HomeMy WebLinkAbout20190114_Coastal Hazards Analysis_09-27-2018WILLIAM SIMPSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
23 ORCHARD, SUITE 250 PH. (949) 206-9929
LAKE FOREST, CA 92630 FAX (949) 206-9955
www.wsase.com e -mail:T mail@wsase.comT
September 27, 2018
John T. Morgan Jr., Architect
18682 Beachmont Avenue
North Tustin, CA 92705
RE: COASTAL HAZARDS ANALYSIS REPORT FOR COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
Mr. William Breech; Applicant
2282 Channel Road
City of Newport Beach, County of Orange
WSA Job #7254-2
Dear Mr. Morgan,
Pursuant to your request, William Simpson & Associates, Inc., (WSA) is pleased to provide
this report regarding Coastal Hazards Analysis for the proposed development at the subject site.
The site is adjacent to Newport Bay, thus it may be subject to Coastal Hazards such as, flooding,
wave runup, and erosion. This study investigates the potential for the aforementioned hazards to
impact the proposed development on the site over the next 75 years and addresses compliance with
Coastal Hazards Analysis Report requirements and standards of NBMC Section 21.30.15.E.2.
STATEMENT OF THE PREPARER’S QUALIFICATIONS
Plamen Petrov, P.E., the preparer of the Coastal Hazards Analysis Report on this project,
holds a Master of Science in Structural Engineering from University of Architecture, Structural
Engineering & Geodesy of Sofia, Bulgaria, and is a Licensed Civil Engineer by the State of
California Certificate No. C66947. For the last 19 years of his professional career he has been
actively involved in the design and entitlement of many Waterfront Developments such as custom
homes, seawalls, piers, platforms, floating docks and marinas. A great number of Coastal Hazards
Analysis Reports prepared by him have been reviewed and accepted/approved by California
Coastal Commission.
All the above being said, Plamen Petrov, P.E. shall be considered a qualified preparer for
the Coastal Hazards Analysis Report on this project.
Requirements in Appendix A for Step 1:
Establish the project sea level rise range for the proposed project’s planning horizon
(life of project) using the current best available science.
The State of California Sea-Level Rise Guidance 2018 update developed by the Ocean
Protection Council in close coordination with Policy Advisory Committee with representation
from California Natural Resources Agency, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, and
the California Energy Commission provides a bold, science-based methodology for state and local
PA2018-226
governments to analyze and assess the risks associated with sea-level rise, and to incorporate Sea-
Level Rise into their planning, permitting, and investment decisions, and it is considered the
current best available science.
As reflected in the clouded area of the enclosed Table 28, based upon direct
interpolation of the data for High emissions 2090 & 2100 and Low Rick Aversion, over the
project’s planning horizon of 75 years, the estimated Sea-Level Rise for year 2093 shall be
2.85’, which is the Sea- Level Rise for the proposed project. Based on the highest high tide of
+7.38’MLLW (7.20’NAVD88) with 0.3 feet correction for the wave setup recorded in the
project area, the above established Sea-Level Rise will account for bay water level of
+10.05’NAVD88 which can be rounded to +10.00’NAVD88 for this study.
Requirements in Appendix A for Step 2:
Determine how physical impacts from sea level rise may constrain the project site,
including erosion, structural and geologic stability, flooding, and inundation.
Finished floor elevation of the proposed development is +11.50’ NAVD88=+11.68’MLLW
which is much higher than the Base Flood Elevation established for the area. The highest high tide
reached in Newport Beach of +7.38’ MLLW is approximately 4.3’ below top of wall of the
proposed structure and will remain below it for the next 75 years. As we well know, majority of
the public streets in Newport Bay area are currently at much lower elevations than the subject site
and they will flood due to Sea Level Rise way before the development on this site becomes subject
to flooding.
FLOODING HAZARD
The primary hazard due to flooding from the ocean waters for this site, like majority of the
sites located adjacent to Newport Bay, would be due to long-term sea-level rise. The current water
levels in Newport Bay are reflected on the enclosed Datums for Newport Bay Entrance.
According to the enclosed Topographic Survey, top of Existing Seawall is at +10.80’
NAVD88 which equals +10.98’MLLW and it follows the current City of Newport Beach
Waterfront Projects Guidelines and Standards.
While sea levels have been rising for decades, higher rates of raise are forecast for the
coming century because of climate change – see enclosed table 28. Increases can be attributed to
warmer temperatures, which cause water to expand, as well more liquid mass caused by melting of
ice caps. Current estimates of future sea level rise generally fall in the range of 3.2 & 6.7 ft for the
year 2100. Global warming may impact flooding in other ways as well. Warmer water could
intensify North Pacific storms, bringing greater wind and wave energy to shoreline in winter and
higher intensity precipitation.
To review the historical tides, Flow Simulations, LLC has obtained tide heights data form
the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Center for Operational
Oceanographic Products and Services (CO-OPS) “Tides and Currents” website, http://co-
ops.nos.noaa.gov/ (Data accessed April 2008). Year-long records of hourly tide predictions and
measurements for Station ID: 9410660 (Los Angeles) have been accessed for 1982-2007. In
addition, year-long records of hourly tide predictions have been accessed for 2008-2020. All tide
heights have been saved in units of feet relative to MLLW and relative to GMT (Greenwich Mean
Time). Los Angeles has been chosen because it is the nearest NOAA tide station with tidal gauge
measurement data. A review of benchmark data for Los Angeles versus Newport Harbor shows
that tide heights typically differ by less than an inch. For example, NOAA benchmarks data reports
than the mean tide range at Newport Beach harbor is 3.76 ft versus 3.81 ft at Los Angeles, a
difference of 0.05 ft or 0.6 inches.
