMENT
Fr. H
120 140 160
EXISTING CONDOMINIUM
BUILDING
APPROX/MA TE B-2 (A TC 2004) 40-FOOT MINIMUM
180 197.5
B'
LOCATION OF ' S C ER CITY PROJECTED ETBA K (P (GS/ THIS STUDY) 100 BLUFF EDGE _9,NW OF SOLANA BEACH) PRO~ECTED~13,S
B-1
EST/MA TED BLUFF
TOPOGRAPHY
PER TCG (2020)
BLUFF
TOPOGRAPHY
PER PLS&A (2020)
,,-----1::=QL L----- 0\~--Afu
/ I Qop4 Qoe4(weaffiere i-=!==j,-
/ ,,;1__ - _...., ______ Qopf
/
,,,," Qop 3
,;,,<__ EST/MA TED BLUFF
---;,, --..___ TOPOGRAPHY
r-:,/ (GS/, THIS STUDY)
t------------____ .,.. ___ --------------
BO
2 ~ 40 ( Qop2 Qop2
,.,-::,------------------~i--------------------1
40 ~ <;:I <;:I
¢;:-- Qop1 Qop1
20 -~ 1 TD=602'
20 Qb Tt Tt
0•7--- ----·
0 Tt
-20-l------,----,------,----,----,------,-----,------,-----,-----t-20 0 20 40 60 BO 100
DISTANCE (FEET)
N23°E
::>
120 140 160 180 197.5
ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROX/MA TE
This document or efile is not a part of the Construction Documents and should not be relied upon as being an
accurate depiction of design.
GEOLOGIC
CROSS SECTIONS A-A' & 8-8'
Plate 2
w.o. 8157-A-SC DATE: 10/21 SCALE: 1"-20'
From: Bob Trettin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 8:42:38 AM
To: Corey Andrews <[email protected]>
Subject: Las Brisas Project
2-09-22 Mtg Item 8.1.a.
Processed 2-7-22
Hi Corey ... I wanted to make one clarification on the report: The opening paragraph states that "The shotcrete wall would be constructed with a drilled pier/ caisson design with structural concrete between the piles." The use of the terms "drilled piers" and "caissons" is usually associated with 18", 24" or larger diameter piers, and people hearing the term usually envision these larger piers which have been used in past rear-yard, upper bluff retention systems (i.e., 241 Neptune, among others).
The proposed Las Brisas project, as noted in the plans and geotech, will utilize a micropile system. Micropiles are steel bars (in this case approx. 2- inches in diameter) surrounded by neat grout ( cement) for an overall diameter of approx. 6-inches. This should have a lower volume of cementitious material overall as opposed to conventional drilled shafts.
And, it should provide a longer period of performance prior to requiring any additional shotcrete due to the closer spacing of the vertical elements.
As we're working on an over-steepened, failing bluff, these are easier to place, less likely to cause additional disturbance as work is being done and less likely to have the smaller diameter drilled shafts cave-in during drilling. The overall shotcrete thickness will be approx. 8"-12" once sculpted.
I'm note sure if this distinction is critical ... but sometimes there are greater objections to the larger piers so I wanted to make sure you were clear on the materials.
Thanks, BOB
Bob Trettin, Principal
The Trettin Company
1195 La Moree Road, #18
San Marcos, CA 92078
Ph: (858) 603-1741
e-mail: [email protected]
From: Kristin Brinner <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 5:04 PM
2-09-22 Mtg Item 8.1.b.
Processed 2-7-22
To: Angela Ivey <[email protected]>; Greg Wade <[email protected]>; Jewel Edson <[email protected]>; Kristi Becker <[email protected]>; Kelly Harless <[email protected]>; David Zito <[email protected]>; Lesa Heebner <[email protected] >
Cc: Jim Jaffee ; Stephanie Lee <[email protected]>; Mitch Silverstein <mitch@su rfride rsd .org>
Subject: Re: Item Bl. 135 S. Sierra Avenue CUP 17-17-27, Las Brisas HOA And now with the attachment, my apologies.
On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 5:02 PM Kristin Brinner <[email protected]> wrote:
Honorable Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Council members,
Please accept these comments on behalf of the San Diego Chapter of the Surfrider Foundation concerning Item B:
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.
If you have any questions I would be happy to discuss our comments ahead of Wednesday's city council meeting.
Sincerely,
Kristin
Kristin Brinner I Co-lead, Beach PreseNation Committee I Surfrider Foundation she / her/ hers I kristi n@su rfridersd. org
1 February 7, 2022
Delivered via email
To: Mayor Lesa Heebner
Deputy Mayor Kelly Harless
SURFRIDER
FOUNDATION
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
Councilmembers, Kristi Becker, Jewel Edson, David Zito, Cc: City Manager Greg Wade
City of Solana Beach
Re: Item Bl. 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.
Honorable Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councilmembers,
The Surfrider Foundation is a nonprofit grassroots organization dedicated to the protection and enjoyment of our world's ocean, waves, and beaches through a powerful network. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. lo. summary mitigation fees must be assessed for this proposed mid and upper bluff retention device per the conditions of the permit for the original 2005 seawall at this location. We object to the staff report's recommendation that no sand mitigation or public recreation impact mitigation fees be charged for this proposed project. The staff report correctly sites numerous portions of the city's certified Land Use Plan (LUP) concerning mitigation fees:
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 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. ... (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.
Phone: 858.800.2282 I [email protected] I su rfridersd.org 3900 Cleveland Ave., Ste 207, San Diego, CA 92103
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
Despite these policies, t he staff report incorrectly states that no mitigation fees are required:
''.Ll.s a condition of their 2005 Coastal Development Permit {COP} 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 "$22,97736 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." (page 9 of 77 of staff report)
Given that the staff report discusses one conditio n of Coastal Development Perm it (CDP) 6-05-7i, it is surprising that the staff report then ignores the specifics of Special Condition 2 of this permit w hich was granted in 2005 to construct t he original seawall:
"Mit{Qation for [moacts to Public Recreational use and Sand Suoo{v .. The required in-lieu fee mitigation covers impacts only through the identified 22-year design life of the seawall. No later than 27 years after the issuance of this permit, the permittees or their successor in interest shall apply for and obtain an amendment to this permit that either requires the removal of the seawall within its initial design life or requires mitigation for the effects of the seawall on shoreline sand supply, and thus public recreational use, for the expected life of the seawall beyond the initial 22year design life. If within the initial design life of the seawall the permittees or their successor in interest obtain a coastal development permit or an amendment to this permit to enlarge or reconstruct the seawall or perform repair work that extends the expected life of the seawall, the permittee shall provide mitigation for the effects of the additional size of the seawall or the extended effects of the existing seawall on shoreline sand supply and public recreational use for the expected life of the seawall beyond the initial 22 year design life." (emphasis added)
The TerraCosta geotechnical report submitted by the applica nts states t hat this new bluff retent io n device is required to protect t he 2005 seawall:
''. .. it is our recommendation that Las Brisas initiate the required permitting 1 https-//documents coasta l ca gov/reports/2oos/lo/w8e-10-2oos pdf Phone: 858.800.2282 I [email protected] I surfridersd.org 3900 Cleveland Ave., Ste 207, San Diego, CA 92703
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 7.5 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." (page 2, TerraCosta Coastal Bluff Evaluation/Project Recommendations, page 707 of agenda packet, emphasis added)
Special condition 2 of the 2005 CDP shou Id therefore be enforced here: the 2005 seawall is essent ially being enlarged and its expected life is being extended by the proposed protection device. We respectfully request that per the 2005 CPD 6-05-72, new mitigation fees be calculated and collected as a condition of granting t his new permit .
Sincerely,
Kristin Brinner &Jim Jaffee
Residents of Solana Beach
Co-Leads of the Beach Preservation Committee
San Diego County Chapter, Surfrider Foundation
Phone: 858.800.2282 I [email protected] I surfridersd.org 3900 Cleveland Ave., Ste 207, San Diego, CA 92703
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 6:15 AM
To: Lesa Heebner <[email protected]>; Kristi Becker <[email protected]> 2-09-22 Mtg Item 8.1.c.
Processed 2-08-22
Cc: Mo Sammak <[email protected]>; Joseph Lim <[email protected]>; Angela Ivey <[email protected]>; Greg Wade <[email protected]>
Subject: Recommending Approval of Las Brisas Bluff Retention Device CUP 17-17-27 The Surfsong HOA letter strongly encouraging our City Council to approve the Las Brisas bluff retention device conditional use permit application at the February 9th City Council Meeting is attached.
Thank you for your support and your service to our great community.
John Steel
858-254-5418
1 February 7, 20 22
Mayor Lesa Heebner &City Council
City Council Meeting Wednesday, February 9, 2022
Las Brisas HOA Public Hearing
Conditional Use Peimit fur a Bluff Retention Device
Case No: CUP 17-17-27
Las Brisas HOA
135 S. Sierra Avenue, Solana Beach
Dear Mayor and City Council
Surfsong HOA strongly recommends City Council approval of the Condition al Use Pennit(CUP 17-17-24) for a Bluff Retention Device proposed by Las Brisas HOA • Surfsong HOA is the most adjacent, and potentially most impacted neighbor, to the south of Las Brisas HOA We share an eastlwest property line. • Surfsong HOA has committed the use of our adj acent property for equipment staging to facilitate the construction of the Las Brisas BRD. • Las Brisas owners will be served by your favorable BRD decision.
Thank you for the opportunity to share our strong support for this Condition al Use Permit and the Las Brisas Bluff Retention Device.
John Steel
Board President
Surfsong HOA Board of Directors
Surfsong Owners Association, c/o J. D. Richardson Co. Inc. 3130 Fourth Avenue, San Diego, CA 92103
Tel: 619-234-9884 \ Fax: 619-234-9570
The Trettin Company
2-9-22 Mtg Item 8.1.d.
Processed 2-9 {2:53pm)
Community & Government Relations / Project Development
February 9, 2022
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
City of Solana Beach
Bob Trettin, representing
Las Brisas Condominium Association
Response to Surfrider Foundation letter, dated February 7, 2022 The Surfrider Foundation has submitted a letter which stipulates that the lateral wall proposed by las Brisas at the southern terminus of the existing, permitted seawall wil I protect and thereby extend the life of the seawall. Therefore, Surfriders argues that additional mitigation should be assessed to the proposed project.
Surfriders, however, has erred in their interpretation of Special Condition #2, which they cited as justification for additional mitigation. Earlier in that same Special Condition it is clearly cited that "No later than 21 years after issuance of this permit, the permittees or their successors in interest shall apply for and obtain an amendment to this permit that either requires the removal of the seawall within its initial design life or requires mitigation for the effects of the seawall on shoreline sand supply, and this public recreational use, for the expected life of the seawall beyond the initial 22 year design life."
The key understanding in this language is that the Las Brisas Association is required to initiate an amendment in 2026, to become effective in 2027, to provide mitigation for a period of time extending from 2027 to 2047 (as the Commission now works on 20-year mitigation intervals). Since mitigation for the seawall has been provided through 2027, and Las Brisas is required to pay additional mitigation if the wall is to remain beyond that date, the issue of whether the lateral wall protects the southern areas of the seawall/ tiebacks and thereby is extending its life is irrelevant.
