June 22, 2023 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting

1. Call to Order, Meeting Procedure Review
2. Public Comment Period
3. Staff Updates
4. Item of Discussion: Greenwood Bay Condominium Seawall Repair Project (BCDC Permit Amendment Application 1973.015.04) (PDF).
   The Board will review the Greenwood Bay Condominium Homeowners Association (Applicant) proposed sea wall repair project at One Greenwood Bay Drive in Tiburon. The Board will review the proposed design and installation of the new sea wall, placement of tie-back anchors, and removal of the old sea wall. The Board will advise BCDC staff and the Applicant as to additional studies, analyses, or actions to be undertaken to minimize the risk and consequences to the sea wall stability due to a seismic event, flooding or sea level rise.
   (Sam Fielding) [415/352-3665; sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov]
   Greenwood Bay Homeowner’s Association Seawall Repair (PDF) // Greenwood Bay Condominiums Seawall Repair (PDF) // Greenwood Bay Condominium Homeowners Association Site Pan (PDF)
5. Adjournment

Audio Recording

Transcript

I.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Can you see my title slide?

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Yes.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Okay. Great

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: I believe that. our applicant is here today and we are ready to start the meeting. So I’d like to welcome everyone to this meeting

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Engineering Criteria Review Board.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Okay? And so I believe that’s

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): my queue Good afternoon, everybody. I’m welcome to the B. C. DC. Virtual engineering Criteria Review Board meeting my name is Rod Youwasha, and I’m chair of Dcbc’s engineering Criteria Review Board or Ecr d.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): our first, or a business is to call the role

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Board members. Please unmute yourselves and respond. then meet yourselves again. After responding, Jen, can you please call role?

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: I will chair. It was she, though. Vice chair. Jim French.

Jim French: Sure

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: board members. Bob Battalion.

Bob Battalio: Here.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Bill Holmes.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: it’s not here. Chris May.

Kris May (Pathways Climate Institute): Here

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Gmak Casali.

GKasali: Yeah.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Running. Go, Sarky.

Ramin Golesorkhi: Yeah.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Nick Sitar.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: I know next. Not here today.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Gail Johnson.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: I know Gail is also not here today.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Thalia Travisaru

Thaleia Travasarou: here.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Dill it

Dilip Trivedi: here

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: just in Vandiver.

Justin Vandever: Here

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: is everyone anyone whose name I have not called

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: great. Thanks.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: we do have a quorum present.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: so, rod you may continue business.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): okay? And it looks like Somebody is going to show how to raise virtual hands for

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): for public comments. Or maybe we hold that until

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): just before public comment.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): so let’s go through the meeting procedure Review.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): just want to make a few comments or provide some instruction on how we can

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): best participate in this meeting, and so that it runs smoothly. everyone, please make sure you have your microphones or phones muted to avoid background noise

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): for board members.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): please make sure your webcam is on so we can see you

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): for members of the public. if you’d like to speak during the public comment period. you can do so in 2 ways. first, if you are attending on the Zoom Platform.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): please raise your virtual hand in zoom.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): If you are new to zoom or and you joined our meeting using the zoom application. Click the hand at the bottom of your screen to be just just off to the right of center.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): and your hand will turn blue when it’s raised. And the second way, if you’re joining joining the meeting via phone. you press Star 9 on your keypad to raise your hand to make a comment.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): we will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order. They are raised during public comment period for the project.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): and then.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): after your call on please unmute so you can share your comments. Please state your name and affiliation, beginning at the beginning of your remarks.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): you have a limit of 3 min to speak on an item.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): and please keep your comments respectful and focused. We are here to listen to everyone who wishes to address us. but everyone has the responsibility to act in a civil manner.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): we will not tolerate Kate speech, correct me directly or indirectly, and or abusive language. We will mute anyone who fails to follow these guidelines, or who exceeds the established time limits without permission.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): And finally.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): every now and then you will. I’ll refer to Grace our Bcd. Scene host

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): who is acting as the host for the meeting behind the scenes to ensure that the technology moves the meeting forward smoothly and consistently.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): and thank you for your and in advance for your patience. Okay.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Next item is ex parte communications

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): board members in case you have inadvertently forgotten to provide the staff with a notice of any written or oral ex parte communications. I invite members who have engaged in any such communications to report them

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): at this point by raising your hand and unmuting yourself.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Jen. Has any board member raised their hand?

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: not that I can see.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Thanks.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): so I know in the published agenda. We have a public comment period.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): now we’re not. We’re gonna hold that until after the project has been presented. let’s see. And now we’re on to staff updates.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): So as part of the agenda, I like to request

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): that our new secretary, our new the Bcdc. New engineer Jen Hyman, like the welcome her to the the Ecrv meeting.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): ritual here. and looking forward to working with you, Jim? Can you update us on recent activities? So

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): B. C. DC. And the future meet meetings that are scheduled for the Ecrb.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Yes, I can thank you. Chair or she death. I would like to provide an update to the Crb on a few items

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: on July 20 sixth, next month, at 3 Pm.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: The Ecrb will be meeting jointly with the Commission’s Design Review Board to get a briefing from the B Cdc. Planning branch on the Bay Adap program

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: and the regional shoreline adaptation study.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: That will be a hybrid meeting held in the B Cdc. Boardroom and on Zoom.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: A social gathering

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: of both boards will follow.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: and more information on that will be mailed out to everyone shortly. do you save that? on your calendar for July?

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: There’s currently nothing agendized for the Ecrb, July 20, seventh meeting or the August thirtieth meeting. But please keep those spots on your calendar reserve in case Something does come up

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: until on in September, on September 20 seventh.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: we will be meeting to discuss the design of the San Francisco Airport Trolling protection program.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: As another item. As you know. You see. Rb. Member, Professor Jack Muley retired from the Ecrb in March.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: and there’s been a posting Phyllis position on the Ecrb posted on the B Cdc website for a month, and we received no applications.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: The posting stated, that a structural engineer employed in public service was preferred.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: and I did reach out to

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Uc. Berkeley, Stanford, San Francisco State, and the army core. but we did not receive any application, so I suspect that

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: I wrote the posting to narrowly, or folks are just super busy. But either way, I’m going to rewrite the posting

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: to simply state that we’re looking for an experience structural engineer, and we post it for another month, and hopefully we’ll get some applications then, and I’ll let everybody on the Ecrb know when that gets reposted

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: as I do appreciate your assistance in recruiting for a new structural engineer to replace

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): anything else to like.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Nope, that’s all I have that commendation.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): on on your screen for for Jack mailing.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): I was

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): hoping to read. It’s less than a page, but I’d like to read the commendation that

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): the B Cdc. Or the Commission is is is going to give to the the Jack male or has given to him.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): It is

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): okay, right?