PA2018-226
Hourly NTRs (Non-Tide Residuals) have been obtained for years 1982-2007 by subtracting
the predicted tide heights from the measured tide heights. Positive NTR corresponds to higher tides
than predicted and negative NTR correspond to lower tides than predicted. To characterize the
magnitude and frequency of historical NTRs during the winter season when maximum
astronomical tides occur, hourly NTRs for the months of December, January and February have
been compiled for each year between 1982/83 and 2006/07 and rank ordered. From this ranking
the 98th percentile NTRs have been extracted; this corresponds to 2% exceedance probability.
To further explore the association between NTR and strong El Nino conditions, the 98th
percentile NTR for each winter (2% exceedance probability) has been plotted versus ONI (Oceanic
Nino Index) as shown in the enclosed Figure 3.1 and positive correlation has been identified
(R2 =0.72, p<0.05). The implication for coastal flooding is not only that the probability of coastal
flooding, or flood risk, varies from year to year depending on climatic conditions in addition to
astronomical factors, but that the stronger El Nino the greater the coastal flood risk. There are
important exceptions to this trend, however. Figure 3.1 shows two instances where NTR exceeded
0.5 ft even though ONI values have been between 0 and 1 oC corresponding to El Nino neutral or
weak El Nino conditions. On the other hand, Figure 3.1 also shows that 2% exceedance probability
NTR values never exceeded 0.5 ft when ONI values have been less than zero (i.e., during La Nina
conditions). This suggests that coastal flood risk is minimized during La Nina conditions.
The Newport Beach Peninsula portion of the Pacific Institute California Flood Risk Map is
shown herein as OE S Quadrangle. The dark blue colored areas show the areas where a 100-year
sea level rise of 55 inches is added to the existing FEMA coastal flood elevation shown in light
blue. Obviously, the entire Newport Bay area will be affected if sea level rises 55 inches by the
year 2100.
If the sea level rises in the next several decades as currently estimated, regional
measures to mitigate the potential flooding hazard shall be taken. Since finished floor
elevation of the proposed house will be at +11.68’ NAVD88, it will remain below the High
Tide for the anticipated life span for the proposed structure of 75 years.
WAVE RUNUP
Wave runup is the uprush of water from wave action on a shore barrier intercepting
Stillwater level. On steeply sloped shorelines, the rush of water up the surface of the natural beach,
including dunes and bluffs, or the surface of a manmade structure, such as revetment or vertical
wall can result in flood elevations higher than those of the crest of wind-driven waves. See wave
Runup Sketch below.
... Stillwater
Elevation
Hypothetica l Slope :'' '---~:1 Depth
-;~:1 .... · .. ~~:'.,.j:y:t_; ..... :;;;;;:;::-,,-__
Wave Runup Sketch
PA2018-226
Due to its location, this site may be a subject to ocean waves up to 3 feet and the associated
wave runup. There is no significant near field source of a tsunami like the geologic conditions of
some other places on Earth such as Japan, for example. A far field tsunami reaching the ocean
shoreline will likely not reach the site because of the distance and lot/seawall orientation with
respect to the Entrance Channel. Even at the highest anticipated tide in Newport Beach of
+7.38’MLLW this shall not result in overtopping of the bulkhead/seawall. Due to its very
infrequent occurrence – 500-year recurrence interval – tsunami should not be considered a
significant impact over the life of the proposed structure -75 years.
EROSION HAZARD
Erosion refers to the wearing or washing away of coastal lands. Beach erosion is a chronic
problem along many open ocean shores of the United States. To meet the needs for comprehensive
analysis of shoreline movement, the United States Geological Survey has conducted analysis of
historical shoreline changes along open ocean sandy shores of the conterminous United States and
has produced an Open-File Report 2006-1219 entitled “National Assessment of Shoreline Change
Part 3: Historical Shoreline Change and Associated Coastal land Loss Along Sandy Shorelines of
the California Coast”. The report looks at survey data of the following periods: 1800s, 1920s-
1930s, and 1950s-1970s, whereas the lidar shoreline is from 1998-2002. The report looks at both
long-term and short-term changes. According to the report, the average rate of long-term shoreline
change for the State of California was 0.2±0.1 m/yr, and accretional trend. The average rate of
short-term shoreline change for the state was erosional; with an average rate of -0.2±0.4 m/yr. The
seawall location of this site is stabilized and not subject to significant long-term erosion. Review
and analysis of historical aerial photographs and field measurements for seawall repairs in the area
show no change in the position of the shoreline over the last several decades. The future shoreline
changes over the next 75 years are assumed to be the same as in the previous several decades.