The Coastal staff and Coastal Commission made that clear back in 2010 when a significant failure of the lower coastal bluff to the immediate south of the Las Brisas seawall failed and a Coastal Development Permit Amendment was approved for an initial extension of the lateral return wall at this location. 1195 La Moree Road, #18 San Marcos, California 92078
Ph: (858) 603- 17 41 e-mail : [email protected]
The Commission staff provided the following recommendation on sand mitigation in this excerpt from the 2010 staff report on that project {CDP 6-05-072Al):
"The Commission's staff engineer has determined that the proposed return wall extension will create no new impacts that would require additional sand supply mitigation. The approval of the existing 120 foot Las Brisas seawall included mitigation for the loss of sand from the bluffs behind the seawall. The proposed return wall will similarly prevent this same sand from entering the littoral system. Thus, because mitigation for this loss of sand was included in the permit for the original seawall, no additional mitigation is needed here. The proposed return wall extension will be constructed behind the current return wall (perpendicular to the shore) in an area that, previous to the significant failure of the lower coastal bluff which occurred on January 16, 2010, was coastal bluff. Therefore, no public beach area will be impacted as a result of the return wall extension. Thus, as conditioned, the Commission finds the project consistent with the public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act." In the same report, Commission staff made a similar recommendation relating to public access/ recreation mitigation:
"The Commission's staff engineer has determined that the proposed return wall extension will create no new impacts that would require additional access/recreation mitigation. The proposed return wall extension will be constructed behind the current return wall (perpendicular to the shore) in an area that, previous to the significant failure of the lower coastal bluff which occurred on January 16, 2010, was coastal bluff The proposed return wall provides shoreline protection for the same area of bluff {the same sand and other materials} that are kept in place within the bluff by the existing seawall. The Commission required mitigation for the public access and recreation impacts of the existing seawall; thus, because the proposed return wall provides protection for the same bluff area addressed in the permit for the original seawall, there is no additional impact caused by the return wall that would require additional mitigation.
No public beach area will be impacted as a result of the return wall extension. Thus, as conditioned, the Commission finds the project consistent with the public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act." The Commission fully concurred with both of the above staff recommendations and no additional or extended mitigation was required for the Coastal Development Permit Amendment. The nexus for duplicative mitigation charges clearly did not exist then ... and does not exist with the current project proposal.
In summary, the Surfrider Foundation can be assured that additional mitigation for extending the presence of the seawall beyond 2027 is required by the existing seawall permit and will occur.
Respectfully submitted,
BOB TRETTIN, Principal
The Trettin Company
1195 La Moree Road,# 18 San Marcos, California 92078
Ph: (858) 603-1741 e-mail: [email protected]
2 SHOTCRETE AND SHORING
PROFESSIONAL GRADE
Contract Draw i ngs For
Las Brisas
Condominiums
Bluff Stabilization
C ivi 1/Geotech n ica I
Project No.
APS230095
City of Solana Beach, California
December 2023
GEO ~
INDEX OF DRAWINGS
C-01 COVER
C-02 GENERAL NOTES
C-03 GENERAL NOTES (2)
C-0◄ EXISTING SITE & ACCESS PLAN
C-05 PROJECT SITE PLAN
C-06 SECTION VIEW - CUTOFF WALL MICROPILE LAYOUT
C-07 SECTION VIEW- PILE CAP ANO DRAINAGE
C-08 CUTOFF WALL DETAILS
C-09 MICROPlLE ANCHOR DETAILS
C-10 MICROPILE CAP DETAILS
C-11 SECTION VIEW- RSS SYSTEM
C-12 PHASE II MITIGATION SECTION
C-13 MICROPILE TESTING DETAILS
GENERAL:
THORCON (CONTRACTOR) Will BE LEAD FOR THE JOB SITE CONDITIONS AND SAFETY DURING CONSTRUCTION HOURS. JOB SITE Will BE KEPT REASONABLY SECURE TO DETER UNAUTHORIZED ENTRY OR TAMPERING. HOWEVER, THOSE WHO ENTER THE CONSTRUCTION ZONE WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION Will BE CONSIDERED TRESPASSING.
CONTRACTOR Wlll USE UTILITY ONE CALL SERVICES, REQUEST UTILITY MAPS, AND REQUEST POTHOLING AS NEEDED TO LOCATE, AND MARK KNOWN UTJUTIES.
DIG ALERT: DIAL 811, OR DIGALERT.ORG
CITY OF SOLANA BEACH PUBLIC WORKS: {858) 720-2470
AT THE END OF EACH WORKDAY CONTRACTOR Will LEAVE THE WORK AREA FREE OF HAZARDS AND PROVIDE TEMPORARY SIGNS, WARNING DEVICES, AND/OR BARRICADES, AS NEEDED.
CONTRACTOR Will KEEP RECORDS OF DRILLING CONDITIONS, GROUT MIX SPECIFICATIONS, AND OTHER NOTES ON THESE PLANS AS NEEDED TO PROVIDE AS-BUILT INFORMATION TO THE OWNER AFTER PROJECT COMPLETION.
CONTRACTOR UNDERSTANDS WORKING HOURS FOR THIS SITE TO BE 7:00 AM TO 7:00 PM EACH DAY, MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY.
CONTRACTOR WlLL NOTIFY THE CITY OF SOLANA BEACH AT (858) 720-2470, AT LEAST 24 HOURS BEFORE THE FIRST DAY OF THE PROJECT.
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS:
CONTRACTOR WILL PERFORM THE WORK IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH THE LATEST EDlTJON 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: 298-010-S4-0001
ADDRESSES: 135 S. SIERRA AVE.
EROSION CONTROL NOTES:
CONTRACTOR Will PLACE SllT FENCE AT THE TOE OF THE SLOPE {TOP OF SEA WALL) TO UM!T ERODED MATERIAL FROM REACHING THE PUBUC BEACH.
CONTRACTOR Will USE DIKES, BERMS, OR TRENCHES TO LIMIT STORMWATER FLOWING OVER CRESTS OF THE SLOPE.
CONTRACTOR Will USE WATER AS NEEDED TO M1N!M!ZE AlR BORNE OUST ON SITE.
HOUSE KEEPING:
THE SITE WILL BE ORGANIZED AND CLEAR OF ANY TRASH OR DEBRIS. All TRASH Will BE PLACED !N PROPER CONTAINER(S) AND REMOVED WHEN NECESSARY.
HOUSE KEEPING:
THE SITE Will BE ORGANIZED AND CLEAR OF ANY TRASH OR DEBRIS, All TRASH WILL BE PLACED IN PROPER CONTAINER(S) AND REMOVED WHEN NECESSARY.
SAFETY:
All SAFETY PLANS FOR LIFTING, HEARING, DUST CONTROL, PPE, ETC., Will BE IN PLACE AND FOLLOWED. PPE
INCLUDES SAFETY VEST, STEEL TOED SHOES, HARD HAD, SAFETY GLASSES, RESPIRATOR DURING DUST PRODUCING ACTIVITIES, AND GLOVES.
CONTRACTOR Will GENERATE A SITE-SPECIFIC HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN THAT MUST BE REVIEWED AND SIGNED BY All EMPLOYEES, SUBCONTRACTORS, AND VISITORS TO THE SITE.
CONTRACTOR Will CONDUCT A DAILY SAFETY MEETING TO REVIEW JOB HAZARD ANALYSIS FOR EACH DAYS ANTICIPATED TASKS.
EMPLOYEE CERTIFICATIONS
ACI SHOTCRETE NOZZLEMAN CERTIFICATION
10-HOUR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH TRAINING COURSE IN CONSTRUCTION SAFETY AND HEALTH AMERICAN RED CROSS STANDARD FIRST AID TRAINING.
ANTICIPATED CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
WORK SCHEDULE
1. DELINEATE LIMITS OF STABILIZATION. NOTIFY LOCAL UTILITY PROVIDERS TO LOCATE AND MARK POTENTIAL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. DAYLIGHT UTILITIES !N POTENTIAL CONFLICT, AS NECESSARY.
2. PREPARE THE WORK AREA FOR M!CROP!LE INSTALLATION ANO CUTOFF WALL CONSTRUCTION:
a. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL FENCE AT THE TOP OF EXISTING DURING CONSTRUCTION. b. MINOR RE-SHAPING OF EXISTING SCARP AND SURROUNDING GRADES MAY BE NECESSARY TO FACILITATE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE MICROPILE CUTOFF WALL
c. MARK THE LOCATIONS OF THE PROPOSED STABILIZATION ELEMENTS WITH SURVEY MARKING PAINT OR OTHER SIMILAR.
3. INSTAll MICROP!LE ELEMENTS. EACH ELEMENT Will BE GROUTED DURING DRILLING UNLESS DIRECTED OTHERWISE BY ENGINEER.
4. CONSTRUCT THE CUTOFF WALL:
a. PLACE REINFORCING STEEL AND DRAIN STRIPES 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 !N THESE PLANS.
5. PREPARE AREA NORTH OF THE CUTOFF WALL FOR REINFORCED SOIL SLOPE (RSS) SYSTEM INSTALLATION. MINOR GRUBBING AND GRADING MAY BE NECESSARY.
6. INSTALL REINFORCED S01l SLOPE {RSS} IN LIFTS AS DETAILED IN THESE DRAWINGS AND PER THE MANUFACTURER INSTALLATION PROCEDURES.
7. SITE CLEANUP AND DEMOBIUZAT!ON FROM SITE.
a. CONCRETE, GROUT, AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS Will BE REMOVED PERIODICALLY THROUGHOUT THE WORK.
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 !S GRANTED THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT.
SIZE AND TYPE OF STABILIZATION ELEMENTS:
• THE MJCROP!LE ELEMENTS SHALL CONSIST OF MINIMUM 51 MM NOMINAL DIAMETER, SELF-DRILLING HOLLOW BAR WITH A MINIMUM YIELD STRENGTH OF lSf KIPS (677 kN). SACRIFICIAL DRILL BITS WILL BE ATTAC!;!EO TO THE STABILIZATION ELEMENTS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
• SACRIFICIAL DRILL BITS ARE NOT PERMANENTLY INCORPORATED !NTO 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 BITS MAY NOT BE PRODUCED !N THE UNITED STATES. • ENGINEER MAY ELECT TO MODIFY TYPE OF STABILIZATION ELEMENTS, LENGTH, OR INSTALLATION METHOD, DEPENDING ON ACTUAL DRILLING CONDITIONS.
FACING AND DRAINAGE SYSTEM:
• DRAIN STRIPS Will BE PROVIDED AND INSTALLED APPROXIMATELY EVERY SIX FEET ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF THE CUTOFF WALL THE DRAIN STRIPS SHALL BE PLACED WITH THE GEOTEXT!LE 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. • DR!AN STRIPS HALL BE MINIMUM 12" WIDE.
