Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPA2022-001_20220104_Coastal Hazards Analysis_11-9-21 P M A C O N S U L T I N G , I N C . CON SULTI NG STRUCTURAL ENGIN EER S 28161 Casitas Ct. PH. (714) 717-7542 Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 e-mail: consulting@pma-bg.com November 09, 2021 Carlton Graham Graham Architecture 1278 Glenneyre Street #107 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 COASTAL HAZARDS ANALYSIS REPORT John Armor; Applicant 729 Via Lido Soud City of Newport Beach, County of Orange PMA Job #41521 Dear Mr. Graham, PMA Consulting, Inc. 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 21 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 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. 1PA2022-001 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 Risk Aversion, over the project’s planning horizon of 75 years, the estimated Sea-Level Rise (SLR) for year 2096 shall be approximately 3.00’, which is the Sea- Level Rise for the proposed project. Based on the highest high tide of +7.88’MLLW (7.70’NAVD88) recorded in the project area, the above established Sea-Level Rise will account for bay water level of +10.70’NAVD88. As of March 23, 2021, City Council of City of Newport Beach has adopted new standards establishing a minimum top of bulkhead/seawall elevation based on 5-year increments, reflected in Table 2 below from City of Newport Beach Waterfront Projects Guidelines and Standards Harbor Design Criteria for Commercial and Residential Facilities 2021 Edition. The bulkhead is to be raised to +12.62’NAVD88 (+13.35’NAVD88 to top of finished surface at deck), with a design for adaptability elevation of +14.4’NAVD88 in compliance with the City of Newport Beach waterfront Project Design Guidelines and Standards, Harbor Design Criteria Commercial & Residential. 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. According to the enclosed Architectural Site Plan A-1.0, finished 1st floor elevation of the proposed development is at +13.68’ NAVD88=+13.88’MLLW which exceeds the Base Flood Elevation established for the area. Based on the SLR established in Step 1 above, 1st floor of the proposed structure will remain above High Tide Sea level until after year of 2096, based on Low Risk Aversion. 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 SLR way before the development on this site becomes subject to flooding. 2 Table No. 2 Year Structure Adopted NB Standard Design for Adaptability Permitted Elevation (feet} 1 Elevation (feet) 2 NAVD88 MLLW NAVD88 MLLW 2020 10.7 10.9 13.7 13.9 2021 -2025 10.9 11 .1 14.4 14.6 2026-2030 11 .0 11 .1 14.6 14.8 2031 -2035 11.0 11 .2 14.8 15.0 1. Derived using r.he Upper Limit of the Low Risk Aversion probabilistic sea level rise protecJion scenario for the Los Angeles tidal gauge, estimated 7 5 years into the future based on lhe State of California Sea Level Rise Guidance. 