However, there is a rapid rate of sea level rise predicted in the next 75 years. If that
prediction holds true, the rapid sea level rise may accelerate shoreline erosion, but it shall not
impact the structure on the subject lot over its economic life.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, flooding, wave runup and erosion will not significantly impact this
property over the proposed life of the development. Based on the current condition of the
existing seawall/bulkhead we assume that need for a new shoreline protective devise shall not
be anticipated over the economic life of the proposed development to protect it from flooding,
wave runup or erosion. If found not adequate for the actual sea level rise over the next 75
years, the bulkhead assembly allows to be increased in height per the enclosed STD-601-L
without further seaward encroachment. If during this period the seawall displays any sign of
distress that requires immediate attention, it should be repaired or replaced at that time
accordingly, without seaward encroachment from its current location.
The above conclusion was prepared based on the existing conditions, proposed drawings,
current projection of future sea level rise, and within the inherent limitations of this study, in
accordance with generally acceptable engineering principles and practices. We make no further
warranty, either expressed or implied.
PA2018-226
William Simpson & Associates, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to work with you towards
the successful completion of your project. Should you have any questions regarding this report,
please give us a call.
Respectfully submitted,
Plamen Petrov, P.E. Masoud Jafari, S.E.
Senior Project Manager Principal
Enclosures:
Location Map
Aerial View
Table 28: Projected Sea-Level Rise (in feet) for Los Angeles
Topographic Survey
Architectural Site Plan
Datums for Newport Bay Entrance
City of Newport Beach – STD-601-L
Figure 3.1
Newport Beach OE S Quadrangle
PA2018-226
ve
"UL WILLIAM SIMPSON & ASSOCIATES, INC . ~ CONSUL TING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
2282 CHANNEL ROAD
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
JOB. 7254-2
SHT.
23 ORCHARD , SUITE 250
LAKE FOREST , CA 92630
E Balboa Blvd
r Cll
~ CD <
ii"
► < n,
DES. PBP
P (949) 206-9929 1------------------+-------
F (949) 206-9955
DATE 09/24/18
s::
!.I)
Corona Del
Mar Bend
PROJECT
SITE
2282 Channel Roa d
lookout Point q
Entrance
Channel
Coron a del Mar ft
State Beach ,ii'
LOCATION MAP
PA2018-226
"UL WILLIAM SIMPSON & ASSOCIATES, INC . ~ CONSUL TING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
2282 CHANNEL ROAD
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
JOB. 7254-2
SHT.
23 ORCHARD , SUITE 250
LAKE FOREST , CA 92630
DES. PBP
P (949) 206-9929 >------------------+-------
F (949) 206-9955
DATE 09/24/18
AERIAL VIEW
PA2018-226
Probabilistic Projections (in feet) (based on Kopp et al. 2014)
H++ scenario
(Sweet et al.
2017)
*Single
scenario
MEDIAN LIKELY RANGE 1-IN-20 CHANCE 1-IN-200 CHANCE
50% probability
sea-level rise meets
or exceeds…
66% probability
sea-level rise
is between…
5% probability
sea-level rise meets
or exceeds…
0.5% probability
sea-level rise meets
or exceeds…
Low
Risk
Aversion
Medium - High
Risk Aversion
Extreme
Risk Aversion
High emissions 2030
0.3 0.2 - 0.5 0.6 0.7 1.0
2040 0.5 0.4 - 0.7 0.9 1.2 1.7
2050 0.7 0.5 - 1.0 1.2 1.8 2.6
Low emissions 2060
0.8 0.5 - 1.1 1.4 2.2
High emissions 2060
1.0 0.7 - 1.3 1.7 2.5 3.7
Low emissions 2070
0.9 0.6 - 1.3 1.8 2.9
High emissions 2070
1.2 0.8 - 1.7 2.2 3.3 5.0
Low emissions 2080
1.0 0.6 - 1.6 2.1 3.6
High emissions 2080
1.5 1.0 - 2.2 2.8 4.3 6.4
Low emissions 2090
1.2 0.7 - 1.8 2.5 4.5
High emissions 2090
1.8 1.2 - 2.7 3.4 5.3 8.0
Low emissions 2100
1.3 0.7 - 2.1 3.0 5.4
High emissions 2100
2.2 1.3 - 3.2 4.1 6.7 9.9
Low emissions 2110*
1.4 0.9 - 2.2 3.1 6.0
High emissions 2110*
2.3 1.6 - 3.3 4.3 7.1 11.5
Low emissions 2120
1.5 0.9 - 2.5 3.6 7.1
High emissions 2120
2.7 1.8 - 3.8 5.0 8.3 13.8
Low emissions 2130
1.7 0.9 - 2.8 4.0 8.1
High emissions 2130
3.0 2.0 - 4.3 5.7 9.7 16.1
Low emissions 2140
1.8 0.9 - 3.0 4.5 9.2
High emissions 2140
3.3 2.2 - 4.9 6.5 11.1 18.7
Low emissions 2150
1.9 0.9 - 3.3 5.1 10.6
High emissions 2150
3.7 2.4 - 5.4 7.3 12.7 21.5
STATE OF CALIFORNIA SEA-LEVEL RISE GUIDANCE
APPENDIX 3: SEA-LEVEL RISE PROJECTIONS FOR ALL 12 TIDE GAUGES | 72
TABLE 28: Projected Sea-Level Rise (in feet) for Los Angeles
Probabilistic projections for the height of sea-level rise shown below, along with the
H++ scenario (depicted in blue in the far right column), as seen in the Rising Seas
Report. The H++ projection is a single scenario and does not have an associated
likelihood of occurrence as do the probabilistic projections. Probabilistic projections
are with respect to a baseline of the year 2000, or more specifically the average
relative sea level over 1991 - 2009. High emissions represents RCP 8.5; low emissions
represents RCP 2.6. Recommended projections for use in low, medium-high and
extreme risk aversion decisions are outlined in blue boxes below.
