HomeMy WebLinkAboutPA2022-042_20220517_Retaining Wall Conditions Report
P M A C O N S U L T I N G , I N C .
CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
28161 Casitas Ct. PH. (714) 717-7542
Laguna Niguel, CA 92677
e-mail: consulting@pma-bg.com
May 17, 2022
Phil Nielsen
Philip J Nielsen Design & Drafting
6131 Anacapa Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92626
RETAINING WALL CONDITIONS REPORT
Eddie Chen; Applicant
1424 Galaxy Drive
City of Newport Beach, County of Orange
PMA Job #47122
Dear Mr. Nielsen,
PMA Consulting, Inc. is pleased to provide this report in accordance with Section
21.30.15.E.3 of City of Newport Beach Municipal Code.
STATEMENT OF THE PREPARER’S QUALIFICATIONS
Plamen Petrov, P.E., the preparer of this report, 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 22
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 Bulkhead Condition 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 Retaining Wall Conditions Report on this project.
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
Reviewed were the enclosed Caissons & Tiebacks Plan, Letter by Engineering Geologist &
Civil Engineer Douglas Moran dated June 23,1978 and photos taken during the retaining wall
construction.
OBSERVATION
A cursory observation of the existing retaining wall was conducted by a representative of
our office on May 9, 2022. Observed was the visible/exposed portion of the bayfront face of the
retaining wall. Due to the site conditions, tiebacks were not accessible, thus not observed.
FINDINGS
The retaining wall assembly consists of drilled-in-concrete caissons, cast-in-place concrete
1
grade beams, concrete pilasters, concrete wall between the pilasters, concrete deadman on the
street side of the lot and grouted tiebacks between the grade beam and the deadman. The
visible/exposed components of the retaining wall assembly were found in a good condition,
without noticeable evidence of distress. Some minor cracks were observed, which is a typical
condition for a concrete structure of this vintage.
CONCLUSION
Based on our site observation, we conclude that the existing retaining is required to protect
the proposed principal structure on the lot. Based on its current visual appearance and due to the
fact that the tiebacks are grouted, the retaining wall shall function safe and sound in the next 75
years. If during this period though, the retaining wall displays any sign of distress that requires
immediate attention, it should be repaired or replaced at that time accordingly, without bayward
encroachment from its current location.
The above conclusion was prepared based on the existing conditions, reviewed documents,
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 give us a
call.
Respectfully submitted,
Plamen Petrov, P.E.
Principal
Enclosures:
Caissons & Tiebacks Plan
Letter by Douglas Moran, P.E.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10