E1~G!t1EEP OF WORh
h?_s GENERP.L :"E S
~ By. Pctr;d Poeosel. DE
GEO··---.. .,I
REINFORCING STEEL PLACEMENT: STANDARD SHOTCRETE MIX DESIGN (PER YD3 ) SUBMITTALS:
• REINFORCING STEEL FOR THIS PROJECT SHALL BE EPOXY COATED OR GALVANIZED. MATERIAL DESCRIPTON WEIGHT (LBS) 1. THE SHOP DRAWINGS AND DESCRIPTIONS OF THE PROPOSED SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION, THE PROPOSED • WELDED WIRE MESH (WWM} WILL BE PlACED ON BOTH SIDES OF THE EXTENDED MICROPILES AS SHOWN IN THESE METHOD OF MICROPILE INSTALLATION AND FOOTING CONSTRUCTION, AND THE DETAILS OF THE GRADING AND DRAWINGS. AGGREGATE NO. 1 3/8" ROCK, AASHTO M80, CLASS B 650 BACKF!LUNG, TO COMPLETE THIS WORK AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. • MINIMUM NO. S REBAR WILL BE TIED TO THE SOUTH-SIDE OF WIRE MESH. FOLLOW SPACING AND SPLICE LENGTHS 2. THE DESIGN CALCULATIONS FOR THE REINFORCED SOIL SLOPE (RSS).
AS SHOWN IN THESE DRAWINGS. AGGREGATE NO. 2 CONCRm SAND, CLEAN, NATURAL 1800 3. THE PROPOSED METHOD(S) AND MATERIALS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE SURFACE OF THE EXPOSED SLOPE. • MINIMUM NO. 5 REBAR Will ALSO BE USED FOR THE MICROPILE CAP. FOLLOW SPACING AND SPUCE LENGTHS AS 4. THE PROPOSED LOCATIONS OF THE LOAD TESTING OF THE THREE NON-PRODUCTION MlCROPILES.
SHOWN IN THESE DRAWINGS. AIR 6% TOTAL -
MICROPILE CAP PLATES: WATER CLEAN AND POTABLE 300
FLY ASH TYPE F OR C 150
• STEEL BEARING PLATES {6"X6"Xl/2", OR APPROVED OTHER} Will BE PLACED OVER THE MICROPllES IN THE M!CROP!LE CAP AND ATTACHED WITH A HEX NUT ON TOP AND BOTTOM. IF MICROPILES EXTEND BEYOND THE TOP CEMENT TYPE V 750 HEX NUT, THEY WILL BE TRIMMED. TOTAL - 3710
REINFORCED SOIL SLOPE (RSS) SYSTEM:
HIGH PERFORMANCE TURF REINFORCEMENT MAT (HPTRM) OR APPROVED OTHER . HOT WEATHER SHOTCRETE MIX DESIGN (PER YD3 )
• MATERIAL rs THREE-DIMENSIONAL, LOFTY WOVEN POLYPROPYLENE HPTRM. • MATRIX COMPOSED OF TR!LOBAL MONOFILAMENT YARNS WOVEN INTO UNIFORM CONFIGURATION OF RESILIENT
PYRAMID-LIKE PROJECTIONS MATERIAL DESCRIPTON WEIGHT (LBS) THAT MINIMIZE WATERING REQUIREMENTS WHILE ENHANCING VEGETATION ESTABLISHMENT.
• MUST BE A HOMOGENEOUS MATRIX, AND NOT COMPRISED OF LAYERS, COMPOSITES, OR DISCONTINUOUS AGGREGATE NO. 1 3/8" ROCK, AASHTO MBO, CLASS B 650 MATERIALS, OR OTHERWISE LOOSELY HELD TOGETHER BY STITCHED OR GLUED NETTING. • THE HPTRM SHOULD BE THE FOLLOWING VALUES. AGGREGATE NO. 2 CONCRETE SAND, CLEAN, NATURAL 1800 AIR 6% TOTAL - MINIMUM PROPERTY: UNITS: UNITS: REQUIREMENT: WATER CLEAN AND POTABLE 300 THICKNESS ASTM D6525 IN 0.4 FLY ASH TYPE F OR C 150
LIGHT PENETRATION ASTM D6567 % 10 CEMENT TYPE V 750
TENSILE STRENGTH ASTM D6818 LB/FT 4000 X 3000 TOTAL - 3710 TENSILE ELONGATION ASTM 6818 % 40 X 35
RESILIENCY ASTM 6S24 % 80 SHOTCRETE APPLICATION:
FLEXIBILITY ASTM 6575 IN-LB 0.534 • SHOTCRETE APPLICATION Will GENERALLY COMPLY WITH ACI 506.2-13. UNLESS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER OR THEIR DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE.
UV RESISTANCE ASTM 4355 % 90 AT 6000 hrs • 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. • WOOD OR PLASTIC STAKES, OR STEEL PINS ARE USED TO PIN-DOWN THE GEOTEXTILE NEAR THE BACK OF THE • CARE Will BE TAKEN WHILE ENCASING REINFORCING STEEL AND MESH TO KEEP THE FROM FACE OF THE
REINFORCEMENT ZONE TO HOLD THE GEOTEXTILE TAUT WHILE ALIGNING THE WALL FACE AND PLACING SOIL REINFORCEMENT CLEAN DURING PLACEMENT, SO THAT SHOTCRETE BUILDS UP FROM BEHIND, TO ENCASE THE BACKFILL. THESE ARE INSTALLED AS NEEDED ALONG THE HPTRM BUT AT A FREQUENCY NO LESS THAN 1 PER 6 REINFORCEMENT AND PREVENT VOIDS OR POCKETS FROM FORMING.
LINEAL FEET. THE STAKES OR PINS SHALL BE 9 TO 12~1NCHES LONG. • SHOTCRETE THICKNESS TOLERANCES SHALL BE MINUS ONE INCH - PLUS TWO INCHES. • BACKFILL Will COMPRISE OF GENERAL Fill WITH A UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM DESIGNATION OF A SILTY SAND (SM) OR APPROVED BY ENGINEER.
.. GROUT MIX DESIGN: THE SM MATERIAL WILL CONSIST OF INERT EARTH MATERIALS WITH LESS THAN 3% ORGANICS OR OTHER DELETERIOUS SUBSTANCES, AND LESS THAN 5% FINES. • STANDARD GROUT MIX DESIGN TO BE USED IN SOIL DRILLING. .. Fill Will BE PLACED IN UNIFORM, MAXIMUM 12-lNCH LIFTS . • IF SLOWER DRILLING IS EXPERIENCED WHILE DRILLING !N ROCK ENGINEER MAY APPROVE THE USE OF DRILUNG .. Fill IN THE UPPER 12•1NCHES OF THE GRADED SLOPE FACE Will NOT BE COMPACTED DUE TO THE LACK OF GROUT MIX DESIGN UPON COMPLETION OF DRILLING TO SPECIFIED DEPTH WITH DRILLING GROUT MIX HOLE CONFINEMENT. SHOULD BE FLUSHED WITH STANDARD GROUT M!X AND NAIL HOLE SWABBED TO AID IN DRILLING GROUT MIX .. Fill BEHIND THE UPPER 12-INCHES OF THE GRADED SLOPE FACE Will BE COMPACTED TO AT LEAST90'¼ OF THE REPLACEMENT. MATERIALS MAXIMUM ORY DENSITY AND BE UNIFORMLY MOISTURE COND!TIONEO TO AT LEAST THE • IF VOIDS ARE ENCOUNTERED AND GROUT LOSS IS EXPERIENCED CONTACT ENGINEER AND CUT OFF GROUT OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT AS DETERMINED BY ASTM D 1557. PUMPING FOR THAT ELEMENT WHEN DRILLING DEPTH IS REACHED ANO A TOTAL OF 3 BAGS OF GROUT SLURRY PER RSS ANCHOR DETAILS: 10-FOOT STICK OF BAR HAS BEEN USED. • THE GROUT WILL BE A TYPE 1/11/V PORTLAND CEMENT. THE WATER/CEMENT RATION Will BE 0.5 TO 0.6. NO ADDITIONAL AGGREGATE OR ADMIXTURES WILL BE ADDED TO THE GROUT. • TYPICAL GROUT MIX DESIGNS ARE PROVIDED BELOW. OTHER MlX DESIGNS ARE ACCEPTABLE AS APPROVED BY TYPE B3 ANCHOR PROPERTES ENGINEER.
COMPONENT MATERIAL STANDARD GROUT MIX DESIGN
MATERIALS: COMPOSITION: PHYSICAL PROPERTIES:
MINIMUM MATERIAL UNITS: UNITS: REQUIREMENT: 6.43 IN x 1.84 IN x 2.36 IN ANCHOR HEAD HOT OIP GALVANIZED (163.3 mm x 46.7 mm x 59.9 mm THICKNESS ASTM D6525 IN 0.4 DUCTILE IRON BEARING AREA: 10.3 IN2 (66.5 cm2) LIGHT PENETRATION ASTM D6567 % 10 CABLE TENDON GALVANIZED STEEL DIAMETER 0.1875 IN (4.8 mm) TENSILE STRENGTH ASTM D6B18 LB/FT 4000 X 3000 LENGTH: 0.65 IN ( 16.55 mm) TENSILE ELONGATION ASTM 6818 % 40 X 35 LOWER TERMINATION ALUMINUM WALL THICKNESS: 0.11 IN (2.8 mm) RESILIENCY ASTM 6524 7. 80
5.98 1N x 6.6 IN x 0.75 IN
LOAD BEARING PLATE ZINC-ALUMINUM (151.9 mm x 167.6 mm x 19.1 mm) BEARING AREA: 17.43 IN2( 112.5 cm2) DRILLING GROUT MIX DESIGN CIRCUMFERENTIAL TRIPLE WEDGE GRIP TOP TERMINATION ZINC-ALUMINUM ASSEMBLY TO ELIMINATE CABLE PINCH POINTS MINIMUM GRIP TO CABLE CONTACT SURFACE AREA: MATERIAL UNITS: UNITS: REQUIREMENT: 0.505 IN2 (3.3 cm2) PERFORMANCE PROPERTIES GRIP TO CABLE CONTACT RATIO: THICKNESS ASHA D6525 IN 0.4 977. OF CABLE DIAMETER LIGHT PENETRATION ASTM D6567 % 10 ULTIMATE ASSEMBLY 2800 LB (12.46 kN) TYPICAL WORKING 2000 LB (B.9 kN) STRENGTH LOAD TENSILE STRENGTH ASTM D6818 LB/FT 4000 X 3000 ULTIMATE CABLE 3700 LB (16.46 kN) EMSEDMENT 6-12 FT (1.83-3.66 m) TENSILE ELONGATION ASTM 6818 % 40 X 35 STRENGTH DEPTH RESILIENCY ASTM 6524 % BO
SHOTCRETE MIX DESIGN: QUALITY CONTROL:
• SHOTCRETE SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF AC! S06.2, "SPECIFICATIONS FOR MATERIALS, • CONTRACTOR ~ND/OR ENGINEER Will CONDUCT OR OBTAIN QUA~IFIED PERSONNEL TO CONDUCT THE FOLLOWING QUALITY CONTROL TESTING DURING THE PROJECT. PROPORTIONING AND APPLICATIONS OF SHOTCRETE", EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. SHOTCRETING CONSISTS
OF APPLYING ONE OR MORE LAYERS OF CONCRETE CONVEYED THROUGH A HOSE PNEUMATICALLY PROJECTED AT A H!GH VELOCITY AGAINST A PREPARED SURFACE. QUALITY CONTROL SCHEDULE • THE WET-MIX PROCESS CONSISTS OF THOROUGHLY MIXING All THE INGREDIENTS, 1NTRODUC1NG THE MIXTURE INTO THE DELIVERY EQUIPMENT, AND DELIVERING !T BY POSITIVE DISPLACEMENT TO THE NOZZLE. AlR JET THE WET-MIX SHOTCRETE FROM THE NOZZLE AT HIGH VELOCITY ONTO THE SURFACE. DESCRIPTION FREQUENCY REFERENCE/CRITERIA • STANDARD SHOTCRETE MIX DESIGN SHALL BE USED UNLESS SHOTCRETE TEMPERATURES ARE ANTICIPATED TO REACH AND/OR EXCEED ss·F. IN THIS EVENT, HOT WEATHER MIX MAY BE USED. SETT!ME CONTROLLING ADDITIVES DRILL LOGS EVERY MICROPILE 1 RECORD DATA PER SHEET C-14 (LE., HYDRATION STABILIZERS, RETARDERS) MAY BE USED PER THE MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS AND UNDER 07. U> PHOOUC I IUN NAILS, THE DIRECTION OF THE ENGINEER. PROOF NAIL TEST Tl'.'.'C-T .<!:""T"l'.'.'O 4J:l _JC,C- FHWA 05-039, 2005 • TYPICAL SHOTCRETE MIX DESIGNS ARE PROVIDED BELOW. OTHER MIX DESIGNS ARE ACCEPTABLE AS APPROVED BY ENGINEER. MUD BALANCE READINGS ONCE EACH OAY OF SEE SHEET C-02 & C-14 FOR (SPECIFIC GRAVITY) GROUTING MIX DESIGN AND DATA LOG
ASTM c-109/AASHTO T106. 1 SET OF 3 CUBES PER EVERY 10 GROUT CUBES PILES INSTALLED 3, 7 & 28 DAY STRENGTH. 4000 PSI 28-DAY