*Most of the available climate model experiments do not extend beyond 2100. The resulting
reduction in model availability causes a small dip in projections between 2100 and 2110, as well as
a shift in uncertainty estimates (see Kopp et al. 2014). Use of 2110 projections should be done with
caution and with acknowledgement of increased uncertainty around these projections.
PA2018-226
I
O' 8 ' 16 '
SCALE: 1'=8'
NOTE RECORD EASEMENTS ARE NOT PLOTTED IF ANY
SURVEYOR DR ENGINEER SHALL PERMANENTLY
MONUMENT PROPERTY CORNERS DR OFFSETS
BEFORE STARTING GRADING
e SET LEAD AND TAG L,S 4653 □ N 2.0 ' □FF"SET FROM P.L
SET LEAD AND TAG L,S 4653 □ N PROPERTY CORNER
LEGEND
(123.45) ()
#
A.C
T.G
BENCH MARK
NA TUR AL GRADE
PD\JER POLE
\,/ATER METER
FINISH FLOOR
GARAGE FLOOR
CONCRETE
FINISH SURFACE
MAN-HOLE
PLANTER
ASPHALT
TOP-GRATE
RdM S URVEYING INC T□P□GRAPHIC S URVEY
I
1
1:1
,_
i
I
RESIDENCE
7
I
I
I
I;' ,f/·. _ f=' ···· ,,,~, ,, ,_ ,,. •~ sN,cWCC C WCCO , r 1/ '"'" n~ ,, ~ ~-" 7 '-'"'= ,_ ,_ --□-~ '. ,_, f ! "°'"'""'-'".:_ =" ':C.. ;_='-'.'.:_ =" _,_ ~-_:_-~ ·--,_ ---. . '
-~# c=.4 o-:,: ; , ~ ~v
0
l'
I ,_
I ,_ ~ j rt• GARAGE ), □ ,_ ~ RESIDENCE ,
0:::_ C<>-.c ~) ,,ot{'1
_J c,i~~ c/
w ,,, ,_ I z ,_ I ;:;,.,, Z,,, ,,,f~•I , ,,ii'
~ ._.. ~: ,r~ .. ~,-:P I' _JCl""!-. ~ ,; ~
u mn < C>< t. ,;;;-,----;;;;--;;;;-1~)-:, , ,_ , CO< C-~ _ __.=;: ~
I ,_
I /4, r
D\./NER
\JILLIAM BREECH
RESIDENCE
LEGAL DESCRIPTI□ N
BLOCK P, LDT S □F TRACT MAP ND 518
-------~ l
T-=~ = I
I!~ = I
I ' I =
= I = I l__f ,,,,
I =: = I
BENCH MAR K
I
_J
ELEVATl □ N ON l' IRON PIPE= 10.92
JOB, 70-49 DATE: 8/1/18
,
DOCK
ADDRESS □F PROJECT,
2282 CHANNEL ROAD
NE\./PDRT BEACH, CA
PA2018-226
LEGAL OWNER
WILLIAM BREECH
2282 CHANNEL ROAD
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661
PH (949) 702-2455
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
BLOCK P, LOT 5 of TRACT MAP 518
BUILDING CODE
3 STORIES OCCUPANCY GROUP IS R-3, U
TYPE V-B, SPRINKLERED
OCCUPANCY GROUP ................................. R3, U
DESIGN DATA - ZONE R1
SETBACKS
FRONT ................... 0'-0" AT CHANNEL ROAD
10'-0" AT BAY FRONT SIDES ...................... 3'-0" TO TWO STORY
5'-0" TO 3RD STORY
BUILDABLE AREA IS ...................... 2,610 S.F.
2 TIMES BUILDABLE IS ................. 5,220 S.F.
LOT AREA IS ......................................... 3,500 S.F.
OPEN VOLUME REQUIRED IS .15% of 2,610 = 391.50 S.F.
PROVIDED OPEN SPACE IS 471.25 S.F.
MAX 3RD FLOOR FOOTAGE IS 15% of 2,610 = 391.50 S.F.
SHEET INDEX
A-1 SITE PLAN and INFORMATION
A-2 1ST and 2ND FLOOR PLAN
A-3 3RD FLOOR PLAN
A-4 SOUTH, NORTH and WEST ELEVATIONS
A-5 EAST ELEVATION and SECTION A
A-6 ROOF PLAN
T-1 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
SF1 1ST and 2ND FLOOR SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATIONS
SF2 3RD FLOOR SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATIONS
DESIGN PROFESSIONAL IN CHARGE
THE REGISTERED DESIGN PROFESSIONAL IN CHARGE SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE
FOR REVIEWING AND COORDINATING SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS PREPARED BYOTHERS, INCLUDING PHASED AND DEFERRED SUBMITTAL ITEMS FOR
COMPATIBILITY WITH THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING , NBMC 15.02.010, CBC
APPENDIX CHAPTER 1, 106.3.4
THE GOVERNING CODES AND STANDARDS FOR THIS PROJECT ARE THE
2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE ; 2016 CBC, 2016 CRC ; 2016 CPC ; 2016 CEC
; 2016 CMC ; 2016 CALIFORNIA ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS CODE ( EES )
CODES WITH LOCAL AMENDMENTS ; 2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS
CODE ( CAL-GREEN )
SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATIONS
1ST FLOOR .................................................................................................. 1,626.12 S.F.