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Like the the you know, personally. Thank

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Jack, for 11 years of of service at Ecrb.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): and I know, he said. He said, a great example for for everyone. so

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): I’d like to. I I think it’s important to recognize

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): So

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): the contributions that Jack has made. and so so in the you’ll bear with me while I reach a commendation that’s been been issued. whereas Dr. Jack Milly, professor of the graduate School of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): at the University of California. At Berkeley. The served on the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission’s Engineering Criteria

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Review Board since June 2,012, without compensation and without complaints.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): and whereas Dr. Male has provided research and teaching in structural and earthquake engineering over the last 43 years on the Faculty of Ec. Berkeley.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): where he was the director of the Earthquake Engineering Research Center

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): and the founding director of the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. That’s been the recipient of scores of awards and honors, including being elected to the National Academy of Engineering.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): It’s provided invaluable contributions to earthquake resistant design and analysis of building structures as well as leadership

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): in the engineering and engineering education. And whereas Dr. Mayley’s Structural Engineering focused advice to be Cdc. Permit applicants, as informed and enhanced the viewpoint of the design criteria, and of many shoreline projects, and

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): whereas Dr. Male has a raised awareness to applicants on seismic hazards and the design projects inclusive of public access to the day, and

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): where, as Dr. Mainly

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): vacated, his position as a member of the Engineering Criteria Review Board on March fourteenth, 2,023, after 11 years of service.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Now, therefore, be it resolved That the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. This here, by unanimously express on the behalf of the entire Bay area which it serves its deepest appreciation and gratitude to Doctor Jack P. Mainly for his generous and distinguished public service over the past 11 years

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): signed by our Zachary Washington.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): So thank you, Jack. I’m not sure if you’re here.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): I really do appreciate you

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): contributions.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Okay? but there any announcements from members of Ecrb.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): okay.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): hearing none. I think we’re now going to start.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Item. Nope.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): let’s see, getting lost in my script here. Okay, the next item is a presentation and discussion of the Greenwood Bay Condominium. See, while we’re Pierre project at one Greenwood Bay drive in Tiburon.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): So for housekeeping. I think I’ve asked, and I think all the Ecrb members have turned on their video

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): and your turn on your microphone when you’re speaking or answering questions. and when you’re not actively engaged with the board.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): this is. And so this other part is for the participants. When you’re not actively engaged with the board, please turn off your video so that we minimize distractions on the screen.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): And now let’s introduce the subject of this afternoon session.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): face, are you promoting everybody on the project team to panelists?

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): And then all that’s going on? Jen, would you add some introduction to the project?

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Yes, I do. Good afternoon.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: chair. I Washita and members of the Engine Criteria Review Board.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: My name is Jen Hyman, and I’m the senior engineer at Bcdc. Excited to be here for my first meeting, and I’m also serve as the Secretary of the Ecrb.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: This will be the Board’s first review of the Greenwood Day Condominium Seawall repair project

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: B. C. DC. Permit amendment number 1, 9, 7, 3 dot O. 1 5 Dot, O. 4,

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: proposed by the Greenwood Bay Condominium Homeowners Association.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: I will start with a brief introduction to the project before the applicants present it in greater detail.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Sam Fielding, B. Cdc. Permit analyst, for the project is also here with us in this meeting.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: So the 49 unit 3 story Condominium complex, which originally constructed on Richardson Day in 1,973

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: under B Cdc. Permit, 1973. Dot. O. 1 5 dot. Oh.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: at that time a timber seawall, approximately 440 feet long, was constructed.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: It’s approximately 20 to 30 feet from the edge of the Condominium buildings and faces a narrow tidal canal. That wall is currently beyond its functional life. In 1,989 a new timber see well with tie backs was constructed on the bay side of that wall, which is also starting to fail at the mudline.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: A new fiber reinforced Polymer sheet pow wall will be installed on the up one side of the existing timber walls.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: The old timber pilots and wall will be removed completely, except on the south end, where the timbers will be replaced.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: The applicant has explained that since they consider this project a repair of an existing wall, the new height will match that of the existing wall. As a result, the wall is more of a bulkhead than a sea wall holding up the land, but not providing a hundred year recurrent flood protection.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: In addition, there is no flood protection on the south or east side of the Condominium, complex as a shoreline protection project, the Cdc strongly. Protection policies apply.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: including one C addressing erosion, control and flood protection.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: However, the climate change policies do not

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: do not apply, as it is not considered a larger shoreline project.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Here are the questions we would like the Board to consider in regards to this project. I’m going to bring them up right now.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: on my screen.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: We request that the Board assess the following questions. whether the design criteria of the site are appropriate for the existing site, hazards and conditions.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: whether current flooding, and future rising sl impacts on the retaining wall are addressed adequately based on the references and the nature of the project.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: and whether there are any design and physical concerns that have not been addressed.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: These questions will be discussed further after the presentation. Please make sure any comments during the presentation are clarifying questions.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: since the discussion will take place after public comments that follow the presentation. I would like now to introduce you to Pj. Cosgrove of the Barneget Group, and Justin, the engineer, record from Simpson converts and Hager, who will present the project today?

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: And I assume that they will. I will stop sharing my screen

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: so that they can share their screen and present their slides.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: I’m wondering, Rod, if the Ecrb members also got sent copies of the slides in case they have technical issues with Zoom.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): I have not had a chance to check my email. I don’t. I don’t believe so.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Okay, well, if anyone on the board has any technical issues, let me know. And I can email them out

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: that I’m seeing the slides fine right now.

Dilip Trivedi: Yeah, you did send them out. Jen, I do have the presentation.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Oh, okay, great thanks

Jim French: to review them.

P.J. Cosgrove: Good afternoon, Cherry.

P.J. Cosgrove: Hey, Shita? And thank you. Jen. This is Pj, a kind of script with barn, a good group.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): And you hear me. Okay? Yes.

P.J. Cosgrove: Great. Well, firstly, that. Thank you for your time in advance to consider our project. 3 years ago I was retained by the Homeowners Association of Greenwood Bay

P.J. Cosgrove: to assist them, and repairing 3 elements of of of their marine or of their

P.J. Cosgrove: another waterfront project, 2 of which are one is a pedestrian bridge that connects the strawberry point.

P.J. Cosgrove: They trail along Let’s call it along the

P.J. Cosgrove: eastern shore of the proper or the yeah. The eastern shore of the property, and the other is a fishing

P.J. Cosgrove: here.

P.J. Cosgrove: both of which were submitted through B. C. DC. Water quality, a fishing game Army core.

P.J. Cosgrove: the Coast Guard for review and approval, and that project was constructed last year

P.J. Cosgrove: This project that we have today is the second of what will be the final project of the Greenwood Bay Marine repairs, and it is, as Jen mentioned, a 440 linear feed of

P.J. Cosgrove: existing seawall as also Jen mentioned, there’s 2 redundant sea walls. They are one built in 73, one built, and 89. The timber lagging that’s in between those 2 is essentially

P.J. Cosgrove: essentially failing at the mudline.

P.J. Cosgrove: So the proposed project that we have is to replace the failed timbers with a vinyl pile which Hg. Has has designed, and we have submitted here in front of you

P.J. Cosgrove: as well as we’ve also applied. thank you. Justin is is driving the slides behind us. So on the screen in front of you is the Is is the Se. Wall itself.

P.J. Cosgrove: with the whaler, and, as you see, at the lower portion of the mudline is is the failed timbers.

P.J. Cosgrove: so that they through my efforts. We we’ve retained Sdh, as our structural engineer and anchor. Qe. As our permit expedit.

P.J. Cosgrove: and as well as the

P.J. Cosgrove: Geo technical investigation is done by our Gh. Consultants.