2018 Update. This scenario accounts for the upper range of what is "likely to occur" with approximately an 83 percent probability that sea level rise fidls below the elevations shown. 2. Derived using the Medium-High Risk Aversion probabilistic sea level rise protection scenario for the Los Angeles tidal gauge, estimated 7 5 years in.to the future based on the State of California Sea Level Rise Guidance, 2018 Update. This scenario accounts for increased sea level wUh approximately a l -in-200 or 0.5 percent probability that sea level rise exceeds th e elevations shown. PA2022-001 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. 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 SLR generally fall in the range of 5.4-6.7 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. 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. As determined in Step 2 above, 1st floor of the proposed structure will remain above High Tide Sea level until after year of 2096. In the event that SLR prediction of 6.70’ (Medium High-Risk Aversion) for year of 2100 holds true, the existing seawall has been designed and detailed to accommodate raise to top of wall elevation of +14.4’NAVD88, as reflected on the enclosed SW-0 thru SW-2. WAVE RUNUP AND TSUNAMI 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 & ACSE Diagram below. Due to its location, this site is not a subject to typical ocean waves and the associated wave runup. Bay generated waves that may arrive at this site are very small wind waves and boat wakes. These types of waves are generally dampened by the moored vessels and dock systems located in front of the site and have no significant energy and runup effect. Tsunami type waves that approach from the ocean shoreline will likely not reach the site for several reasons. There is no significant near field source of a tsunami like the geologic conditions of some other places on Earth such as Japan, for 3 Wave Runup Sketch ---~~ . ---- fil R Wave ruri up terms from ACES analysis. h • PA2022-001 example. A far field tsunami reaching the ocean shoreline will likely not reach the site because of the distance and developments between the shoreline and this site. A near or far field tsunami propagating into Newport Bay proper would likely cause a seiche or standing wave on the order of 1.3 feet traveling within the bay. At the highest anticipated tide in Newport Beach of +7.88’MLLW this shall result in slight 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 changes 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 beach footprint 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 SLR predicted in the next 75 years. If that prediction holds true, the rapid SLR 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. The existing seawall/bulkhead is required