2ND FLOOR ................................................................................................ 2,148.61 S.F.
3RD FLOOR 378.28 S.F.TOTAL LIVABLE ........................................................................................ 4,153.01 S.F.
GARAGE 733.82 S.F.STRUCTURAL .............................................................................................. 4,886.83 S.F.
2ND FLOOR DECKS ..................................................................................... 326.25 S.F.
3RD FLOOR DECKS 898.29 S.F.
TOTAL DECKS ............................................................................................... 1,224.54 S.F.
SITE PLAN NOTES
1. POOLS, SPAS, FENCES, WALLS, PATIO COVERS AND OTHER SIMILAR FREE STANDING
STRUCTURES REQUIRE SEPARATE REVIEWS AND PERMITS. ANY WALL and/or
FENCE PERMITS SHALL BE REQUIRED TO BE PULLED AT THE SAME TIME THE
BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED.
2. VERIFY UTILITY METER LOCATIONS WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON and
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY PRIOR TO INSTALLING THOSE METERS.
3. ALL SITE GATES ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED OF WOOD MATERIAL WITH DESIGN
SELECTED BY THE OWNER. PROVIDE KEY LOCKS AND DEADBOLT AT EACH GATE
LOCATION. PROVIDE A $800 ALLOWANCE FOR EACH GATE.
4. THE DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING RESIDENCE REQUIRES A SEPARATE PERMIT FROM
THE CITY.
5. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN A HAUL ROUTE PERMIT FROM THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER
FOR IMPORT OR EXPORT MATERIALS PRIOR TO THE START OF GRADING WORK.
6. ALL NEW UTILITY SERVICE CONNECTORS SHALL BE MADE UNDERGROUND.
7. FENCES, HEDGES AND WALLS WITHIN FRONT YARD SETBACKS CANNOT EXCEED
42" FROM EXISTING GRADE AND WITHIN SIDEYARD SETBACKS CANNOT EXCEED 6'-0" FROM EXISTING GRADE.
8. ALL BLOCK WALL PERMITS SHALL BE ISSUED AT THE SAME TIME AS THE BUILDING
PERMIT.
FIRE NOTE
THIS PROJECT WILL BE FIRE
SPRINKLERED PER NFPA 13D
PUBLIC WORKS NOTES
1. IF ANY OF THE EXISTING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS SURROUNDING THE SITE IS DAMAGED, NEW
CONCRETE SIDEWALK, CURB and GUTTER, and ALLEY/STREET PAVEMENT and OTHER IMPROVEMENTS
WILL BE REQUIRED BY THE CITY AT THE TIME OF PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION. ADDITIONALLY, IF EXISTING UTILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE ARE DEEMED SUBSTANDARD, A NEW 1 - INCH
WATER SERVICE, WATER METER BOX, SEWER LATERAL and/or CLEAN OUT and BOX with LID WILL BE
REQUIRED. 100% of THE COST SHALL BE BORNE BY THE PROPERTY OWNER (MUNICIPAL
CODES 14.24.020 and 14.08.030 ). SAID DETERMINATION and THE EXTENT OF THE REPAIR WORK SHALL
BE MADE AT THE DISCRETION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR.
2. AN APPROVED ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT IS REQUIRED FOR ALL NON STANDARD IMPROVEMENTS
LOCATED WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. ALL NON-STANDARD IMP[ROVEMENTS SHALL COMPLY
with CITY COUNCIL POLICY L-6 and L-18.
3. CLEAN OUTS ARE REQUIRED AT INTERVALS OF 100 FEET IN STRAIGHT RUNS, IN BRANCHES
EXCEEDING 10 FEET and WHERE THE SUM OF THE ANGLES EXCEEDS 135 DEGREES IN A GIVEN RUN
PER CPC 707 and 719.
4. THE SEWER CLEAN OUT LOCATED WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY SUBJECT TO TRAFFIC SHALL
BE INSTALLED WITH A TRAFFIC GRADE BOX and COVER.
5. THE DECORATIVE PAVERS WITHIN THE EXISTING UTILITY EASEMENT WILL REQUIRE AN
ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY.
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
Jo
h
n
T
.
M
o
r
g
a
n
J
r
.
18
6
8
2
B
e
a
c
h
m
o
n
t
A
v
e
n
u
e
No
r
t
h
T
u
s
t
i
n
,
C
A
9
2
7
0
5
ph
(
7
1
4
)
7
3
0
-
2
7
2
3
f
a
x
(
7
1
4
)
7
3
0
-
2
7
2
4
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
3
5
.
0
0
'
PROPERTY LINE 100.00'
PROPERTY LINE 100.00'
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
3
5
.