P.J. Cosgrove: So moving on a of a visual. The seawall is on the western side of the Greenwood Bay apartment, or I shouldn’t say apartment and the

P.J. Cosgrove: the H. A. Complex, which consists of 9 9 buildings

BCDC HOST: and

P.J. Cosgrove: 49 units total

P.J. Cosgrove: the at the at the southern end is the pedestrian bridge, that which connects the Strawberry Point School onto the bay trail.

P.J. Cosgrove: and we go to the next line.

P.J. Cosgrove: So, as I mentioned earlier, our first phase was to repair the pedestrian bridge and the fishing war for what we would, which by through investigation, Sg. Found to be unsound and unsafe. So they were closed to the traveling public.

P.J. Cosgrove: So we we replaced and repaired the existing piles on both structures

P.J. Cosgrove: with an F. R. P. As system. And again, this phase 2 is the seawall. Our project did. Did not a jason to to the

P.J. Cosgrove: well.

P.J. Cosgrove: the Well, let’s move on to the next next slide.

P.J. Cosgrove: So yeah, that’s a here’s the the the seawall project which we’re referring to on the left, on the right is the 2 projects repaired prior

P.J. Cosgrove: next line.

P.J. Cosgrove: So the the design by Sgh with the seismic parameters of the 2,019, 2,022

P.J. Cosgrove: code.

P.J. Cosgrove: And like, say, when when we initially submitted the the project, it was going to be a 1 one permit for the 3 3 different elements. But we decided, just for the public travel safety to to break it into 2. So the project was never considered

P.J. Cosgrove: for sea level rise.

P.J. Cosgrove: currently the Homeowners Association has

P.J. Cosgrove: going to each member to the H of A to solicit funds for this repair. we’ve sol solicited contractors. We’ve selected a contractor who was positioned to start the repair work this summer.

P.J. Cosgrove: we’ve applied for access to the neighboring church.

P.J. Cosgrove: which is the only access we have to this sea wall is on the through the north

P.J. Cosgrove: and on the long to the west side of the property.

P.J. Cosgrove: So we’ve at. We’ve been from from

P.J. Cosgrove: been given permission to access

P.J. Cosgrove: our property through the neighboring church property this summer.

P.J. Cosgrove: We’re currently in in review and waiting on our approval from the county of Marin. for for the

P.J. Cosgrove: so, as you see on the on the image, on the lower portion.

P.J. Cosgrove: That’s the only access we have to in from this the sea wall to to to remove the existing lagging, and and to remove the soil that’s play in place.

P.J. Cosgrove: Our our plan is to replace in kind the the same

P.J. Cosgrove: same planting and vegetation that that’s currently there.

P.J. Cosgrove: So again, that’s just another image of of the sea, of of the pedestrian bridge that was repaired last year, and a long looking looking to the north of the existing Se. Wall.

P.J. Cosgrove: when we solicited contractors for the project. yeah. And so, historically, the seawall

P.J. Cosgrove: or the contractors, the the deal and marine repairs. We’re not interested for, say, in this project, because of the limited access they could not access the Se. Wall via the Pedestrian bridge, and being the the title Action of of the Slew that’s there.

P.J. Cosgrove: So the the the contractor we’re working with as extensive work in Tibetan and Belvedere area.

P.J. Cosgrove: and the majority of the work will be will be handled from the land side.

P.J. Cosgrove: Now, if I can introduce Justin with Sg. H. He will take you through the design criteria of how

P.J. Cosgrove: develop the project.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Just like to jump in here, and, if possible, I have the speakers turn on their video cameras.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Oh, yes, thanks. Justin. Okay, perfect.

Justin Pyun: Okay. Thanks. Pj,

Justin Pyun: so before I get into the details here, just wanted to quickly mention that I am a structural engineer. I’ve been working primarily on the structural side of things, but I’ve got Bill Rudolph here. He’s been working with us as a consultant on the geo-technical side of things. He’s familiar with the geotech report, and the site has been providing us with guidance and on our approach and and design. So Bill feel feel free to chime in if needed, or he can answer any good Geo. Technical questions, I can’t today.

Justin Pyun: So, as Pj. Mentioned. The goal of our work here is to provide a seawall, repair design to restore the structural load, carrying capacity of the wall without necessarily making any structural improvements or enhancements. So the Se walls most is is actually more of a a bulkhead wall than it is a see wall, as there’s really no wave action coming in through the Channel. But we’ve kept that terminology to be consistent with the previous repair drawings.

Justin Pyun: the original se wall that you can see here or in the plan here. kind of highlighted in that orange solid line.

Justin Pyun: the

Justin Pyun: it is, and was or wasn’t is 440 feet long. it was built in 1,973, like Pj. Mentioned and consisted of timber, plum, and batter piles with tie rods and horizontal lagging. The 1,989 C. Wall was repaired with a replacement wall constructed outboard of the original C wall, and that system consisted of 2 wall

Justin Pyun: types. If you will. you can see in this photo to the right. Here, segment A and C are a plumb and batter pile system with horizontal lagging and no tie. Rods and segment B consist of vertical timber sheet piling with a whale and tie rods. Those tie rods are the same rods using their original construction, and are connected to the building foundations for their upland.

Justin Pyun: And so here we have some representative cross-sections to graphically describe those systems the original with the plumbing batter is on the left, and the 1,989 repairs shown on the right. And a key thing to note here is that with the seawall repair both outboard of the original many of those pileings were cut off at the mudline to make way for the repair system that segments A and C the new batter batter and plum piles we’re driven between the original demolished files.

Justin Pyun: all of the those original plum and battery piles occur at about 7 feet on center and are still there today. at segment B. The whale was replaced with a new steel wide flanch whale, and the tie rods were extended to connect to those members.

Justin Pyun: So part of our work included an initial site observation to collect information on the current conditions of the 1989 repair system.

Justin Pyun: as you can see in these photos many of the timber elements exhibited or exhibit a fairly advanced forms of deterioration primarily due to rot within that title zone. So this is specially evident that the vertical timber sheet piling at segment B, that you can see here on the right, but also Pj. Kinda mentioned in the earlier slides,

Justin Pyun: and segment. B. The whale also exhibited relatively advanced deterioration. You can see here that the steel is fairly corroded with some locations, even showing fracture likely due to the continuous wet, dry exposure of the material.

Justin Pyun: And I thought it’d be useful to put things into context by also showing a photo of the typical and typical condition at the existing top of grade. As Pj mentioned, the site, features are primarily a walking path and landscaping vegetation, all of which occurs in the backyard of the age of A, which is close to the public.

Justin Pyun: so the basis of our wall retained height. Geometry is shown here. The intent of this project is to return the top of grade to the same elevations as previously constructed, so we use the information in this 1,988 topographic survey to determine what the top of grade is, and wall heights relative to the channel bloodline. And so for our repair design, we’re conservatively considering the highest retained height along the length of the wall, which is about 5 and a half feet.