to protect the proposed structures on the lot, the adjacent properties, public facilities and infrastructure; thus, it can’t be removed. Removal of the seawall/bulkhead will result in erosion and undermining the foundations of the structures and site walls at the subject site and both adjacent sites. Once the existing seawall/bulkhead is repaired/reinforced in compliance with the enclosed drawings SW-0 thru SW-2, need for a new shoreline protective devise shall not 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 existing seawall/bulkhead assembly allows to be increased in height to+14.4’NAVD88, without further seaward encroachment. If during this period the seawall/bulkhead displays any sign of distress that requires immediate attention, due to some unforeseen catastrophic or disastrous events, 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. PMA Consulting, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to work with you towards the successful completion of your project. Should you have any questions regarding this report, please contact us. 4PA2022-001 Respectfully submitted, Plamen Petrov, P.E. Principal Enclosures: Location Map Aerial View Topographic Survey Architectural Site Plan A-1.0 Table 28: Projected Sea-Level Rise (in feet) for Los Angeles 2100 Low & Medium-High Risk Aversion Table 28: Projected Sea-Level Rise (in feet) for Los Angeles 2096 Low Risk Aversion Datums for Newport Bay Entrance Newport Beach OE S Quadrangle Seawall Drawings SW-0 thru SW-2 5PA2022-001 6PMA Consulting~ In~. Consulting Structural Engineers 28161 Casitas Ct., Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 Phone: (714) 717-7542 E-Mail: P.Petrov@PMA-BG.com 729 VIA LIDO SOUD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 V t Dr 8 ch ... PROJECT SITE LOCATION MAP JOB. 41521 SHT. DES. PBP DATE 11/09/21 ,:.. Bay Island PA2022-001 7PMA Consulting~ In~. Consulting Structural Engineers 28161 Casitas Ct., Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 Phone: (714) 717-7542 E-Mail: P.Petrov@PMA-BG.com 729 VIA LIDO SOUD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 AERIAL VIEW JOB. 41521 SHT. DES. PBP DATE 11/09/21 PA2022-001 8Date of Survey JUNE 23, 2021 Ji I~ cil~ IU) ~IU) <( w Q:'. w J, 51~ ~I~ I e=~,,,,--U) Ii= VIA LIDO SOUD ©~ 53.10' 53.86' ~ 60,89' =-= =-~ -=------"-~~~ -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -r,rnJ~----f-----~----L Legend 8lDl HNDR co. " EOC EC'8 ~ ~ ~ LP "' eEX SC SSW, SffiS "'" 'ill .. -• ,sro ~ Xl112,Z2) e () ® [,;] V '" N "' N ()) Cl'll r!'