0
0
'
EXISTING BULKHEAD
NO CHANGES
NEW 42" HIGH WALL
CENTERED ON THE
PROPERTY LINE
15'-0"
NEW 41" WIDE x 72"
HIGH WOOD GATE
NEW 32" WIDE x 72"
HIGH WOOD GATE
3'-
1
"
3'-
1
"
15'-0"
3'-
1
"
5'
-
4
"
4'-
1
"
10"
2N
D
F
L
O
O
R
O
U
T
L
I
N
E
2N
D
F
L
O
O
R
O
U
T
L
I
N
E
2N
D
F
L
O
O
R
D
E
C
K
O
U
T
L
I
N
E
2ND FLOOR
DECK OUTLINE
2ND FLOOR
DECK OUTLINE
EXISTING RADIUSSED
PLANTER AREAS
EXISTING RADIUSSED
PLANTER AREAS
EXISTING BULKHEAD
NO CHANGES
(1
0
.
6
2
F
S
)
(10.80TW)
(10
.
5
1
F
S
)
(1
0
.
8
6
T
W
)
AT&
T
M
H
(10
.
6
5
)
(10.98FS)
X
X
(12.05FS)
DECK ABOVE
(12.22FS)
EXISTING
AT&T
(10
.
7
3
F
S
)
CH
A
N
N
E
L
R
O
A
D
LINE
CENTER
(1
0
.
7
1
F
S
)
ED
I
S
O
N
B
O
X
(10
.
6
8
F
S
)
(1
0
.
8
5
F
S
)
CONC.
(1
0
.
8
6
G
F
)
(1
0
.
5
6
F
S
)
(11.30FS)
(1
6
.
5
3
T
W
)
EXISTINGCO
N
C
.
(1
0
.
7
9
F
S
)
(11.32FS)
(11
.
0
5
F
S
)
EP
POST
(13
.
5
7
T
W
)
(1
1
.
0
7
F
S
)
(11
.
4
2
F
F
)
PATIO ABOVE
COVERED AREA/
(11
.
2
7
F
S
)
(11.31FS)
(10
.
8
1
F
S
)
(10.41FL)
(10
.
7
8
F
S
)
20.7
3.
0
15.0
5.0
0.3
1.0
2.
9
30.0
6.0
PO
I
N
T
#
1
GARAGE RESIDENCEEXISTING
RESIDENCE
EXISTING
EXISTING
GARAGE
EXT'G
CONC.
EXT'G
CONC.
EXT'G
CONC.EXT'G
CONC.
EXT'G
CONC.
EXT'G
CONC.EXT'G
CONC.
EXT'G
CONC.EXT'G
CONC.EXT'G CONC.
EXT'G
CONC.
EXT'G
CONC.EXT'G
CONC.EXT'G
CONC.EXT'G
CONC.EXT'GCONC.EXT'G
CONC.
EXT'G CONC.EXT'G
CONC.EXT'G
CONC.
EXT'G
CONC.EXT'G
CONC.
EXT'G
CONC.EXT'G CONC.
EXT'G
CONC.EXT'G
CONC.EXT'G
CONC.
EXT'G
CONC.EXT'G
CONC.
EXT'G
CONC.
EXT'G
CONC.
EXT'G
CONC.
EXT'G
CONC.EXT'G
CONC.EXT'G
CONC.
EXT'G CONC.EXT'G CONC.
EXT'G
CONC.
EXT'G CONC.
EXT'G CONC.EXT'G
CONC.EXT'G
EXISTING
BULKHEAD
BOX
SI
T
E
P
L
A
N
a
n
d
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
NOTES
1. ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT BY THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES
NOT RELIEVE THE APPLICANTS OF THE LEGAL REQUIREMENT TO OBSERVE
COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS WHICH MAY BE RECORDED
AGAINST THE PROPERTY OR TO OBTAIN PLANS
2. PRIOR TO PERFORMING ANY WORK WITH IN THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY and
ENCROACHMENT PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT.
CITY SEWER LATERAL DETAILS
REFER TO DETAIL 2 ON A-2 FOR CITY STANDARD SEWER LATERAL DETAIL 406-L
SOILS GEOLOGIST NOTES
THE OWNER SHALL RETAIN A SOILS GEOLOGIST WHO SHALL PERFORM THE
FOLLOWING...
1. VERIFY THE ASSUMED BEARING CAPACITY OF 1,500 PSF PER THE
SOILS REPORT.
2. INSPECT AND APPROVE OF AREAS PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF FILL OR
CONCRETE.
3. INSPECT, TEST AND APPROVE OF ALL FILL, VERIFYING MINIMUM OF
90% RELATIVE COMPACTION.
4. INSPECT AND APPROVE ALL FOUNDATION EXCAVATIONS AND SLAB
ON GRADE.
5. A FINAL REPORT OF COMPACTION AND INSPECTION SHALL BE
PREPARED BY THE SOILS GEOLOGIST and SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO
THE CITY GRADING ENGINEER FOR REVIEW AND FINAL APPROVAL.
6. NO FILLS SHALL BE PLACED PRIOR TO APPROVAL BY THE SOILS
GEOLOGIST.
7. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW THE SOILS REPORT
and ABIDE BY ALL RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED THERE-IN.
8. REFER TO THE "SR" SHEET FOR SOILS REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS.
9. A CAL-OSHA PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR ANY EXCAVATIONS DEEPER
THAN 5'-0" and FOR SHORING OR UNDERPINNING.
10. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
BY CERTIFIED MAIL 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE START OF ANY SHORING or
EXCAVATION WORK.
11. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY 45 DEGREE MINIMUM EXCAVATION
ANGLE FROM THE BOTTOM OF ADJACENT BUILDING FOOTINGS ON
NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
VICINTY MAP
PROJECT SITE
2282 CHANNEL ROAD
NEWPORT BEACH, CA
11
.
2
5
F
S
11.2
5
F
S
11
.
4
5
F
S
11
.
4
5
F
S
11
.
5
0
F
F
11.50
F
F
11
.
5
0
F
F
11.5
0
F
F
11.50
F
F
11.5
0
F
F
11.5
0
F
F
11
.
5
0
T
O
C
11.5
0
F
F
11.5
0
F
F
11.5
0
F
F
11
.
5
0
F
F
10
.
5
0
F
F
11
.
5
0
T
O
C
11
.
5
0
T
O
C
11.5
0
T
O
C
11
.
0
0
S
F
11.0
0
F
S
1.5% SLOPE1.5% SLOPE
1.5% SLOPE
2ND FLOOR
OUTLINE
10'-0"5'-0"SETBACK
TO
F
O
S
3'-
0
"
SE
T
B
A
C
K
3'-
1
"
TO
F
O
S
3'-
0
"
SE
T
B
A
C
K
TO
F
O
S
TO
F
O
S
3'-
0
"
SE
T
B
A
C
K
TO
F
O
S
3'-
0
"
SE
T
B
A
C
K
4'-
1
"
TO
F
O
S
3'-
0
"
SE
T
B
A
C
K
2ND FLOOR
OUTLINE
SETBACK
LINE
SETBACK
LINE
SETBACK
LINE
SETBACK
LINE
SETBACK
LINE
11"
HATCHING INDICATES NEW
6" WIDE x 6'-0" HIGH CMU WALL
10"
EXISTING 6'
HIGH WALL
EXISTING 6'HIGH WALL EXISTING 6'HIGH WALL
HATCHING INDICATESNEW 6" WIDE x 6'-0" HIGH
CMU WALL PER CITY STANDARD
HATCHING INDICATESNEW 6" WIDE x 6'-0" HIGH
CMU WALL PER CITY STANDARD
EXISTING DOCK
11
.
3
3
F
S
11
.
3
3
F
S
11.33 FS
11.33 FS
DOOR
DO
O
R
DO
O
R
SLIDING
DOORS
SLIDING
DOORS
EPEXT'G + 30"
HIGH WALL
EXT'G
PLANTER
3 CAR
GARAGE
NEW THREE
STORY RESIDENCE
FENCE NOTE
FOR ANY PORTION OF A WALL OR FENCE
THAT EXTENDS OVER COMMON PROPERTY
LINES,TO INCLUDE FOOTINGS OR STRUCTURAL
COMPONENTS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL
OBTAIN THE NEIGHBORS WRITTEN APPROVAL
AND A SEPARATE PERMIT.
3RD FLOOR COVERED DECK OUTLINE
3RD FLOOR OUTLINE
3RD FLOOR OUTLINE
3R
D
F
L
O
O
R
O
U
T
L
I
N
E
3RD FLOOR COVERED DECK OUTLINE
3R
D
F
L
O
O
R
C
O
V
E
R
E
D
D
E
C
K
O
U
T
L
I
N
E
3R
D
F
L
O
O
R
O
U
T
L
I
N
E
3R
D
F
L
O
O
R
C
O
V
E
R
E
D
D
E
C
K
O
U
T
L
I
N
E
I
I
j
:
~
--~
'-
-
-
~i
~
;
~
::
:
:
Y'
-,
.
\
I
II
I
I
./
'
, //
.,
,
,
.
.,
II
:
ii
li
!
I
11
I
••
1r
r
ii
I
!i
:J
i
l
1
ji
ll
1!
1
J !
li
l
j
•1
i1
p:
11
1H1
I,
11
,
I
J
•l
,
l
,
!l
j
II
t!
j
I
h1lj
•l
.
11
'•
I
:1
!
1
ii
'
•!
i!
i
I
Jl
h
i
.,
I
It
•1
,
t
al
,,
r
1
,
'
•
1
·
r
Ii
i
,i
il
l
I
II
!I
'
..
'
.
I
,1
,
'
,I
,,
/
IJ
li
l
i
IH
I
!!
I
{j
i
!
!j
l
1
j!
1
I
,,
I
,,
,,
t
,,
,
,
,,
,
,
·1
11
li
l
i
!i
i
i
I ,1
,
lj
i
i
I
Ii
(h
.
!r
H
ll
,
1
1
!l
f
!
1·
"
11
·1
'
I
ii
i
'
I
.,
l
1!
jf
,
1
:
l
:
j
:
u,
1
,1
1
n
11
11
Hi
l
t
!j
l
'
i
1:
I
1t
I
~
It
.
~
•
r
.
c>
I
. ! I
I l
PA2018-226
PA2018-226
DHQ:
♦-------+-MHW : 4.68
PA2018-226
NOTE:
2-#4 CONT. EPOXY-COATED
PER ASTM A934
8" CONCRETE BLOCK WALL ADDED
TO TOP OF EXISTING BULKHEAD
#5 @ 24" O.C. DRILL AND EPOXY BARS PER
MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS INTO
EXISTING COPING
TOP OF IMPROVEMENTS ~
2"
~~---~---+,-------,
6"
MIN.