Justin Pyun: The codes and standards we used include the California Building Code A/C, 716 Army core guidance on cheap pile wall design Fhwa guidance on anchored systems, and we use these documents to form the basis of our structural design, and the loads we considered include gravity load for a dead and live search arch, static and seismic Earth pressures for the geotech report and consideration for some hydrostatic title, Lag

Justin Pyun: The Geo. Technical engineer on the project. Rg. H. Consultants provided A to tech report. In May 2,022. They provided recommendations on Earth pressures, seismic parameters, and general site con considerations based on their site. Investigation. the boring log. B, one

Justin Pyun: shown here is representative of the general condition at the wall. the composition of the backfill includes an upper layer of heterogeneous fill under lane by Bay mud, which starts just below the Channel mudline elevation to a depth of about 33 feet below top of grade.

Justin Pyun: And so regarding the seismic parameters, I’ve provided a few key excerpts here from the Geo-tech report. The PGA is point 6 g. Rg. H. Mentions in their report that they judge the potential for liquid fashion induced lateral spreading at the site as being low, and the liquefaction induced settlements as being up to 3 quarters of an inch. But, given these recommendations, liquefaction was not

Justin Pyun: really part of our analysis, because it was considered so minimal In their report.

Justin Pyun: Our repair wall is generally composed of the same systems throughout the entire 4,440 foot length of the wall.

Justin Pyun: the proposed a proposed repair would be installed landward of the existing 1,989 seawall repair, resulting in a net reduction in fill to the bay waters. the what the wall in the whale will be F. Rp.

Justin Pyun: And the top 4 feet of the back fill will be excavated and replaced with permeable lightweight. Fill to reduce the earth pressures on the wall, and the top portion of that back fill will be compacted. Fill to allow for re landscaping. Essentially.

Justin Pyun: one difference in construction along the wall will be that we’re reusing the existing tie rods within segment. B, that’s that middle section, and that that’s the only place where those tie rods occur in segments A and C

Justin Pyun: it’s a little bit of a different current design. So the plan is to excavate and observe the conditions of the tie rods, for to evaluate them for the suitability of their reuse and where there are no existing tie rods such as that segments A and C only tipping plate. An anchors will be installed at that. At those locations. after the new system and backfill is installed, the existing timber components will

Justin Pyun: excuse me, will be removed down to the mudline.

Justin Pyun: So really, quickly, I’ve just provided some product data here to give you some context on the components that we’re using the products are from creative composites, group and information, such as structural capacities which are listed in there.

Justin Pyun: literature with like factors of safety up to 3, are we? We’re used in our design, and so to aid in the handling of the components during construction. you can see here that these sheet piles are fairly lightweight at 4.8 2 pounds per linear foot of piling so hopefully that that kind of aids in the construction process and the material handling

Justin Pyun: one big design consideration is deflection of the fer P. Members. So we made sure to space out our anchors to an appropriate spacing to control the deflection in the in the whale and the FBI she filings

Justin Pyun: creative composites also has hardware literature on on the hardware such as spice. components to help us with. properly detailing our sheet pile wall design

Justin Pyun: as far as anchors go. We’re using the mannerate anchor system. but a substitute such as platypus anchor systems would be acceptable as well. these tipping plate anchors work by driving the anchor into the soil with a small backco or a handheld Jack Hammer, and pulling the drive steel out of the ground to right the anchor flute and engage the passive resistance of the soil.

Justin Pyun: Our anchors will be installed at an incline of about 5 degrees downward, and during the installation, if the rods need to be extended, they can be installed with a coupler and added lengths of rod can be installed as necessary. We use the published load load tables.

Justin Pyun: to determine the appropriate anchor size. And so for our wall, we’re using the largest anchor size available, which is the Mrsr model.

Justin Pyun: Our drawings also specify an anchor load testing program based on the F. Hwa document. we’re requiring 2 anchors to be performance tested and the remaining anchors to be proof tested to a design load of 4.7 kips.

Justin Pyun: and, as far as sequence of work goes, we provide an example sequence in our drawings to ensure the wall is unloaded and loaded in the correct order. but ultimately the contractor is going to be responsible for the means and methods, and we’ll review their work plans in in their submittals.

Justin Pyun: so the example sequence would be to excavate the existing backfill, to unload the existing timber seawall and expose the existing tie rods to assess their condition, Drive the anchors, install the couplers as needed, and then perform the load, testing Install the f our sheet piling perform periodic observations to make sure that we’re catching any post construction settlement

Justin Pyun: and then install the whale in the cap after the wall has stabilized install we polls and to textile fabric and backfill with compacted, permeable lightweight. Fill and then finally remove the existing deteriorated excuse me, deteriorated se wall components.

Justin Pyun: All right. So for our analysis and design approach.

Justin Pyun: we started with an a force equilibrium, analysis, method, to determine the required penetration, depth of the sheet piling to satisfy the necessary factors of safety for stability. an important thing to note here is that our shepile penetration is based on an anchored wall design and not a cantilever wall design that would require a certain amendment depth to achieve fixity. so the penetration depth here is really just for the passive resistance.

Justin Pyun: The next step in our design was to pick the appropriate size members based on the published values. we’ve also been in close correspondence with the manufacturer to ensure that the application of components is appropriate.

Justin Pyun: And then, following that we performed a bit of a more sophisticated analysis by wall to to just verify our our results. and then also had a informal review by our consulting independent Geo. Technical engineer, Bill Rudolph.

Justin Pyun: All right. So as a big disclaimer here, I just want to point out that we’re much better engineers than artists, and I realized that the passive resistance shown in this graphic isn’t necessarily drawn to scale. this is more schematic than anything to communicate the types of loading we considered in our analysis. So

Justin Pyun: just keep that in mind. we use the values in the geo-technical report, including the seismic lateral pressures. We also calculated the corresponding lightweight fill pressures for use in our analysis.

Justin Pyun: And so here on this slide, you can see the results of our py wall analysis, which was in pretty close agreement with our force. Base approach force balance approach rather.

Justin Pyun: The the top of the wall displacement was calculated to be less than 0 point 1 inches and the wall toe deflection is calculated to be 0 inches just about 3 inches. kind of reinforcing. We’re verifying that the wall will be stable at the design. Penetration, depth.

Justin Pyun: One thing to note here is that our analysis really

Justin Pyun: doesn’t account for this extra conservatism of the ex. The existing pileings that are present today. In reality, there’s going to be 2 wall systems with pilots below the mudline, the original 1,973 sea wall. Plum and battery piles occur at 7 feet on center. with a penetration depth of 30 feet along the entire length of the wall. Then there’s the 1,989 sea wall

Justin Pyun: that has majority of its wall length, being a continuous system of vertical sheet pileings with a penetration depth of 14 feet And so we recognize that the remnants of the sea walls that are outboard of our repair proposed repair. will likely provide some amount of additional resistance. But as a conservative measure in our design, we did not include that in our analysis.

Justin Pyun: and since the sheep piling is so light we expect the skin friction on the of the new repair to be sufficient to resist the vertical axial load demands on the sheets

Justin Pyun: and summarizing our design. our factor of safety against overturning was calculated to be 2.8 6, and all the structural limit States considered, we’re calculated to have a Dcr of less than 1.0, thereby meeting the building code requirements

Justin Pyun: alright. So to close the presentation. Here’s a recap of our project as discussed today.