.l M Monument Notes: BUl.DINGCORNER BUl.DINGIXJTUNE HANDRAIL COLUMN BACKOF"Will EDG£r:l'CONCRE'T[ ELECTRICCABINETP,l,,NEL FlO'M..INE FlNISHFlOOR FlNISHSURFACE UPCfGUITTR GRATEl~T PIPEDJ'OSED SINQ.EG>.TE SE\\£RMANH( STAIRS ""°' '"" 'MNDC BLOCK Will FOUND MONUMEtH SEV,IB UEANOU SEWER MANHCU ELECTRICMANHClE .,, GASMEIER F"IREHYOR.I.NT POSTitlDICATORV,',,1.11[ TELEPll()IEM,IJ,HQ.E WATERW.L1/E ON ORANGE 'NB:3-17-77" RS 2011-1052 LOT 24 m• FOUNDSPIKE&WASHERSTAMPED "L.5.4655', FLUSH, PER RI.ACCEPTED AS CENTERLINE INTERSECT OF VIA LIOOSOUD&STRADAUNDINE • FOUND SPIKE & WASHER STAMPED "L.S. 4653". FLUSH, PER R1. ACCEPTED AS CENTERLINE INTERSECT OF VIA LIDO SOUD & VIA UNDINE. • FOUND WELL M()NUt,,1ENT WITH 2" BRASS DSK & PUNCH, PER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TIE SHEET, BOOK 1 PAGE 58. ACCEPTED AS CENTERLINE INTERSECTOFW,LIDOSOUD&\/IATRIESTE. ©•FDUNOLEAD,TACK&TA.GSTAMPED"L.S.4384"FLUSHPERR2. m0 SETLEAD,TACK&TAGSTAl.1PED"L.S.7542°DN 0.75'0FfSETONPLPRDD INTC. 0 SET T/\CK & TAG STA~PED "L.S. 7542" IN Ef'OXY 0.43' OFFSET ON Pl. PROD 0 SET LEAD, TACK & TAG STAMPED "L.S. 7542" IN Ef'OXY ON FACE or SEA W~L 0.15' OFFSET ON Pl. PROO References: R1 INDICATES RECORD OR CALC'D FROM RECORD PER RECORD or SURVEY 2005-1068, R.S.B R2 INDICATES RECORD OR CALC'D FROl.1 RECORD PER RECORD or SURVEY 2011-1052, R.SB SFN SEARCHED FOUND NOTHING " " SE LOT 25 EXISnNG RESIDENCE LOT 26 R.S.B. 255/18 SFN \ TOPOGRAPHIC VIEW SCALE: 1/8'"= !" ,SMV~ I ' ~ BASIS OF BEARINGS r N701426"W 31733 ; I® 2070 ---~----~J□~---0sco--y,J4-;j---------rr;y50---~~~~;~1J(1J 10 241 IN 10"{2./l)OIJT EXISnNG RESIDENCE LOT 28 J, ~' O/z ~-Q'. 0 ~f--'3 __ ______!:1_4.4!l" --+---CD LOT 29 M.IM. 28/25-36 ,s,wr,~ SFN +(6,(}6) +(U6) +(J.J9) ~ ~ ''"'"" ~THY $ Ff~~ PLS 7542 cj ~ i h ~ !~~i ~ §Iii :::, ~•~ I Cl) ~,i;: ~ HII :::, ·••j ~ Cl Ul. i'.:l:l ... __ ~ I • I ~ - -~ I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I :!: z a: 0~ ::, -~~ 0 . 0 :c -U ..J :i ~m a, Ii: I-'! 0 ! z SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEET PA2022-001 9-.fo'>""' BASISOFBEARINGS -------r"''"'~~ ® ------M-,,,--"?' _____ ~---~-FWJYJ:·rrt LOT25 R.S.B. 255/1 B (1U1J-S TRACT NO. 907 EXISTING RESIDENCE LOT26 =NPlN:1'[~21)+ I~ ~ (11!1J+ ~ ' +1$.N) -----· @'™1(1l.51)RIII (li. 10'(Z.41Jtl """" EXlSTING RESIOEtiCE wrn ,.----MO.TUR,11.GRWI()_., +(4.Jlj ··~ Dl;CI( ,.--S,l,N)..-' PftOPERIJCOIUIERIPOJELEYATIONI HWPROPERTYCORNER 13.12' NEPROPERlYCORNER12.911' ~=i~::::~: LOT29 M.M. 2B/25-36 HClf.MAXROOfHEIGHTCAI.C • ..WO.Cllll>IED'T•IU2'••Uh1Ul"ll•1'.Mflot -tOlHTIMT•U.1'"•10•:II.MW 'IIIEll.lO,III.L.MIIDOIEOWlllll(:!lVE""°<JOYB!NllOVER'l!IECIIY<IFIU. "mJWIEROOl"HE13111cerrn:ATDITOIHEl<OAIUINICONSTRCCTION I SITE PLAN I 3278SFLOTAREA 2,310SFBUII.IWlLEAREA W,,l(SfK8Ull.OABI.EAREAX1.5,.3,'46SSF LOWERPIAN=1,859SF(lrc.Gar1!J111Mach.) IA'PERPLANz1,580SF TOTALAREA=3,239SF[Lw;tllanl,46SSF) ® TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA= 227Sf <500 SF W.XALLOW.-~aeano119:1. W.EL.O. GRAHAM architecture 1278Ganoey,-es:•1a1 .ag.i,,aBeacrCA\12!:i51 m E car»'l(i;i!g11aaMa'thtectu11.cc'T' 1....----..... -~-·-"" ...,,,..,.., __ ,,,.~-~ --..,~ ... ., .... >od. .. ,d'-1., -hqlr.,o,~_,,...,._,,.,.,.,...,., .. _,V""o,qH-11q-.,~""".lli,,gt,o ___ ,,,.. ...... 