EXISTING TIE R\D ~ ...... · ... · .... · ·· ·
ALTERNATE "A"
(CONCRETE BLOCK)
11/2" CHAMFER {TYPICAL)-----~
#4 CONT. EPOXY COATED A934 ---~
CONCRETE: f'c = 5,000 PSI (MIN.)---~
W /C RATIO = 0.40 (MAX.)
#5 @ 24" O.C. DRILL AND EPOXY BARS PER
MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS
INTO EXISTING COPING 6"
TOP OF IMPROVEMENTS--MIN.
EXISTING TIE ROD ~ _. _ .. ·
l_ _ .. '-.·· ) .. -··
ALTERNATE "B"
(POURED-IN-PLACE CONCRETE)
EPOXY SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM C881 STANDARD AND BE
USED IN STRICT ACCORD WITH THE MANUFACTURERS PRINTED
INSTRUCTIONS.
8"
/
PROPERTY, BULKHEAD
OR OTHER BAYWARD
LIMIT
----=T T -ELEVATION + 10.0 M.L.L.W.
U) &,
w.-t ; .s
cc = >N ....
ROUGHEN FOR BOND
AND APPLY EPOXY
EXISTING COPING
C I ", ~EXISTING BULKHEAD
I
PROPERTY, BULKHEAD
OR OTHER BAYWARD
LIMIT
1 ELEVATION + 10.0
I M.L.L.W.
ROUGHEN FOR BOND
AND APPLY EPOXY
BONDING AGENT PER
MANUFACTURER'S
RECOMMENDATIONS.
EXISTING COPING
--------EXISTING BULKHEAD
REV. 01/17
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVED:
DETAIL FOR RAISING
BULKHEADS
Drawn: R. OKADA
Date: JULY 2004
DRAWING NO.
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
Scale: N.T.S.
STD-601-L
PA2018-226
--"' ~
~
:0
"' ..0 e a.
8
1 -
C: .§ 0.5 -
"' 8
X
UJ
~
N
.c 1 0-
0:
1-z
.c
,'f_
I
C:
"' 7 -0.5 ~
0
ll)
D
Los Angeles, 1982/83-2006/07
◊ ◊
◊
◊
-
-
-1 '--------'''--------..l·------L-'-----'''----------'-'--------'
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Oceanic Nino Index (ONI) ror Dec-Jan-Feb ("C)
Figure 3. I. A plot of 2% exceectance probability NTR versus ONI shows significant
correlation (R2=0.72, p<0.05), but note that NTR exceeding 0.5 ft have also occurred
during weak El Nino and El Nino neutral winters (0<ONI<l ).
PA2018-226
Newport BeachNewport Beach
Costa MesaCosta MesaCosta MesaCosta MesaHuntington BeachHuntington Beach
¬«1
¬«55
¬«1
¬«55
117°52’30"W
117°52’30"W
117°55’0"W
117°55’0"W
117°57’30"W
117°57’30"W
118°0’0"W
118°0’0"W
33°37’30"N
33°37’30"N
33°35’0"N
33°35’0"N
33°32’30"N
33°32’30"N
33°30’0"N
33°30’0"N
407000mE
407000mE
08
08
09
09
410
410
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
419000mE
419000mE
37
07
00
0
m
N
37
07
00
0
m
N
08 08
09 09
3710 3710
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
3720 3720
37
21
00
0
m
N
37
21
00
0
m
N
This information is being made available for informational purposes only. Users of this information
agree by their use to hold blameless the State of California, and its respective officers, employees,
agents, contractors, and subcontractors for any liability associated with its use in any form. This work
shall not be used to assess actual coastal hazards, insurance requirements, or property values
and specifically shall not be used in lieu of Flood Insurance Studies and Flood Insurance Rate Maps
issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Data Sources: US Geological Survey, Department of Commerce (DOC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), National Ocean Service (NOS), Coastal ServicesCenter (CSC), Scripps Institution
of Oceanography, Phillip WIlliams and Associates, Inc. (PWA), US Department of Agriculture (USDA),
California Coastal Commission, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Imagery from ESRI and i-cubed.
Created by the Pacific Institute, Oakland, California, 2009.
California Flood Risk: Sea Level Rise
00.511.520.25
Miles
01230.5
Kilometers
1:
2:
3:
4:
5:
6:
7:
8:
Seal Beach
Newport Beach
Tustin
not printed
Laguna Beach
not printed
not printed
not printed867
1 2 3
54
§¨¦
£¤
")
¬«
Interstate
US Highway
State Highway
County Highway
Grid coordinates:
UTM Zone 11N meters
Adjoining Quadrangles:
Map extents match USGS 7.5 minute topographic maps
Project funded by the California Energy Commission’s
Public Interest Energy Research Program, CalTrans,
and the California Ocean Protection Council
Newport Beach OE S Quadrangle
NAD83 GCS degrees
Coastal Zone Boundary
Current Coastal Base Flood
(approximate 100-year flood extent)
Sea Level Rise Scenario
Coastal Base Flood + 1.4 meters (55 inches)
Landward Limit of
Erosion High Hazard Zone in 2100
PACIFIC
INSTITUTE
PA2018-226