2 PRODUCTION PANELS ASTM C1140, 1500 PSI.
SHOTCRETE PANELS THROUGHOUT PROJECT 3. 7 &28 DAY STRENGTH. 4000 PSI 28-DAY
AS-BUILT
Sy Dcte
RC[ E"'P
CIT·, l\PPROVED Cri~JiGES I .t-PP"D DATE REc::ii.1l.~c::,,mED F0R APPRO'/t.L APPRO'.tEi) FOR co~~ST?UCT!O~J 8E/',Cri t.~ARh CITY OF SOLANA BEACH EN:.;~NEER:NG DE?ACc:T•,1[r,)"'." DRAWING '.,.j'.) :
I DESCR1FT;JN GRi'-DIUG ?LAt~S FiJR,
Sate 8)' Dote_ By Cote_ '...0(:JtTIOtl LAS BRISAS CONDOMINIUMS C-02 : Mohcmrr;cd Scmrrck, City Eng,neer :
I By Dote RCE 3i146 Em 6/30/16 E!..EV DATUM MS~ Sneet 2 cf i 3 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL:
L APPROVAL OF THIS GRADING PLAN DOES NOT CONSTITUTE APPROVAL OF VERTICAL OR HORIZONTAL AUGNMENT OF ANY PRIVATE ROAD SHOWN HEREIN FOR PUBLIC ROAD PURPOSES.
2. FINAL APPROVAL OF THESE GRADfNG PLANS IS SUBJECT TO FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ASSOC!ATED IMPROVEMENT PLANS WHERE APPLICABLE. FINAL CURB GRADE ELEVATIONS MAY REQUIRE CHANGES IN THESE PLANS.
3. IMPORT MATERIALS SHALL BE LEGALLY OBTAINED.
+. A SEPARATE PERMIT FROM THE CITY ENGINEER WILL BE REQUIRED FOR ANY WORK IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.
5. ALL SLOPES OVER THREE FEET IN HEIGHT SflALL BE LANDSCAPED AND IRRIGATED.
6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE EXISTENCE AND LOCATION OF ALL UTILITIES BEFORE COML'ENCING WORK. NOTICE OF PROPOSED \'/ORK SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE FOLLOl'/ING AGENCIES:
UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT 811
7. THE SOILS REPORT TITLED -------------,-,,--• PREPARED SY__________ AND DATED,_______ SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THIS GRADING PLAN. All GRADING SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND SPEClrlCATIONS CONTAINED IN SA!D REPORT.
8. APPROVAL OF THESE PLANS BY THE CllY ENGINEER DOES NOT AUTHORIZE ANY WORK OR GRADING TO BE PERFORMED UNTIL THE PROPER1Y OWNER'S PERMISSION HAS SEEN OBTAINED ANO A VALID GRADING PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED.
9. THE CITY ENGINEER'S APPROVAL OF THESE PLANS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE THE BUILDING
OFFICIAL'S APPROVAL OF ANY FOUNDATION FOR STRUCTURES TO BE PLACED ON THE AREA COVERED BY THESE PLANS. NO W.'IVER Of THE GRADING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS CONCERNiNG MINIMUM COVER OVER EXP~NSIVE SOILS IS MADE OR IMPLIED.
10. ALL OPER•TIONS CONDUCTED ON THE PREMISES, INCLUDING THE WARMING UP, REPAIR, ARRIVAL, DEPARTURE OR RUNNING Or TRUCKS, EARTHMOVING EQUIPMENT, CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT,
AND ANY OTHER ASSOCIATED GRADING EQUIPMENT SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE PERIOD BETWEEN 7:00 A.M. AND 6:00 P.M. EACH DAY, MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, AND NO EARTHMOVING OR GRADING OPERATIONS SHALL BE CONDUCTED ON THE PREMISES ON SATURDAYS, SUNDAYS. OR HOLIDAYS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE CITY ENGINEER.
11. ALL MAJOR SLOPES SHALL BE ROUNDED INTO EXISTING TERRAIN TO PRODUCE A CONTOURED
TRANSITION FROM CUT OR FILL SURFACES TO NATURAL GROUND AHO ABUTTING CUT OR FILL SURFACES.
12, N01WITHSTANOING THE MINIMUM STANDARDS SET FORTH IN THE EXCAVATION AND GRADING CODE. AND NOTWITHSTANDING THE APPROVAL Oc THESE GRADING Pi.ANS. THE PER•IITTEE IS RESPONSIBL£ FOR THE PREVENTION OF DAMAGE TO THE AOJACE>IT PROPERTY. NO PERSON SHALL EXCAVATE ON I.AND SO CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE AS TO ENDANGER ANY ADJOINING PUBLIC STREET, SIDEWALK. ALLEY. FUNCTION OF NfY SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEI.I, OR ANY OTHER PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT SUPPORTING ANO PROTECTING SUCH PROPER1Y FROM SETTLING. CRACKING, EROSION. SILTING SCOUR. OR OTHER DA!.IAGE WHICH MIGHT RESULT FROM THE GRADING DESCRIBED ON THIS PLAN, THE Cl1Y WILL HOLD THE PERMITTEE RESPONSIBL£ FOR CORRECTION ON NON-DEDICATED IMPROVEMENTS, l'IH>CH DAM,GE ADJACENT PROPERTY.
13. 13, SLOPE RATIOS: CUT 2: l FILL 2: 1
CUT: ____ CY. flLL: __ -_CY.
IMPORT/(EXPORT): CY.
NOTE: A SEPARATE PERMIT MUST EXIST FOR OFFSITE IMPORT OR EXPORT AREAS, 14, SPECIAL CONDITIONS: IF ANY ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ARE DISCOVERED ON THE SITE OF TH;s GRADING DURING GRADING OPERATIONS. SUCH OPERATIONS WILL CEASE IMMEDIATELY
AND THE PERMITTEE WILL NOTIFY THE CITY ENGINEER OF THE DISCOVERY, GRADING
OPERATIONS WILL NOT COMMENCE UNTIL THE PERMITTEE HAS RECEIVED WRITTEN AUTHORITY FROM THE CIT'r ENGINEER TO 00 SQ,
15. All GAAD/NG SHOWN ON THIS PLAN SHALL BE COMPLETED AS A SINGULAR UNIT WITTi NO PROVISION FOR PARTIAL RELEASES. SHOULD IT BE A1mcIP,TED THAT A PORTION Of THIS PROJECT IS COMPLETED S8'ARATELY, A SEPARATE PLAN ANO PERI.Irr APPLICATION SHALL BE
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
16. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE CITY OF SOLANA BEACH AT (858) 720-2470, 24 HOURS
BEFORE GRADING OPERATIONS BEGIN,
17, f!N;SHED GRADING AND PLANTING SHALL 8£ ACCOMPLISHED ON ALL SLOPES PRIOR TO OCTOBER 1, OR !MMEOIATELY UPON COMPLETION OF ANY SLOPES GRADED BETWEEN OCTOBER 1 AND APRIL I. PRIOR TO ANY PLANTNG. All LANDSCAPING SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMEITT AT THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAGE. OR BY SEPARATE LANDSCAPING PLAN.
18. ALL OFF -SITE HAUL ROUTES SHALL BE SUBMITTED BY THE CONTRACTOR TO THE CITY ENGINEER FOR APPROVAL 72 HOURS PRIOR TO BEGINNltlG WORK.
19. UPON FINAL COMPLETION OF THE WORK UNDER THE GRADING PERMIT, BUT PRIOR TO FINAL GRADING APPROVAL AND/OR l'INAL RELEASE OF SECURITY, AN AS-GRADED CERTIFICATE SHALL SE PROVIDED STATING· "THE GRADING UNDER PERMIT NO. SBGR-__ HAS BEEN PERFORMED IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFOR..,ANCE WITH THE APPROVED GRADING PLAN OR AS SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED AS-GRADED PLAN," T!-<IS STATEMENT SHALL BE FOLLOWED BY THE DATE AND SIGNATURE OF THE CIVIL ENGINEER WHO CERHIES SUCH GRAO:NG OPERATION.
20. THE CO>ITRACTOR SHALL DESIGN. CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN All SN'ETY DEVICES INCLUDING SHORING, ANO SHALL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONFORMlNG TO ALL LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL SAFETY ANO HE-'<LTH STANDARDS, LAWS AND REGULATIONS. fi?..s
GEO·-..... JI
EROSION CONTROL NOTES:
1. STORI.I WATER N-10 NON-STORM WATER DISCHARGE CONTROL: BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
SHALL BE DEVELOPED ,ND IMPLEMENTED TO MANAGE STORM WATER AND NON-STORM WATER DISCHARGES FROM THE SITE AT ALL TIMES DURING EXCAVATION AND GRAD;NG ACTIVITIES.
2. EROSION AND SEDIME>IT CONTROL; EROSION PREVENTION SH"I.L BE EMPHASIZED AS THE MOST IMPORTNIT MEASURE FOR KEEPING SEDIME>IT ON SITE DURING EXCAVATION AND GRADING ACTIVITIES. SEOII.IEHT CONTROLS SHALL BE USED AS A SUPPLEMENT TO EROSION PREVENTION FOR KEEPING SEDIMENT ON SITE.