1'<1 ... C"I <o <o IJJ ~ ~ Cl)~-:::, ~ 0~ ~ :c ~ ~ § og 0 Q~ --::!: ...J ! ~ ""'""" SITE PIAN A-1.0 PA2022-001 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. 10PA2022-001 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. 11PA2022-001 12PA2022-001 13 DHQ: ♦-------+-­MHW: 4.68 PA2022-001 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 419000mE3707000mN37 07000mN08 08 09 09 3710 3710 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 3720 37203721000mN3721000mN This information is being made available for informational purposes only. Users of this informationagree 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 14 PACIFIC INSTITUTE PA2022-001 15Cl) :E I 0 en 0 0 "Cl Ill 0 'II E g < i!li 0 i :::j -< I: > "Cl DAIF11/09/21 REINFORCING THE EXISTING SEAWALL 41821 I.PllROV CIILCKLO P.r'I IROV LOCATED AT: 729 VIA LIDO SOUD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 STRUCTURAL GENERAL NOTES & VICINITY MAP OWNCJl / Af'f'LICANI JOHN ARMOR 729 VIA LIDO SOUD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 1~;~;~~~~~ ~f ~~;~~~~;~;~1~~~~~~~; i~ I I I~ I~~~! i~ ! I~~ I~~ i ~~!Ii~ I I I~ I~ ;~i~~ ; ~~;:,,r: ~ °'"z:r~"'PiliB ! §~ F ~ ~,-~ ~~~ i ~~;~~:~~;~~~~~~~~~~ ~;~ ~~~~~~i~~~~l~~~~f!~~~ ~1~111!ii~l~!~I!~!~ ~:~ llll~l~~l~;i11~11111~ ~ i ~~ I PMA Coll8ulting, Ine. = Con..uhingStruttundEogineen 28161CesimsGt.,LegunaNiguel.,CA'fUJT7 Pbone:(714)717-7542 EM...iI, p .P""'"®PMA-BC.u:im " en -I ::D C: 0 -I C: ::D :I> r-G) m z m ::D :I> r-z 0 -I m en PA2022-001 16m r ~ i5 z < C/) ~ I ..... ~I~ ~ii NJ'!:: ~ !:~ ~ e I ~ 7 ~ 7~ < ~ " ~ ~1~ ·1 ~ ~ 3 ~ T .. § ii~ ~IF r ""' 11/09/'1 REINFORCING THE EXISTING SEAWALL 418,'1 l.f-'t.lROV CIILCKLU 1-'.l-'I IROV LOCATED AT: 729 VIA LIDO SCUD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 SITE PLAN & ELEVATION (/) =l m -0 s;: z 0 z m ~ .., 0 :D -I m ,. < OVINtR/N-'PLICMI JOHN ARMOR 729 VIA LIDO SCUD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 N llil.4C'J4.E11'-7l' ---r-------------------------------------,-1 I I I PMA Con!iulting, Ine. ~ Co,u;uhtngStrw:ur,,JE.ngi,_,,, 28161CasilllSO.,~'UllaNiguel,CA9'lbTI EMail~~;~~rulli ~3 ~~ i:l! "'m ,. .. :D Cl ~G'> me ..,z mCI :um I: :D :::j < ;; .. 6 0 "' 0 C Cl PA2022-001 17CONTREINFEA FACElYP '/14CLOSEDTIE1YP , ait:/@6~'c°HNG ~~FORMATION NOT SHOWN, SEE DETAILffi. ANCHOR ROD lYP DEADMAN ELEVATION HEAT SHRINK SLEEVE CENTERED OVER COUPLER r) ~1~tiTE 2uR?