Justin Pyun: Pj. Mentioned that there are a number of site constraints. Water access is impractical, due to the channel elevation and the low clearance of the pedestrian bridge, requiring us to have access primarily on land through the neighboring church property. The types of tools to be used will be limited, and so, and as such our design, considered lighter weight material, such as frp.

Justin Pyun: sea level rise, was not considered. As this project is an amendment to the previous permit, which included a pair of a timber fishing pier and a pedestrian bridge that did not consider sea level rise, and the intent of this project is really just to restore the wall with no structural and enhancements. The scope doesn’t include any new development or upgrades to the complex.

Justin Pyun: We also didn’t consider sea level rise, because the wall is only along one portion of the west side of the property and doesn’t in. Address the remainder of the shoreline, where there is no wall to do so. There would need to be a pretty large engineering and construction and development effort to address sea level rise across the entire property which

Justin Pyun: the H. Of a currently does not have the funding for. We also considered seismic loads for the geotech report.

Justin Pyun: Equal faction was not considered. because it was recommended to have a very minimal effect, and our

Justin Pyun: as a description of our a recap of our system. it consists of a short 5 and a half or 10 height that’s anchored with tie rods and anchors, and has a 7 foot piling penetration. The materials will be F. Rp. To allow the contractor to more easily install components, and our calculated overturning backup safety and component Pcrs are satisfactory and therefore satisfying the building code requirements.

Justin Pyun: And finally, since we’re constructing the wall landward of the existing wall there will be a nut reduction in. They fill.

Justin Pyun: So that’s all I have.

Justin Pyun: I guess. Jen back to you.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: thank you. Yeah. I think After your presentation rod will open it up to the public for any questions or comments. So

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Now we would like to see if there are any public comments. When you are called upon, please state your name and affiliation for the record

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Grace. Are there any? Is there any public comment?

BCDC HOST: I do not see any hands raised?

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Okay. So at this point public comments is closed.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Now we’ll move on to a board discussion.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): and

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Let’s see, I think maybe the the thing to do is, if you as an Ecrb board member would like to make a comment. Please raise your hand.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): and I will call on you.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Bob.

Bob Battalio: Thanks, Ron. I?

Bob Battalio: I just had a couple of questions from a like a coastal

Bob Battalio: loading perspective.

Bob Battalio: I think I’m guessing that most of the discussion will be Geo. Structural or whatever, and seems like that’s already been covered pretty well in the presentation, or very well.

Bob Battalio: But I just had a couple of questions which I think maybe the applicant to or their consultant could answer, or we could discuss. So first of all. I’ll just go through them the first one is

Bob Battalio: does the water level have an effect on the design loads or the structural performance? In other words, if the water level is higher.

Bob Battalio: does it make any difference to the structural design.

Bob Battalio: secondly.

Bob Battalio: my second question was answered in the presentation that there really aren’t any wave loads to be concerned about. But I just would like to know

Bob Battalio: is that by inspection, which you know it is pretty sheltered, or is has that been documented? And would it make any difference, you know, by inspection or otherwise.

Bob Battalio: And my third question is

Bob Battalio: it seems like this is located on a channel which I don’t know if it’s a drainage channel or something. But are there any current loads or currents that could induce scour at the at the toe? And does that make any, you know, at the at the base of the wall? And does that make any difference on the

Bob Battalio: passive or pressure resistance, or whatever?

Bob Battalio: and then I think we should probably should talk about sea level rise at some point. But I I I don’t.

Bob Battalio: That’s not a question that I have for the applicant right now.

Bob Battalio: so I don’t know if you want to. If we should discuss that or just have the applicant responders.

Justin Pyun: Okay, let’s see. Well, the first question.

Justin Pyun: let’s go back to the site. View.

Justin Pyun: so does the

Justin Pyun: does the water level affect the structural

Justin Pyun: loads that are imparted onto the the wall. so our design. We intentionally designed it to excavate the existing backfill and replace it with permeable drain. Rock with a Geo textile fabric, and we polls

Justin Pyun: to mitigate that sort of hydrostatic pressure that might build up on the land side of the wall. so we do consider a certain amount of tidal lag below that level of excavation. But we intentionally did that to reduce the amount of hydrostatic pressures on the wall so hopefully that answers your question on that item. Yeah, it does. Actually, that’s what I thought I just wanted to

Bob Battalio: to ask. And here’s your answer, but I think that goes to also the point that perhaps sea level rise

Bob Battalio: within the context of this wall. Repair. Design it. Perhaps that’s not. The seal rises really that pertinent, because with the higher water level.

Bob Battalio: as long as you maintain drainage behind the wall.

Bob Battalio: you know, theoretically, the the the so I would be saturated, I guess, or or perched behind the wall, and then the tide would drop it.

Bob Battalio: Yeah, it doesn’t. It doesn’t sound like the high water level is is really a

Bob Battalio: design criterion. it really just reduces your active earth pressure load. In a sense. Yeah. Now go back a little bit to

Justin Pyun: So regarding sea level rise. If if the water title level would

Justin Pyun: get that high, it would be equal title level on both sides of the wall, because the the remainder of the property, as you can see on the screen here, is exposed on to those rising tides. So It’s it’s not like you would have a a big differential immediately.

Justin Pyun: regarding waves. So Justin’s, I said, let me interrupt real quick. What’s the width of your law for rock backfield behind the

Justin Pyun: yeah. So it’s it’s cut back at one and a half to one, and it’s 4 feet deep. So I guess it’s 6 feet back.

Justin Pyun: Yeah.

Jim French: not quite to the bottom of the. Let’s not say stuff.

Justin Pyun: right? Yeah, that was just a matter of practicality. so we we tried not, I mean ideally. We would. We would love to excavate all the way down to the Channel Mudline But, as Pj. Mentioned, and, as you can see in the site, constraints there’s pretty limited access, and we’re trying to work within within reason. So we were able to get the the wall to work with this amount of excavation. and everything checked out.

Bill Rudolph: This is this is Bill. I just started to add, one thing is that Jim, the reason we

Bill Rudolph: didn’t excavate all the way to the bottom of the wall, is it? We were trying to

Bill Rudolph: and make it so that it that they did it low tide level that they excavation wouldn’t be. It wouldn’t be filled up with water. We felt that this was a

Bill Rudolph: a an excavation level that was

Bill Rudolph: practical allowed us to reduce the pressures on the wall and and to provide a drainage layer but but also not for that excavation down, so that we are digging in the wet most of the time.

Bill Rudolph: And, as Justin has already said, we’ve we’ve we’ve putting in some fairly sophisticated filtered we polls to, so that we have full long-term positive drainage of the of the drainage layer.

Bill Rudolph: But in addition to that

Bill Rudolph: you know, we have assumed that there’ll be a tidal lag within the non excavated portion of the you know, sort of below the drain rock. So there is a a you know, a water pressure difference in that portion. So we’ve we’ve kind of tried to

Bill Rudolph: optimize the design from a, you know, lowering pressures, but also a construction, practical practicality. Point of view.

Bill Rudolph: That answer your question.

Jim French: That does mostly. Thanks. what’s the what’s the backfill? The existing fill consist of? Mostly

Bill Rudolph: Uscs, I guess, or something like what what’s there now is? Mainly please, and clay gravel. It’s a

Bill Rudolph: you know. but it’s it’s a

Bill Rudolph: It’s a fairly. It’s it’s it’s gravely. But there’s enough fines in it to be relatively in permission or have low permit.