3. EROSION CONTROL ON SLOPES SHALL BE MITIGAT€0 8Y INSTALUNG LANDSCAPING AS PER APPROVED LMOSCAPE PLANS AS REQUIRED SY THE 0£VELOPMENT REVIEW CONDITIONS. OR BY TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL CONFORMING TO THE FOLLOWING:
NON-IRRIGATED HYDROSEED MIX WITH A BONDED FIBER MATRIX APPLIED AT 4,000 LB/ACRE
LBS/ACRE % PURITY/ACRE SEED SPECIES
20 70% PLUS ATRIPLEX GLAUCA
50 PlA'ITAGE INSULAR!$
ENCEUS FARINOSA
SCARIFIED LOTUS SCOPARIUS
50% PLUS EXCHSCHOLZlA CALIFORNIA
TOTAL 91 LBS
4, THE TOPS OF ALL SLOPES TALLER THAN 5' SHALL BE DIKED OR TRENCHED TO PREVENT WATER FLOWING OYER CRESTS OF SLOPES.
5. CATCH BASINS, DESILTING BASINS AND STORM DRAIN SYSTEMS SHALL BE INSTALLED TO THE SATISf'ACTION OF THE CITY ENGINEER.
6. SAND BAG CHECK DAMS, SILT FENCES. FIBER ROLLS OR OTHER APPROVED BMP'S SHALL BE ?LACED IN UNPAVED AREAS WITH GRADIENTS IN EXCESS OF 2%. AS \'/Ell AS AT OR HEAR EVERY POINT WHERE CONCENTRATED FLOW LEAVE THE SITE.
, , SANO BAGS SHALL BE PLACED ON THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF ALL DRAINAGE INLETS TO MINIMIZE SILT BUILDUP IN THE INLETS AND PIPES.
8. THE CONTR.<CTOR SHALL REPAIR ANY ERODED SLOPES AS DIRECTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER.
9. THE CO>ITRACTOR SHALL SWEEP ROADWAYS ANO ENTRANCES TO AND FR0'1 THE SITE ON A REGULAR BASIS TO KEEP THEM FREE OF SOil ACCUMULATION AND AT All OTHER TIMES DIRECTED BY THE CITY ENGINEER.
10. THE COITTRACTOR SHALL WATER SITE ON A CONTINUOUS BASIS TO MINIMIZE AIR BORNE DUST CREATED FROM GRADING AND HAULING OPERATIONS OR EXCESSIVE WIND CONDfflONS, AND AT ALL TIMES DIRECTED SY THE CITY ENGINEER.
11. IN THE EVENT SILT DOES ENTER THE EXISTING PUBLIC STORM DRAIN SYSTEM, REMOVAL OF THE
SILT FROM THE SYSTEM WILL BE AT THE DEVELOPER'S EXPENSE AS-BUILT:
UPON COMPLETION, AND PRIOR TO RELEASING THE SECURITIES. THE ENGINEER OF WORK SHALL "AS-BUILT" THE ORIGINAL MYLAR PLANS, INITIALLY. TWO COPIES OF RED-LINED PLANS S~OWING ALL AS-BUILT INFORMATION. INCLUDING ALL NEW UNDERGROUND FACILITIES (WAIN LINES, SERVICES AND LAltRALS), IS TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE E>IGINEERING DEPARTMENT. WHEN THE RED-LINES ,RE APPROVED, THE ORIGINAL !JYLAR PLAHS WILL BE CHECKED OUT TO THE ENGINEER. THE ENGINEER SHALL MAKE THE CHANGES, SIGN EACH SHEET UNDER "AS-BUILT". AND RETURN ORIGINAL MYLARS TO
THE CITY
I
OWNER/DEVELOPER CERTIFICATE:
i, _____________ AS OWNER/DEVELOPER OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN ACKNOWL£DGE THESE PLANS HAVE BEEN PREPARED AT MY DIRECTION WITH MY FULL CONSENT. I FULLY UNDERSTAND AND ACCEPT THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED HEREiN AND AS ATTACHED BY REFERENCE ON THIS GP.ADING Pl.AN.
IT IS AGREED THAT FIELD CONDITIONS MAY REQUIRE CHANGES TO THESE PLANS.
IT IS FURTHER AGREED THAT THE OWNER/DEVELOPER SHALL HAVE A REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER
MAKE SUCH CHANGES, ALTERATIONS OR ADDITIONS TO THESE PLANS WHICH THE CITY ENGINEER DETERMINES ARE NECESSARY AND DESIRABLE FOR THE PROPER COMPLETION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS.
I FURTHER AGREE TO COMMENCE WORK ON ANY IMPROVEME."JTS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS WITHIN EXISTING CITY RIGHT-OF-1'/AY WITHIN 9 MONTHS AFTER ISSUANCE OF THE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT
AND TO PURSUE SUCH WORK ACTIVELY ON EVERY NORMAL WORKING DAY UNTL COMPLETED, IRRESPECTIVE AND INDEPENDENT Or ANY OTHER WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT OR UNDER
MY CONTROL,
SIGNED ------------- DATE
ENGINEER OF WORK CERTIFICATE:
I, _______________ HEREBY DECLARE THAT I AM THE ENGINEER OF WORK FOR THIS PROJECT, THAT I HAVE EXERCISED RESPONSIBL£ CHARGE OVER THE DESIGN OF THE PROJECT AS DEFINED IN SECTION 6703 OF THE BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE. ANO THE DESIGN IS CONS;STE>IT WITH CURRENT STANDARDS AND CITY OF SOLANA BEACH RESOLUTION NO.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THE CHECK OF PROJECT DRAWINGS AND SPEClflCATIONS BY THE CITY OF
SOLANA BEACH AND ANY OTHER PUBLIC AGENCY IS CONFINED TO A REVIEW ONLY ANO DOES NOT RELIEVE ME OF RESPONSIBILITIES FOR PROJECT DESIGN.
SIGNED ____________ _ DATE _________ _
R.C.E. NO. __________ _ EXP. _________ _
FIRM
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE _______________ _
ENGINEER OF WORK CERTIFICATE AS-BUILT CERTIFICATE:
I, ____________ HEREBY DECLARE THAT THE PREPARATION OF THESE AS-BUILT DRAWINGS AND THAT THE INFORMATION SHOl'IN IS BASED ON ACTUAL SITE lt-NESTIGATIONS AND SURVEYS OF THE IMPROVEMENTS BETWEEN THE DATES OF ____ AND ___ . TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE THE INFORf.tATION SHOWN ON THESE PLANS PROVIDE AN ACCURtffE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATlOt, OF THE AS-BUILT CONDITIONS, SIGNED ____________ _ DATE _________ _
EXP
FLOOD STATEMENT:
I, ----------==-- A REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER/SURVEYOR, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE PAD STRUCTURES SHOWN ON THIS AS-BUILT GRADING PLAN HAVE BEEN VERIFIED BY ME ANO TflAT SAID Eu:."VATIONS ARE AT OR ABOVE THE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION SHOWN ON THE FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP OF THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO.
SIGNED ____________ _ DATE ____________ _
R.C.E./P.LS. NO. ________ _ EXP. ____________ _
SOIL ENGINEER CERTIFICATE:
I, ----~----------,,-.-~ A REG;STERED CML ENGINEER OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PRINCIPALLY DOING BUSINESS IN THE FIELD OF APPLIED SOIL MECHANICS, HEREBY
CERTIFY THAT A SAMPLING AND STUDY OF THE SOIL AND CONDITIONS PREVALENT WITHIN THE SITE \'/AS MADE BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION BETWEEN THE DATES _______ AND
I HAVE REVIEWED THE PROJECT DESIGN AND GRADING SHOWN HEREIN IS CONSISTENT l'IITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS coInAINED IN THE APPROVED SOILS AND GEOTECHNICAL
REPORTS FOR THE PROJECT, ONE COMPLETE COPY OF THE FINAL SOILS REPORT COMPILED FROM
THIS STUOY, WITH MY RECOMMENDATIONS, HAS SEEN SUBMITTED TO THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ENG;NEER.
DATE ____________ _
R C.E NO. ____________ _ EXP
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE
SOIL ENGINEER AS-BUILT CERTIFICATE:
TO THE BEST Of MY KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE TH,E GRADING CONFOR!.1S WITH THE RECOI.OJENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THE SOILS REPORT ANO PLANS WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT ANY CHANGES OR DEVIATIONS FROl.4 THE Pi.ANS DUE TO UNFORESEEN FIELD CO~DfflO~S HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED IN THE FINAL SOILS REPORT FOR THE PROJECT. ONE COIJPLETE COPY OF THE FINAL SOILS REPORT COI.IPILED FROI.I THIS STUDY. WITH IAY RECOMI.IENDATlONS. HAS BEEN SUBIJITTEO TO THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER.
S:GNED ____________ _ DATE ____________ _
R.C.E /P.L.S NO. ________ _ EXP. ____________ _
WORK TO BE DONE:
THE IMPROVEI.IEHTS CONSIST OF THE fOLLOWING WORK TO SE DONE ACCORDING TO THESE PLANS AND THE LATEST EDITIONS OF:
STANDARD SPECIFICATIQfil
(1) STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION INCLUDING THE REGIONAL SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDMENTS.
(2) CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION "MANUAL OF TRAFFIC CONTROLS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE WORK ZONES"
(3) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMEI-IT OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DRAWINGS
(1) SAN DIEGO REGIONAL STANDARD DRAWINGS
(2) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARD PLANS
AS-BUILT
CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
_________ Do:te ___ 5.r _________ Dale __ _ C::':'SCPIPTlC~-i LOO.J!ON LAS BRISAS CONDOMINIUMS C-03
Dote
r.:::::::;;;, EXISTING SITE & ACCESS PLAN
l\?..S
GEO -----..J
ENGINEER OF WORK
~ By: Patrick Poepsel. PE
Drown By
crTY APPROVED CHANGES APP'O OATE
Date:_
:::::::::::::::::::::::t:::=:::=1
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION BENCH MARK
DESCRIPTION
By: Dote ___ By ---~~-~-ote: ___ LOCATION
Mohommod Sommok, City Engineer
By· Oat• ___ R.C.E.: 37146 E,p: 6/ 30/16 EL£¥. DA.TUM· MSL 10 10 20
SCALE IN FEET
NOTES:
1. BACKGROUND IMAGE OBTAINED FROM GOOGLE EARTH ON 11/13/2023.
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 ANO PUBLIC ACCESS IN THE AREA.
3. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS ANO EQUIPMENT SHALL BE MOVED FROM THE STAGING SITE ANO RESTORE THE STAGING TO ITS PRIOR•TO•CONSTRUCTION CONDITION WITHIN 72 HOURS FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT.
4. CONTRACTOR 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. CONTRACTOR TO USE A PLASTIC OR SIMILAR BARRIER TO PROTECT THE BUILDING FROM SHOTCRETE OVERSPRAY. ANTICIPATE DRAPING FROM THE THIRD DECK TO GROUND LEVEL
AS - BUILT
By,_· ______ Date _ _ _
R.C ------Exp _ _ _
CITY OF SOLANA BEACH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DRAWING NO.