~Ni~~ ON f0~:Lnz;:f~~E;~~Ng~~;~~![~~ BARE ENDS OF 2, CONNECT TI-IE TWO BAR ENDS WITH THE COUPLER, EACH END SHALL BE SCREWED INTO THE COUPLER HALF TI-IE LENGTH OF TI-IE COUPLER. :: ill;:!qi~~~}}ffj}~}:!Jj~A:DA::~;LER HEATUNTILSLEEVEISFULLYRECOVERED, DCP COUPLER DETAIL /--2 BAGS MIN, SANDBAGS (TYP) a;~i=~ SANDBAG VELOCITY REDUCER DETAIL VELOCITY REDUCER DETAIL TWO ROW., OF SANDBAGS THREE BAGS HIGH L NE ROW OF SANDBAGS TWO BAGS HIGH TO£ OF SLOP£ PROTECTION DETAIL lilfil:. TI-IISDETAILSHALl.APPLYATTHEENTlREPERIMETEROFANYEXCAVATED f.4ATERIAL PILED UP AT Tl-IE PRO.ECT SITE IN COMPLIANCE WITH ITEM 6 UNOER"EROSIONCONTROLNOTES"ONSHEETS-0. ROD COUPLER (OPllONAL),SEE lYP ~)tc~g1HR~~r·---~➔-------i ANCHORPLATE1)i"x10"SQ W/ANCHOR NUT BEHIND (2)'/15 VERT & HORIZ BARS lYP__.,.. trJTE: FORiNFORMATION NOT SHOWN, SEE DETAILS ffi & ffi COUPLERPERICCESR-JJ67 SPECIAL INSPECTION IS REQUIRED GROUTSL.£EVE("J 2LAYERSOFMOLDABLE DENSOTAPE OVER BARE BAR ANO COUPLER SPACEBETWEENCOUPLER ANOBAR TOBECOMPLETELYFlLLED Will-I CORROSIONINHIBlllNG GREASE PREPARATION FOR FJFI P CUI BARS· 1. CUT CORROSION PROTECTION AND THREAD BAR WITH AN ABRASIVE SAW (DO NOT USE A TORCH). 2. 5tiJ~u~6l~~~'1Nf 0~± ~{ J~;RtuGf TED AND CEMENT ~~p~~~ ruLLY LAf.llNATEDBIRD PROTECTION GLASS PANELS PER ICC ESR-JB42-----___.,III BASE PL ~s• K 5" SQ W/(-4-}li"il K 5" LONG ~t~Js~2~t!1itE~YP Llf.4ESTONETILE PERARCHT ~~~_:r~~E CONC STEM WALL ~ EPOXYCOATED(/4CONT ft f.4AX 12· o.c. JS:" V REVEAL@ f.4AX 8'-0" 0,C, EA FACE FORBLOCKOUTATANCHOR PLATE SEE DETAIL 8 lYP (N) 1B" WIDE CAST-IN-PLACE CONC COPING W/(12)#6 EPOXY COATED CONT REBARS IN f4 CLOSED TIES C 12" O.C, ~~N~EA:AL~LACE TOE OF SLOPE PROTECTION R I SECTION AT COPING AND STEM WALL B ~ T.O. FUTLRE STEM WALL ELEV ~14.4-0'NA\i'iffilf ;;;+r.1::-6-0~LW =N11~:~!) ~LE~;1J.J5'NAVD88 c .I:Q-_~,:E~All.ELEV=+12.62'NAVD88 ,:!:!!~ =+12.62± f.lll.W ,;_ ~ T,0, (N) COPING ELEV=+11,40'NAVIJ88 CENTER LINE OFCONNlYP (E)DREDGE LINE/MUDLJNE ,jl' ;1~ ~i ,r-----(E)CAST-IN-PLACE I "I CONC WALL I•· I I ·1 :'--: 1·.1 ---------------~1_J ~tt ~I.JlN TYPICAL SECTION ~;:i'RS~ ~~-K:i~S~ !{~i~G~OPS STANCHIONTYP ~li~~:s~ J"CLRALL TOP OF EXISTING SEAWALL OYWIDAG ~~E~~f~lYP "I" ~I CORRUGATEOPVC SHEATHING SHOP r:~g:□~Ll. =· 1. FOR INFO NOT SH0\',111, SEE OETAILS ffi &8. 2• ffJ~i~~~t~~:i~t~!f~i:~c. ~e~tt&r?i~~~g~i!AT gg~~iE"WoS~_RING CONCRETE T ~NJv6is-~1Ei.;; ~3-~f~ w CORRUGATEDPVCSHEATI-IING SHOPGROUTEDFUU.LENGTH :: TI-IE FOLLOWING GROUT =~~iG~:□: t{~PPE Ill 0.75 LBS, INTRUSION AID LS [g~?JE;a~~ TYPSEE/Ei lllllE• 11/1 ~L .rh~~ iJUf J ff Ji ;i ~ • IN CASE IF PROPOSED BUILDING FOOTINGS INTERFERE WITI-ITI-IEllE-BACKS,DEEPENFOOTINGSPER I ANCHOR NUT. TORQUE AS ~~g~11%~FO~~ (E) SEAWALl.· ,.., m' ~u~1i~}E Er~~~~RLl~o~~,c:8~~~~~l~g~11rn~1~Nu~ 2" CLEAR DISTANCE AROUND TIE-BACKS. I I ., I • I ~ 1" MIN n'P K RAPID SET NON-SHRINK GROUT lYP CORRUGATED PVC ~~6~~~~u'Ct0p LENGTH)TYP i i1i en C!l z f'= a:: i z I Q 5 0 -:,:I: @~ 0"' g f-J Cl'. so ~i ... z !:!2 ~ i'.iS ~ ~ 5 ~ "§5" ~ !cc '"uJ ~ Q 8~ 0 ~ ... .l[t:: (/J ~ 5 i ~ ~ jjj O ~w tu a:: ...J ...... z □ "°''°"' (>) '"'" I N I N FORANCHORCONN. .:._..__ SJ AFTER STRESSING, 01 ~ TREAT SURFACE WITH O '<" BONOINGAGENTAND ----..__ Flll. WITH RAPID SET = !i z NON-SHRINK GROUT lYP ~ ~ I SW-2 U I TIE-BACK TO COPING CONN V PA2022-001