Jim French: Let’s let you finish up with a response to bonds.

Bob Battalio: Thanks, Jim. Yeah. So it sounds like the the the drain holes are

Bob Battalio: reasonably low. I mean, I guess the groundwater is probably going to be around mean sea level or something, typically and I don’t know exactly where that is probably below the we pull so, but so you’ll have at low tide. You’ll have some hydrostatic load loading going out, you know, with the active earth pressures, I guess.

Bob Battalio: But anyway, going back to my second question was,

Bob Battalio: is there any documentation, or what’s the basis of assuming? There’s there’s no way. It’s like, you know. Obviously the site is pretty sheltered. But there are. you know, very induced waves that that sometimes have more power than you might expect, even though they’re

Bob Battalio: small. I’m not sure that that’s.

Bob Battalio: you know, gonna control the loading or anything it doesn’t seem like it would because you have

Bob Battalio: your load is mostly outward, and so, you know, towards the water. But I just wanted to check on that to see if there’s any.

Justin Pyun: Yes, so we had some rep internal discussions.

Justin Pyun: about what it would mean to have wave loads, whether it makes sense that there would be wave loads.

Justin Pyun: to provide some context here the the channel mudline is

Justin Pyun: around mean sea level. as you can see on this photo or actually the satellite image on the top left there. There’s the mudline extends pretty far out. We’re talking hundreds of feet. So I think one sort of rationale for what?

Justin Pyun: for the wave loading is that you know there there would be a certain amount of

Justin Pyun: shallow depth, for of a pretty great distance outward to the sea. The other thing is that our wall runs

Justin Pyun: parallel to any incoming waves that might might be present. So

Justin Pyun: you know with, with all that kind of considered, it was by inspection. There, there wasn’t any like analysis per se. But

Justin Pyun: yeah.

Bob Battalio: okay, thank you. That that that that answers my question. I appreciate it. And then my, the last one was

Bob Battalio: that channel it I I’m assuming it’s some sort of

Bob Battalio: tidal storm drain.

Bob Battalio: They also sort of storm drainage for some inland area, or something. Is there any concern about

Justin Pyun: current velocity? Is that it to do scour? Or is that an issue? with the wall design? Yeah, that’s not an issue that we’ve observed on site in fact, actually, we see quite a build up at the toe. So yeah, that was not something that we considered But that’s based on observational data.

Bob Battalio: Do you? Do you account for the passive earth pressure resistance all the way up to the surface, or

Bob Battalio: we’re down the, do you? How we do just yes, we do.

Justin Pyun: are are

Justin Pyun: so we recognize that the the geo-technical report has values for the the bay mud, passive resistance that are

Justin Pyun: What we think is somewhat conservative. but we do have a triangular distribution at the penetration.

Kris May (Pathways Climate Institute): Keep things moving rod up back to you or somebody else. Thank you. I have a follow up question to what Bob was asking relative to the drainage inflows into that channel. Because I can see there’s 4 culverts that are coming into that channel. Did you do any observations, after all, of the rain events we had this winter? Because, I mean, we’ve had a lot of drought, not a lot of rain. But I was just

Kris May (Pathways Climate Institute): this winter was quite unusual with all the inflows.

Justin Pyun: Did you do any observations of how that might have changed conditions since we did get a lot of rain

Justin Pyun: I catch I I catching

Justin Pyun: in the channel with regards to that.

Justin Pyun: Hopefully that answers your question.

Okay.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): thanks. Chris. Jim, did you have any

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): further questions?

Jim French: Yeah, I do. I have a a handful of questions hopefully, mostly pretty simple and easy.

Jim French: first of all. I’m just curious. that the end of your presentation says that there was an informal review by Bill Rudolph.

Jim French: And wonder what informal means. Exactly, and he’s the only geo-technical presenter. I don’t think anybody from our Gh. Is here just curious the relationship to and responsibilities here.

Justin Pyun: Yeah, we we brought on a

Justin Pyun: We we brought on Bill Rudolph to to a review of our calculations, walk through some design concepts, and come up with

Justin Pyun: the most economical and practical design. Given the site constraints so informal meaning. He wasn’t the engineer of record. and yes, our gh is not on the call today.

Justin Pyun: but

Justin Pyun: you Bill Rudolph is pretty familiar with. The content in the geotech report.

Bill Rudolph: The only I want to add, Jim, is that rg, 8 will, you know, is we’ll be reviewing the final design, and in accordance with county requirements. We’ll provide a a letter that the designers according to their recommendations, and provide their stamp. So there will be a formal.

Bill Rudolph: you know, geotechnical engineer of record. Review of all this work as well.

Jim French: Are you going to say on board as a on a retainer basis for questions during construction, or whatever?

Jim French: Okay.

Jim French: liquefaction? The the presentation describes that Lucifaction of impacts to a settlement and lateral spreading, spreading are minimal

Jim French: and not a concern. And that seems to me it didn’t say anything about how liquefaction might affect factor of safety for toe resistance and or active pressures, I suppose.

Jim French: Oh. what if you just comment on that?

Bill Rudolph: as I once a dough.

Bill Rudolph: You know, first of all, that there was a a dynamic seismic dynamic pressure added to the design So the the the additional active pressure due to seismic

Bill Rudolph: was was added, and I think relatively, conservatively.

Bill Rudolph: The other. The other thing

Bill Rudolph: is that you know, consistent with the detective records recommendation.

Bill Rudolph: The passive resistance that was applied for the seismic design was A was a basically a equivalent fluid pressure.

Bill Rudolph: that was based on you know. So a very, very conservative kp, value. But whereas in whereas, in fact

Bill Rudolph: you know, under the seismic condition, you know you’re going to. The passive pressure is going to be more associated with the, you know, 2 times the on drain strength of the soil. And so Tai. Passive pressure is a passive resistance, for seismic is

Bill Rudolph: is quite understated, in my opinion. Accordingly.

Bill Rudolph: any effects of of seismic softening that you might expect. you know, to, you know, some minor reduction in. So stay, mud. Strength affecting the passive is, is kind of

Bill Rudolph: it taken into account by this? By the conservative method of assigning passive pressure to the pay mud.

Jim French: is there any lucifaction potential within that? What’s what’s the depth of embedded in 13 feet or something like that done whatsoever. It’s all day.

Jim French: Okay?

Jim French: question about not geotech exactly, but construction sequences. I think you said you’re removing the existing wall in front of the new wall.

Jim French: that I if you said it, I missed it. How deep are you removing that? It goes down quite deep.

Justin Pyun: Are you just cutting things off at or just below the mudline? Are you trying to pull things out or

Jim French: and leave it in place afterwards. I guess there’s no concerns. Well, that’s not a Geo technical concern to me, I guess. Then.

Jim French: okay.

Jim French: but question about you, said the the the new anchor is going to be put in at 5 degrees, which is pretty flat and curious. A couple of things about that

Jim French: tier squared groundwater is assumed during

Jim French: you know, during King tides you’re gonna get they water pretty high looking at the 100 year flood levels or

Jim French: flood maps that I think was included some place it looks like the development becomes an island out there.