GRADING PLANS FOR,
LAS BRISAS CONDOMINIUMS C-04
Sheet 4 of 13
r.::::::::; PROJECT SITE PLAN
l\?..S
GEO ----.....J
~ By: Patrick Poepsel, PE
Drown By
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION BENCH MARK
DESCRIPTION
Oot,e ·_l------------+--+---j By _______ 0,ote ___ By _______ Dote; ___ LOCATION Mohammad Sommok, City Engineer
Date- __ _ RCE., 37146 E, p 6/30/16 ELEV DATUM M.S L
10 10 20
SCALE IN FEET
NOTES:
1. BACKGROUND IMAGE OBTAINED FROM GOOGLE EARTH ON 11/13/2023
2. THE REINFORCED SOIL SLOPE SHALL BE DESIGNED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH THE FHWA DOCUMENT "GEC 11 - DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH WALLS AND REINFORCED SLOPES," VOLUME 1 & 2, FHWA-NHl-10-024. A DESIGN EARTHQUAKE ACCELERATION OF 0.15g SHALL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE DESIGN OF THE RSS SYSTEM. CALCULATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF THE RSS SHALL BE PREPARED BY A REGISTERED CIVIL GEOTECHNICAl ENGINEER IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND SHALL BE SUBMITTED AT LEAST 14 DAYS PRIOR TO THE START OF THIS CONSTRUCTION.
AS-BUILT
By~· _____ Dote: __ _
RC E _____ E.p __ _
CITY OF SOLANA BEACH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DRAWING NO
GRADING PLANS FDR,
LAS BRISAS CONDOMINIUMS C-05
Sheet 5 of 13
~
8 EMBEDMENT OF EXISTING
WALL UNKNOWN
EXISTING CONCRETE
SEAWALL RETURN
BLUFF SURFACE SOUTH OF
PROPOSED WALL ALIGNMENT
18" SPACING BETWEEN
MICROPILES (TYP.)
SOLID HATCH INDICATES-----
STRUCTURAL SHOTCRETE
MICROPILE CAP TO-----J
SHOTCRETE CONNECTION
I~ N r-ri -st LO lD " co m o ~ N i"J -st LO tD ,.... aJ m o N l"J '<l' LO c.o r--. co m I / ' ,:-or-_.. ,:-,:-,;-.,..........,:-NNNNNNNNNN 0 CUTOFF WALL SECTION SCALE i 4
10' MICROPILE
CAP
' ! V +-+-+-++-+--+--+-'
PROPOSED MICROPILES
TO START AT EXISTING
SEAWALL AND TO
EXTEND 1 O' EAST OF
EXPOSED SCARP
ALL M!CROPILES TO
Etv!BEDDED A MINIMUM
OF 5' ii'ffO TORREY
SAI\JDSTONE FORMATION
z
0 ~ :::;;
a::
0 L,_
1-
z
0 a..
~ m
l,J
»>z
wO
Q.'. IQ.'. U)
00 1-Z <>:
U)
CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
LAS BRISAS CONDOMINIUMS
AS-BUILT
C-06
MICROPILE CAP TO BEGIN AT EXISTING SEAWALL
AND EXTEND TEN (10) FEET EAST OF SCARP
BOTTOM OF STRUCTURAL STEMWALL/
TOP OF MICROPILE CAP
STRIP DRAINS SPACED EVERY 6',-~----------r--
SLOT DRAINS INTO 4" CORRUGATED PIPE,
SHOOT DRAIN INTO THE BASE OF SHOTCRETE
WALL AND DAYLIGHT TOWARDS THE BEACH
I 7
r
/ . 7
1/ ,! I I/ I /
I NOTE: MICROPILES AND REINFORCING NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY I I V/ / / y / / . I.J J I 1// •
I I
__ L · _ _ _ _L _ J_ 11/
___.;:=""-....
ADD EXPANSION JOINT---
BETWEEN EXISTING SEAWALL,
STEMWALL AND
MICROPILE CAP
EXISTING SEAWALL/
0 ~~J,~FF WALL SECTION
RECGW.-\alCED FOP ~PPRC,VAL
Sy, Catrick ?oecsel. PE Dote:_~==============t=====1 By _____ Date By _____ Dote -- LOCt.TIO'.J
f.ionommod SO'l1fY'IO~, City Engmeer
RCE 37145 £,.p 6/20/16 ELEV
CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
LAS BRISAS CONDOMINIUMS '.)4iUM MS L
AS-BUILT
S; ____ Da~e
C-07
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 •
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TWO LAYERS W4.0x4x4 EPOXY COATED ---s:::---+--.1...
(OR G/.1.LVANIZED) MESH; ONE LAYER
ON EACH SIDE OF MICROPILES
NOMINAL 12" REINFORCED SHOTCRETE---·.-~-,
I
i CONTINUOUS NO. 5 EPOXY COATED-c--_ =-~=c;;=~""'I c,.,=== p="#===~'=i H4 (OR GALVANIZED) WALERS, SPACED i ii i
AT 18". PLACED ON TOP OF MESH ON ! i j
SOUTH SIDE OF MICROPILES, ;
SPLICE LENGTH OF 30"
g MICROPILE CAP
~
EVERY 4TH MICROPILE SHALL BE BATTERED--,c:_--+---+----+-f-------+-f----l-+-----+~+----
TO THE NORTH SIDE OF THE CUTOFF WALL
rn" SPACING, GALVANIZED (OR STAINLESS--..______,____ I
STEEL PENDING MATERIAL AVAILABIUTY) ----------_i
X51 MICROPILES. PILES SHOULD BE '
EMBEDDED A MIN. OF 5' INTO UNDERLYl~~G
TORREY SANDSTONE FORMATION
A ELEVATION VIEW NotTo Scale
Oy RC E 37146 E..-p &/30/16
51 MM ELF-DRILLING NAIL
4.5" BIT TYP
NO. 5 GRADE 60 EPOXY C0/.1.TED
(OR GALVANIZED) VERTICAL BARS
SPACED 18" HORIZONTALLY,
SPLICE LEi\JGTH OF 30"
NO. 5 GRADE 60 EPOXY COATED
(OR GALVAl'-llZED) HORIZONTAL
BARS SPACED 18" VERTICAL,
SPLICE LENGTH OF 30"
1 ·12" NOMINAL. I
2" MIN I 1
• ! ..
TWO LAYERS 4x4x4.0 EPOXY
COATED (OR GALVANIZED)
WELDED WIRE MESH
2" MINIMUM DISTANCE
TO REll~FORCEMENT
NOTE: SEE PAGE C-08. SECTIONS B & D FOR PILE CAP DETAILS AT BOTTOM OF WALL
SHOTCRETE
1 •
JJ ~DRAl:\J
l
, ,~r
'sr I
N I I
N
----
STRIP
CAP-\
~
r4" DRAIN
PIPE
SIDE VIEW FRONT VIEW
C ~'~~!~ CONNECTION DETAIL
AS-BUILT
CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
LAS BRISAS CONDOMINIUMS C-08
Sreet e cf 13
UP TO 6' DEPENDING
ON EROSION AREA
GROUND SURFACE
BEARING PLATE WITH
NUT TOP AND BOTTOM
GROUT ~ \ SELF-DRILLING
MICROPILE
~ SECTI0'.'1 VIE\./
/\2S CUTOC-F \lA!...L
GEO ·-----...I
I
i . 1~ L---4" MII\J. BIT
/ I ~ DIAMETER
~ j
I
~/
CIT'· .t..PPR~Y.'EC cr..:..t~GES
=s:
>
z
I A?P'a DATE
FIELD INSTALLED GROUT
GROUT ABSORPTION
BEYOND BOREHOLE
MICROPILE HOLE
DIAMETER=2-1 / 4"
By ______ Data
~lohornfT\oC Somrriol<, Cd.y Eng·neer
FCE 37145 E,p 6/30/i6
<.D
CESCR!PTIOU
LOCATiDr~
ELEV
INJECTION ANCHOR
6"
~ n
H
H
J
© ~12~2PILE BEARING PLATE
CITY OF SOLANA BEACH GRHDI:~G PLANS FOP
LAS BRISAS CONDOMINIUMS DA7\JI.I I.AS l
BOREHOLE
AS-BUILT
By _____ Da'.e
RCE ____ Exp
C-09
Sheet 9 of 13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NO. 5 GRADE 60 STIRRUP
16-IN C-C
16"
NO. 5 GRADE 60 TOP AND
BOTTOM CONTINUOUS.
SPLICE SHALL BE MIN. 30"
RETAINED SIDE~ ~
3 MIN ht=,==1 l======::::j 1====:;c=::;::;=~'l=i==t:i 1====;::;:::====11====-:::=.=1=1==H========;:::=11=====i/ I
(
I I
i
I ' I !
I
I
[!I)
3" MIN.
!1
I I
I
I
1·
11 ii
8 \
0 n
EXCAVATION SIDE_/
18", C-C
SHOTCRETE TO CAP CONNECTION,
EXTEND REBAR MIN 36" INTO
SHOTCRETE FACING
NOTE,
VIEW LOOKING NORTH AT
FACE OF SHOTCRETE WALL
I
EVERY FOURTH MICROPILE SHALL BE BATTERED, I
( 6.0-FT TYP) --1~----t ----- 1! \
NO. 5 GRADE 60 ~TIRRUP
Et~GINEER or WORi<
I ' \
2 - NO. 5 GRADE 60 CONTINUOUS
30" SPLICE LENGTH
I 12"
\l
RECCtNUlDED F.JR APPROVAL .!.PPROVED FQR CONS"':RJCT!Oi1 By. Petrick Poepsel, PE Dote:_t---------;----+--< Sy ______ Cate Sy ______ Date !lchammad Somma~, C1iy Eng1r;eer
By Date RSE 3714E E)(p 6/30/i6
EXTEND HOLLOW BAR SUFFICIENTLY
TO ALLOW PLACEMENT OF COUPLER WHICH
WILL DEVELOP FULL STRENGTH OF BAR
N
EVERY FOURTH MICROPILE----·
SHALL BE BATTERED,
(6.0-FT TYP)
NO. 5 GRADE 60
CONTINUOUS
EMBED #5 W/
STANDARD HOOK
30"
NUT TOP & BOTTOM
6-IN X 6-IN X 1 /2-IN
STEEL PLATE
SELF-DRILLING
MICROPILE
NO. 5 GRADE 60
STIRRUP
N
. I
® ~'~~~~ORCEMENT - END VIEW
DESCR1PT!O!
'...GCATIO'.<
ELEV
CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
LAS BRISAS CONDOMINIUMS DATvl,' MS L
AS-BUILT
5y ____ Date
RCE ____ E:,,p
C-10
Sheet 1 J of 13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NOTE: SOIL BACKFILL THAT SUPPORTS PLANT GROWTH IS STANDARD ON THE BLUFF
EXTEND ALL GRID LAYERS TO
GEOGRID TO TERMINATE MIN 6" BEHIND FINISHED FACE. DUE TO LACK OF CONFINEMENT, BACKFILL MATERIAL II\J UPPER 6" TO 12 " OF SLOPE FACE WILL BE IN _A REUfflVELY LOOSE CONDITION
GEOGRID WILL HIGH PERFORMANCE TURF--....__
REINFORCEMENT MATS OR EQUIVALENT
REINFORCED SOIL SLOPE (RSS) - ---
(CONTINUE TO TOP OF BLUFF)
RSS BACKFILL TO BE LOCALLY
SOURCED MATERIAL AND APPROVED
BY PROJECT ENGINEER
SHAPE TOE TO
lv1IN. 4' LONG GRID LENGTH
EXISTING SE.l>:vVALL ------r
SUB 90% COMPACTION IN
FRONT 1 OF RSS DUE TO
LACK OF CONFINEMENT AT THE FACE
. /,[-. ~-,--~--:-----r---,,-
MIN 90% COMPACTION IN FILL
BEHIND FROI\JT 12" OF RSS
F170 ANCHOR AND PLATE APPROVED
EQUIVALENT) SHALL BE USED EVERY
3RD LIFT OF GEOGRID BELOW 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. D.AYLIGHT PIPE
TOWARDS SOUTH AND TIE I1'-JTO 4" CORRUGATED
PIPE INSTALLED AT BASE OF CUTOFF -WALL
A ~'~~~~ORCE □ SOIL SLOPE SECTION
CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
LAS BRISAS CONDOMINIUMS
AS-BUILT
C-11
PHASE I REINFORCED
SHOTCRETE CUTOFF WALL
CITY AP~RO'/ED CHANGES
Cot~: -:================:=:;===+==1 ay ______ Dote
Do•e
;.PPROVE[' FOR C:0',6':R,.._1CTf0tJ
DESCC·'iPTIN:
Sy ______ Dote LO:•TIOt4
Mof\ammod Somma~. C;ty :::n91nee~
R.C.~ 37146 E>p 5/30/16 ELEV
PHASE I MICR PILES
10· AND CAP
• ADDITIONAL REINFORCED SH TCRETE
AND BLUFF ST ABILIZA TI □ N
ELEMENTS wILL BE REQUIRED TD
MITIGATE GLOBAL FAILURE OF
CUTOFF wALL ONCE EXPOSED TD
NATURAL EROSIONAL PROCESSES.
• TRIGGER ALARMS FDR PHASE II
EROSION MIT I GA TI N:
1. MICR PILES BEL w BASE OF SH TCRETE FACING BECOME
EXPOSED UP TD 6', AND/DR
2. FL w OF RSS BACKFILL wARDS SOUTH AND BETwEEN MICR PILES.
CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
LAS BRISAS CONDOMINIUMS
AS-BUILT
8v ____ Dote
orc ____ [.p
C-12
Snel!t i: of 13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ 5y Pot~1f.t- PC<!Cl$~i. PE
)rvw'; By
MICROPILE TESTING:
1. A TOTAL OF THREE (3) LOAD TES-TS SHALL BE REO.U!REO,
2. TESTING SMAi.l BE PERFORMED IN TtNS10N ON NON~PROOUCTlON VERTICAL ELEMENTS PROOF MICROPILE TESTING PROCEDURE AND EQUIPMENT:
THE. REACTION FRAME W!U BE SUFFICIENTLY R!G!D ANO OF ADEQUATE O!MENS!ON SO THAT EXCESSIVE DEFORMATION OF THE iEST!NG EQV!PMENT DOES NOT OCCURs THE REACTION FRAME Will BE SUPPORTED INDE?ENDENTLY OF THE MICROP!LE BAR:. THE CONFIGURATION OFTHETEST!NG APPARATUS WH..l BE POSITIONED TO REDUCE THE POTENTIAL OF THE NEED FOR THE RAM, SEARlNG PLATES, AND STRESSING ANCHORAGE TO 8£ RE?OSITJONED DURING A TEST,
THE LOAD WILL BE APPLIED WITH A HYORAUUC RAM AND MEASURED W!TH A PRESSURE GAUGE. THE PRESSURE GAUGE WILL 8£ GRADUATED IN 100 P51 lNCREMENiS OR LESS, THE RAM, PRESSURE GAUGES, AND PUMPS Will HAVE. BEEN CALIBRATED WITH EACH OTHER WITHIN THE LAST YEAR BY AN INDEPENDENT AASHTO ACCREDITED tA80AAi0RY CR BY A DEPARTMENT LABORATORY,
MOVEMENT OF THE SAR HEAD SHALL BE MEASURED WlTH AT LEAST ONE DIAL GAUGE CAl>ABLE OF MEASURING TO THE NEAREST 0.001 !NCH. THE GAUGE WILL BE VISUALLY ALIGNED TO BE .PARALLEL WITH THE AXIS OF THE BAR AND SHALL Sf SU?PORTED !NDEPENOENTt Y OF THE RAM AND REACTION FRAME. GENERALLY TV O DIAL GAUGES ARE UTILIZED, IF POSS!BLE.
TESTING SHAU. BE RECORDED AT EACH LOAO lNCREMENTWITH TH£ DIAL GAUGE(SJ, DESIGN LOAD (DL):
LOADING ON THC BAR SHALL BE APPLIED BASED ON THE DESIGN LOAD AS DETERMINED BY FHWA PUBUCAT!ON NHI 05~039, M!CROPfLE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTfON.
DESlGN SOND STRENGTH FOR THIS PROJECT lS 615LB/FT OF BOND, THE DESIGN LOAD {OL) SHALL BE 40 Kl?S lN TENSION.
THE BONO LENGTH FOR TESTING SHOULD SE AT LEAST 10-F"L
TESTING OF MICROPILES:
PROOF TESTING WllL BE ?ERfORMEO ON 5'¼ OF PRODUCTION M!CROP!LES, LOADING WILL SE APPLIED IN TENSION.
A MINIMUM 48-HOUR NOTICE WILL BE PROVIDED TO THE OWNER PftOV!OEO THEY WISH TO OBSERVE MICRO PILE 1EST!NG AT THE SITL
1ESTS SHALL OCCUR IN LOCATIONS DETERMINED BY flELD PSRSONNEL ON S!1E, 1H! ALIGNMENT LOAD !Ali SHALL BE Al>?LIED TO ALIGN THE TESTING APPARATUS. DIAL GAUGES FOR MEASURING THE MOVEMENT Of iHE TEST MICRO?ILE SHALL BE SET TO ''ZERO,. AFTER THE ALIGNMENT LOAD HAS BEEN APPUEO.
THREE (3} NON PRODUCTION TENSiON TESTS WITH DESIGN LOADING Of 3040 Kl?S SHALL SE PERFORMED.
LOADING SCHEDULE FOR PROOF TEST:
LOADlNES
-Al--
LOAD CYCLE
LOAD
0.025 DL MAX
0.30 DL
0.45 DL
0.60 DL
0.75 DL
0,90 DL
l.OOOL
1.1S DL
HOLOT!ME
2SMi'NufES
HOLO 1.30 OL ABOVE FOR 10 MINUTES WHlLE RECORDING MOVEMENT AT 1, 2, 3, 4, S, 6 AND 10 MINUTES. lF TOTAL MOVEMENT MEASURED OURlNG LOAD EXCEEDS 0.04 fNCHES BETWEEN 1 AND 10 MINUTE AVERAGE READJNG THEN THE LOAD SHOULD BE HELD ON MICROP!L€ FOR AN AOO!TIONAL 50 MlNUTE:S, RECORDING MOVEMENT AT 20, 30, 40, 50, AND 60 MINUTES.,
LOAD CYCLE
UNLOAD CYCLE
1.45 Dl
1.60 DL
L30DL
LOO DL
0.7~ DL
O.SO DL
0.25 DL
2.5 MINUTES
2.5 MINUTES
4 MINUTES
AL 0,025 DLMAX
MICROPILE TEST ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA:
THE SLOPE OF THE LOAD VERSU5 015PlACEMENT CURVE !S LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.025 IN/K!P AT 2.00 DL THE TOTAL MOVEMENT AT L3 DL (CREEP) DOES NOT EXCEED 0.04 INCHES BETWEEN 1 ANO 10 Ml NUTE READINGS, OR THE TOTAL MOVEMENT DO-ES N01 EXCEED 0.0B !NCH ES BETWEEN 6 AND 60 MlNU1E READINGS.
Bv _________ Dot~
tJ.::,!-orr.mo-d Son.mcl•. City Eng1rit•~
PCE.. 37146 icvp c.---:,'.:
DE~::-;;:1::-"iU~l
i.OC:i'.7l0tl
--
1 """- ...... ,.. ....
;; ... ~~-
:.~~~~!;
LOAO T!ST MICROPILE Of.TAIL
CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
LAS BRISAS CONDOMINIUMS
1 1Q'li01
llllCll)mliUlTH
(If #'P't.lCNILE)
!IO!ilXDLfJ«lTH
1I'MIN
AS-BUILT
C-13
r
CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
635 SOUTH HIGHWAY 101 • SOLANA BEACH• CALIFORNIA 92075 • (858} 720-2400 • FAX (858) 755-1782 PROJECT EXTENSION A~PLICATION
(Extension a plying for: Conditional Use x Variance □, Minor Exception , Development Review Permit x, Director's Use Permit , Structure Development Permit D) (✓ one or more that apply)
A. APPLICANT INFORMATION:
1. Project Address: 135 South Sierra Avenue (Las Brisas Condominiums)
2. Applicant's Name: Cain Brian- Las Brisas HOA
(Last, First & Middle Initial or Company Name)
3. Applicant's Address: See Above Project Addresses
(Street, City, State & ZIP Code)
4. Applicant's Telephone: 619.997.1365 Fax: ____________ _
5. Applicant's Email Address: [email protected]
6. Applicant's Agent: Bob Trettin, Principal
The Trettin Company
1195 La Moree Road, #18
San Marcos, CA 92078
8. PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING:
Cell Phone: 619. 997 .1365
Cell Phone: 858. 603.17 41
Email: [email protected]
1. Provide a detailed factual description and explanation of the reasons why a building permit was not issued prior to the expiration of the original approval or preceding extension and the specific reason(s) the extension is necessary; the applicant's request for a specific time period for the extension.
The Las Brisas HOA's contractor reneged on their contract after plans had already been submitted for final plan check. The HOA Board has worked diligently to obtain another contractor and has recently signed a new contract for the construction of this much-needed project. However, do due to the fact that the previous contractor owned the plans. new plans needed to be drafted. Further, due to ongoing sloughages in the failure area. the new plans required some minor modifications from the original, approved plans.
The new plans are almost completed. It will now be necessary to obtain City of Solana Beach and California Coastal Commission findings that the new plans are in substantial conformance with the original plans, and then the plan check process can be reinitiated. These work elements cannot be completed prior to February 9. 2024, the date that the permit is set to expire if the building permit has not been issued.
r
2. A detailed description of the actions that will be taken during the specific requested extension period that justify the requested time period of the extension and that will result in the timely issuance of a building permit for the project before the extension expires.
As noted in response to Item #1, the applicants must obtain a set of revised plans, obtain findings of substantial conformance from the City of Solana Beach and the Coastal Commission, and then resubmit the plans for plan check and receipt of the project's building permit.