Jim French: which I assume means that bay water is pretty close to the ground surface out there

Jim French: feel, commented that the soil, the feel soils, are like clay sounds and gravels with low permeability, but

Jim French: but sans of gravels, clay, and the gravels have variable permeability, and there’s likely to be some paths of tire permeability right? I would, I would expect groundwater would be

Jim French: somewhere pretty floats to the ground surface. during highest water.

Jim French: And wondering what that does to the to the passive resistance in front of your Your anchor duck bills. if you, because they’ve the soil’s going to all be buoyant and wonder if that, how much that reduces things.

Jim French: I I guess, are related to that. Then how close, how long are these anchors, and how close do they get to the buildings? And they’re looking at the old

Jim French: drawings the plan view shows the existing anchors kind of going splaying, which which every which direction to miss the corners of buildings and stick a little bit further, when I got that impact. So let’s do.

Jim French: I guess my ground water was an anchor. Questions with the depth and passive and how close they are in buildings.

Bill Rudolph: Okay, this I’ll think I’ll take that. The the the flat anchor design

Bill Rudolph: was

Bill Rudolph: trying to balance. you know. The depth of embedded to keep overburden pressures high high as possible. for the conditions that you’re talking about.

Bill Rudolph: but at the same time trying to

Bill Rudolph: land, they this this fluke anchor

Bill Rudolph: in the fill where we have we where we’re going to have much higher resistance. So we’re You know, we we we’ve we’ve used the very use the largest anchor possible to get the, you know, largest surface area.

Bill Rudolph: And we’ve tried to keep those anchors from being completely in that have that bearing surface be completely within the within the bay mud.

Bill Rudolph: So

Bill Rudolph: I think, with the the the first of all, I I I think that the groundwater

Bill Rudolph: condition

Bill Rudolph: it. I think it’s unlikely to be all the way to the, to the to the ground surface clear back within, within, under the building. Because we’re gonna have a

Bill Rudolph: you know, a title. So title situation where the high tide levels are only going to be high for a matter of hours. There’s going to need to be some sort of time for

Bill Rudolph: deep in to occur and ground water levels to equilibrate. so I I I still, I think that the groundwater levels may be within several feet of the ground surface. But I don’t think at the ground surface.

Bill Rudolph: so so well, we haven’t really

Bill Rudolph: specifically gone in and looked at A passive pressure associated with a fully saturated, gravelly backv. You know, we relied more on the

Bill Rudolph: the typical design values for these anchors and and proof loading

Bill Rudolph: proof, loading to to to sort of verify the the anchors capacity, and the sort of the as as installed condition.

Bill Rudolph: you know, we we plus, we’re we’re

Bill Rudolph: calling for and expecting, you know, fairly significant factors of safety, which, in in my opinion, should

Bill Rudolph: more than likely

Bill Rudolph: cover this temporary condition that we might get in the event of a

Bill Rudolph: You know, high water

Bill Rudolph: condition, and more gravely fill than clay. Fill. And you know it’s it. It seems that this is a.

Bill Rudolph: you know, kind of a reasonable.

Bill Rudolph: a reasonable a design given all the constraints and factors we have to consider

Jim French: you’re not going to through stress during high water. Quick question, how long are the anchors? Roughly

Jim French: meaning in part, I guess. How deep will it be?

Justin Pyun: They’re 18 feet long.

Jim French: so be

Jim French: So they’re only 2 feet below the ground surface. Done.

Justin Pyun: I think. Well. it kind of slopes up a little bit.

Justin Pyun: so there’s a little bit more over, and the the heads are a foot or 2 below drowns, or how how low is the whale below? The

Justin Pyun: the whale itself is 2 and a half feet below

Jim French: 2 and a half. Okay. and the ground slopes up, and I, Microsoft, so it might be 4 or 5 feet down. So like Bill. So it’s

Jim French: going to be getting pretty pretty close, and you have to be that flatter. Otherwise you then your anchor into the

Jim French: okay. Makes sense.

Jim French: let’s see, I think I’ve got

Jim French: that’s all my questions, except I think we’re gonna come back at some point. I’m curious about

Jim French: high water and sea level rise, and you’re pretty darn close and just curious about, you know, before too long. This place is, gonna

Jim French: you know water in the basement. And I that’s not a cheer. Technical. It’s it’s more of a policy decision, I guess. But that’s the end of my question. Then, otherwise.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Okay, thank you, Jim. I wasn’t sure who was next up.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): what is it, Philip or Thalia.

Dilip Trivedi: you know, I think.

Dilip Trivedi: oh.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): yeah. So I’ll go a couple of questions.

Dilip Trivedi: I was looking at the sequencing that you know the slide that you had. You know. What I notice is that there’s what about a one foot

Dilip Trivedi: between the existing wall and the new F Rp. Sheets? Is that right? But or so is the

Dilip Trivedi: proposed separation.

Dilip Trivedi: And my question there is so when are the anchor is going to be installed? Sequencing says that the wall is going to be removed. The existing wall at the very end.

Dilip Trivedi: so are the existing anchors driven in through the existing

Dilip Trivedi: cool right now.

Dilip Trivedi: as you have plan.

Justin Pyun: No, so the plan is to excavate behind the wall. First.

Justin Pyun: Drive the sheet. install the anchor.

Justin Pyun: you know.

Justin Pyun: I guess not. Not connected to the existing wall, but behind the because while since we’ve already excavated back so that’ll happen likely, maybe right before you put in the sheets, or it could happen after at the sheet, you have the sheets?

Dilip Trivedi: Okay?

Dilip Trivedi: My second question was, you know, yeah, I was getting more to what Jim was was heading towards. So it’s been designed for

Dilip Trivedi: 5 and a half feet stick up.

Dilip Trivedi: So thinking about project life, I mean, I I can imagine that these condos are not going to go away in the next 10 or 15 years, and so there probably will be

Dilip Trivedi: a project in the future that will come back.

Dilip Trivedi: which will be either extending the existing wall.

Dilip Trivedi: or having another one

Dilip Trivedi: unless they are planning to raise grades, which again, I see no, not being doable. So what is the thought process there. given that if you look at the projections that

Dilip Trivedi: has been using, which is 2 feet in the next 30 years, we do the projections we’re being asked to use. they very likely will be a future project coming here in the short term.

Dilip Trivedi: looking at increasing the height of this existing wall that has been going in.

Justin Pyun: Yeah. And Pj, feel free to chime in

Justin Pyun: if you want but From what I understand. the conversation on sea level rise and how to address it, address it across the entire property. It’s just not occurred within the hoa board or within the residents. it’s not something that they have the funding for right now, or the time for

Justin Pyun: I think this project came up because they observed a certain amount of damage at the existing timber sheet pile. Wall. so the idea is to just restore the capacity of that But beyond that I don’t believe that the scope of that project has really been discussed. by the owner.

Dilip Trivedi: Yeah, but that’s not my question, you know, to address sea level rise, but the same configuration of the wall will very likely be extended upwards, and so is there enough reserve capacity for this to act with the 7 and a half feet

Dilip Trivedi: stick up instead of a 5 and a half feet. Stick up. and is the F. Rp. Does it lend itself to adding on to it, and attaching another rp sheet to it.