Based on past experience and current City & Coastal timelines, we believe this process can be completed within approximately five-six months. This will place the project in a ready-to-build position during the summer months. Because no work will take place from the public beach, the project could be initiated during the summer, dependent on the contractor's schedule.
3. A detailed timeline for the actions that will be taken during the requested extension period.
As noted in our response to Items #2, completion of substantial conformance findings and approval of the project's building permit will be somewhat determined by the City and Coastal Commission's processing timelines. As noted, however, we believe that these items can and will be completed along a timeline that will allow construction to commence in approximately six months.
The applicants are requesting a 12-month extension just to be safe and avoid needing to return for a further extension if any circumstances further delay building permit issuance beyond the timeline estimate provided in this submittal.
(Please attach any additional relevant information supporting the extension) Applicant Signature: ~ v,·Ch Py-ts~J.,,...,A Date: ll /~q /:1..3 The Trettin Company
Community & Government Relations / Project Development
November 30, 2023
TO: Corey Andrews, Principal Planner
City of Solana Beach
FROM: Bob Trettin, Principal
The Trettin Company
(Project Agent: Las Brisas HOA)
RE : Application For Extension of CUP 17-17-27 (Council Resolution #2022-013) The attached application is a request for a 12 month extension of CUP 17-17-27, which encompasses a 60' long lateral pipe-pile retention wall along the southern boundary of Las Brisas Condominiums.
The basis for the extension, as documented in the application, was the fact that Las Brisas's contracted design/build firm for this project reneged on their contract and backed out of the project one day prior to the on-site pre-construction meeting with city staff.
The Las Brisas HOA and both their civil and geotechnical consultants, consider this project to be an emergency. Therefore the HOA Board has been extraordinarily diligent in their attempts to find and retain the services of another qualified contractor.
A new contractor (an engineering design/build firm) has now been retained. Because the original engineering/ construction firm retained ownership of the plans, it was also necessary for the Las Brisas Board to obtain new engineering plans. Small changes in the topography of the bluff due to ongoing sloughages in the failure area have also dictated that the new plans, once completed, will have some minor changes. This will result in the need to obtain both City of Solana Beach and Coastal Commission staff reviews and findings that the new plans are in substantial conformance to the original, approved plans. Plan check will then need to be reinitiated prior to approval and issuance of the project's building permits. These actions cannot all be accomplished prior to February 9, 2024, which is the date that the project's CUP approval will expire.
The Las Brisas HOA Board and all of the owners within the complex are greatly concerned that the failure continues to expand and the Board has done everything in its power to expedite this emergency repair project. The circumstances that have caused a delay could not have been anticipated and were beyond the Board's control.
We believe that the City Council can and should make the findings, as addressed below, that the application for extension warrants approval :
1. The applicant has completed both City and Coastal discretionary approvals, has previously entered into City plan check and provided the requisite deposits. Documentation that the applicant has pursued issuance of the building permit in a timely and diligent manner is clearly well-documented with city engineering staff.
2. Circumstances beyond the applicants' control, as outlined above and in the application, have prevented the applicant from obtaining the building permit prior to expiration of the 24 month period allowed in the approved CUP.
1195 La Moree Road, # 18
Ph: (858) 603-1741
San Marcos, California 92078
e-mail: [email protected]
-2-
3. The application for the extension sets forth both a reasonable and substantial factual basis for the issuance of the extension.
4. There is a substantial factual basis to determine that the applicant will be able to perform the actions necessary to obtain issuance of a building permit prior to expiration of the requested extension. Prior to a Council hearing on this extension application, the applicant will have submitted new plans, have requested staff findings of substantial compliance with the original approved plans, and will likely have already re-submitted for plan check.
5. The 12 month duration of the extension is not longer than reasonably necessary to obtain issuance of the building permit. The time-line should actually be shorter, however, the applicant is requesting 12 months based on the unknown length of agency review timelines.
6. There have been no changes in the general plan, applicable specific plan, if any, zoning or character of the area within which the project is located that would cause the approved project to become inconsistent, incompatible or nonconforming therewith.
7. The granting of the extension shall not be detrimental to the public health, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Conversely, failure to grant the extension would result in significant ongoing damage to the Las Brisas property and, ultimately, to the western-most Las Brisas condominium building.
Thank you for your assistance in processing this request as expeditiously as possible.
Respectfully submitted,
6 o4~
BOB TRETTIN, Principal
The Trettin Company
cc: Brian Caine
Las Brisas HOA Board
1195 La Moree Road, #18
Ph: (858) 603-1741
San Marcos, California 92078
e-mail: [email protected]
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM # B.2.
STAFF REPORT
CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Alyssa Muto, City Manager
MEETING DATE: May 22, 2024
ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Development Department
SUBJECT: Public Hearing – Request for a Development Review Permit (DRP) Modification for Maintenance and Repairs to the
Existing Geogrid Reinforced Upper Bluff Restoration on
the Coastal Bluff Below 255, 261, and 265 Pacific Avenue. (Applicants: Alamo Family Trust, Sivage Family Revocable Trust, and Bradley and Susan Stone, 255-265 Pacific
Avenue Case No.: MOD24-002 Resolution 2024-061)
BACKGROUND:
The Applicants, Antonio and Maria Alamo Family Trust, Sivage Family Revocable Trust, and Bradley and Susan Stone, are requesting a Development Review Permit (DRP) Modification for maintenance and repairs to the existing geogrid reinforced upper bluff restoration on the coastal bluff below 255, 261, and 265 Pacific Avenue. The repairs would include backfilling existing eroded gullies within the existing geogrid reinforced slope, installation of secondary geogrid in the backfill of the gully repair, installation of temporary irrigation on the upper bluff, and revegetation of the upper bluff with native container plants and hydroseeding. Vegetation shall be native, drought tolerant, salt tolerant, and noninvasive plant species. Access to the subject areas on the bluff would be taken from the top of the bluff from the backyards of the subject properties. No beach access would be necessary. The properties are located within the Medium Residential (MR) Zone and the Scaled Residential Overlay Zone (SROZ).
The issue before the Council is whether to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Applicants’ request for a modification as contained in Resolution 2024-061 (Attachment 1).
May 22, 2024
MOD24-002
Alamo/Sivage/Stone
DISCUSSION:
In 1998, the Applicants received City of Solana Beach approval of a Special Use Permit with the adoption of Resolution 1998-101 (Attachment 2) for the construction of a 352- foot-long seawall and geogrid reinforced upper bluff restoration for the coastal bluff below properties at 249-311 Pacific Avenue. In 1999, the California Coastal Commission (CCC) issued a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 6-99-100 for the same project. Construction of the project was completed in 2000. Special condition No. 3 of the CDP required annual monitoring of the work completed with the CDP in order to require the applicant to submit a CDP modification within three months of any monitored need of maintenance or repair of the seawall or upper bluff restoration.
A monitoring survey conducted in 2013 indicated that maintenance and repair of the seawall was needed. The property owners submitted for and received approval of DRP 17-13-33 with the adoption of Resolution 2014-111 (Attachment 3) at a City Council Public Hearing on August 27, 2014. The CCC approved CDP No. 6-14-0437 for the maintenance and repairs of the existing seawall.
In August 2023, the Applicants’ engineer prepared the attached monitoring report for the entire project site (Attachment 4) and noted the erosion gullies. They have recommended the repairs proposed with this modification as well as the landscaping for 255, 261, and 265 Pacific Avenue. The project plans have been provided in Attachment 5.
The Solana Beach Municipal Code (SBMC) section 17.68.040.B.1.i indicates that “Any development on a coastal bluff top property or on the face or toe of a bluff for which a coastal development permit issued by the California Coastal Commission is presently required.” The CCC has told the Applicants that a CDP will be required. The City has required a modification because the properties had previously received CUP approval for the upper bluff restoration and a DRP for maintenance and repairs.
Development Review Permit Compliance (SBMC Section 17.68.40):
The Council may approve, or conditionally approve, a DRP only if all of the findings listed below can be made. If the findings cannot be made, the Council shall deny the DRP.
Resolution 2024-061 provides a full discussion of the findings.
1. The proposed development is consistent with the general plan and all applicable requirements of the zoning ordinance including special regulations, overlay zones, and specific plans.
2. The proposed development complies with the development review criteria.
3. All required permits and approvals issued by the city, including variances, conditional use permits, comprehensive sign plans, and coastal development permits have been obtained prior to or concurrently with the development review permit.
4. If the development project also requires a permit or approval to be issued by a state or federal agency, the city council may conditionally approve the May 22, 2024
MOD24-002
Alamo/Sivage/Stone
development review permit upon the Applicants obtaining the required permit or approval from the other agency.
DRP Finding #1
General Plan Consistency
The General Plan designates the property as Medium Density Residential and is intended for multi-family residential development at a maximum density of 5-7 dwelling units per acre. Development in the immediate neighborhood consists of single-family residential development. The proposed development could also be found to be consistent with the objectives of the General Plan as it encourages the development and maintenance of healthy residential neighborhoods, the stability of transitional neighborhoods, and the rehabilitation of deteriorated neighborhoods.
Local Coastal Plan/Land Use Plan Consistency
The City Council adopted an LCP/LUP on February 27, 2013 (amended and certified on June 11, 2014). Although the LUP has been certified by the California Coastal Commission, the Local Implementation Plan (LIP) portion of the LCP has not yet been certified; as such, the provisions of the LUP are considered to be advisory rather than mandatory at this time.
The proposed project is subject to the following LUP policies:
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.
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.
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 May 22, 2024
MOD24-002
Alamo/Sivage/Stone
structurally unsound, is unsafe, 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.
The City’s third-party geotechnical engineer Universal Engineering Sciences (UES) reviewed the proposed modification plans and application information and determined that the proposed modification “is in substantial conformance with LCP policy 4.54, which states that “Any bluff retention devise shall be reasonably maintained and repaired by the bluff property owner on an as-needed basis…” Their approval letter has been provided in Attachment 6.
Specific Plans and Special Overlays
The entire City of Solana Beach is located within the Coastal Zone. As a condition of project approval, the Applicants will be required to obtain a Coastal Development Permit prior to the issuance of grading permits.
Zoning Ordinance Consistency:
SBMC Section 17.20.010(C) specifies that the MR Zone is intended to provide for residential development in areas characterized primarily by detached single-family dwellings on older subdivided lots and two-family and multiple-family dwellings within newer, large lot, planned developments.
DRP Finding #2
The development review criteria topics referenced in DRP Finding #2 are listed below with further discussion as to how they relate to the proposed Project:
1. Relationship with Adjacent Land Uses
2. Building and Structure Placement
3. Landscaping
4. Roads, Pedestrian Walkways, Parking, and Storage Areas
5. Grading
6. Lighting
7. Usable Open Space
Relationship with Adjacent Land Uses:
Properties on the west side of Pacific Avenue are subject to specific development regulations due to their location along the coastal bluff. Many are protected by existing Bluff Retention Devices (BRD) that were constructed prior to the adoption of the City’s Local Coastal Plan and Land Use Plan.
Building and Structure Placement:
No new buildings are proposed with the DRP modification.
May 22, 2024
MOD24-002
Alamo/Sivage/Stone