Justin Pyun: So in in terms of, let’s say, a a rise in hydrostatic loads. The hydrostatic loads would be equal on both sides, since you know it’s the walls only for a portion of the Western shoreline, so we expect that any title rises would

Justin Pyun: kind of, you know, be equal, equally matched on both sides. So in terms of loading we’re not too concerned with that. But we’ve done some back of the napkin calc to see, you know, if there is a small amount of differential pressure on the sheet pile. it all, it would simply just require a different sheet of size. But currently this is designed for

Justin Pyun: you know. Not necessarily a 50 year life, but you know the last she pile wall was repaired 1989, after 1,973. Then here we are. you know.

Justin Pyun: not quite a 50 here. So yes, that question could come up in the future.

Dilip Trivedi: All right, I think that’s all I have to do. Thanks. Thank you. Della

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): alia.

Thaleia Travasarou: Yes, I wanted to go back to the issue of faction, and and asked a couple of questions that were not clear to me from the report from the geotechnical report.

Thaleia Travasarou: So I see that there are 3 explorations in the ge technical report. one of the Cpt suggests presence of liquifiable soils

Thaleia Travasarou: or cilp sense susceptible to the compaction with low tip resistance, at that of approximately 6 to 9 feet.

Thaleia Travasarou: And there is a statement in the report that liquifable. So is our present in behind the wall. so I was not very clear how the conclusion that lateral spreading is negligible and shouldn’t be taking into consideration how, This conclusion was arrived that.

Thaleia Travasarou: given the relatively sparse explorations and the fact that one of those suggests that there are licenses behind the wall above the mudline.

Thaleia Travasarou: And so, because the question is, could you maybe in in a cross section of the world show where the liquifiable soils were encountered.

Thaleia Travasarou: And then the second is this conclusion really based on an understanding of what is the composition of the field from, you know, construction or historical documents other than the existing explorations which which are quite sparse.

Justin Pyun: might want to pass that over to Bill.

Bill Rudolph: Well,

Bill Rudolph: I think what you’re getting at is really

Bill Rudolph: and looking at the global stability of the shoreline.

Bill Rudolph: really, this, this project has really only really been focused on

Bill Rudolph: the the replacement of of a wall which is really. you know, to, is it? It really doesn’t consider, or or you even look at the the overall seismic stability of the shoreline. It’s just a

Bill Rudolph: replacement of a bulkhead in the condition that that that it existed. I I think that you know the

Bill Rudolph: the consideration of of, you know, sort of overall shoreline, seismic

Bill Rudolph: stability and defamation, and it’s, you know, kind of

Bill Rudolph: beyond the scope of what was is being, has been looked at and studied in this particular case.

Bill Rudolph: The presence of look, a fact of of, you know, lookifiable layers within the bay mud, you know, you know, 20 some odd feet is really

Bill Rudolph: doesn’t really affect the wall design per se.

Bill Rudolph: that’s that’s much more of a global stability issue.

Thaleia Travasarou: I I think if this is the case, it’s probably you know the statement in the report which in the Geological report which, suggests that lateral spreading is negligible. Given the presence of liquifi. So it’s probably the statement should be changed to it’s beyond the scope. The design scope of this this project, because

Thaleia Travasarou: I don’t see that the calculations or the background is there to to rule out?

Thaleia Travasarou: this?

Bill Rudolph: No, I I I agree with you and

Bill Rudolph: it. That sort of escaped my view, because, like, I say, we were pretty much focused on the wall replacement. But

Bill Rudolph: I I think that that is a you know. Maybe we can request in the Geo technicals review of the project plans, and

Bill Rudolph: that that that

Bill Rudolph: what you just stated, that that that be clarified, that this isn’t what’s in the scope of the of the work. I think that’s something that can be done and makes sense to me

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): that that was my question. Thank you.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): After after this meeting.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Ronnie.

Ramin Golesorkhi: Hello, everyone!

Ramin Golesorkhi: I I I like to go back to the question that Jim asks, which is still

Ramin Golesorkhi: an issue in my mind.

Ramin Golesorkhi: Bill! Why, I’m known for many years and respect what is I mean? You are the face of the 2 technical response on this presentation.

Ramin Golesorkhi: And

Ramin Golesorkhi: I mean, are you a peer review? Are you going to at some point.

Ramin Golesorkhi: have some sort of a document saying that you concur with this design. You

Ramin Golesorkhi: agree with the conclusions, etc. So that’s one question. and the other question, that I have has to do with the these anchors, and my concern is

Ramin Golesorkhi: long-term. Creep issues

Ramin Golesorkhi: with sustaining the loads. These things are not very.

Ramin Golesorkhi: They’re not very robust, I would say so. So. Those those those are the couple of questions I have.

Bill Rudolph: so the the first. The answer to the first question is is that

Bill Rudolph: I think it’s important to to to note that the Geo technical engineer of record will We will ultimately sign off on the design. And

Bill Rudolph: you know the use of their recommendations from the report. I have.

Bill Rudolph: you know, as you know, I’ve had a long, long relationship with Sg. H. And and others, and have, you know, provided them with review. And you know, it’s sort of opinions on a lot of different projects.

Bill Rudolph: if I’m asked to provide a peer review letter. if that’s appropriate in this case, I’m happy to do that. But I have no problem with that at all.

Bill Rudolph: so that’s the first question. The

Bill Rudolph: it is us kind of why, stuttering around a little bit talking to Jim. Is it? The the anchor design is?

Bill Rudolph: I I believe this really kind of trying to balance a a number of different things. Accessibility coming up with a

Bill Rudolph: with a a tie back acre that’s that’s constructable and trying to get an anchor that we can.

Bill Rudolph: you know a reasonable capacity out of, but but and locate in a way that it’s founded within within the fill. I. My sense is is that

Bill Rudolph: if we are, if we’re able to which I think we should able to put these anchors within these clay gravel, the the creep behavior of the anchor should be fine.

Bill Rudolph: I think if we’re if we’re you know, landing anchors within bay mud, we’re gonna see problems with capacity.

Bill Rudolph: And we’re gonna have. We may have creed problems.

Bill Rudolph: On the other hand, we gotta keep in mind that we’re we’re gonna do both proof and performance tests on these anchors and the the

Bill Rudolph: performance of the I get myself mixed up. It’s a proof test. We’ll have a creep on the anchor, so, so we will.

Bill Rudolph: I think all those things combined should should address that concern about creep.

Ramin Golesorkhi: And one other thing. Do you have any concerns? Because the way at least

Ramin Golesorkhi: If you go back to the

Ramin Golesorkhi: section of the wall that shows the anchor

Ramin Golesorkhi: how are you gonna install this?

Ramin Golesorkhi: I mean I it seemed like the way I understood it is these are being pushed into the

Ramin Golesorkhi: into the ground.

Ramin Golesorkhi: Some distance, 18 feet or so.

Ramin Golesorkhi: And how how are you going to? How is that going to be done?

Bill Rudolph: hang. I say, Justin can can add on, because I can’t talk to the contractors, but My understanding is is that

Bill Rudolph: these anchors are going to be installed in relatively short sections with with couplers. and they’ll probably be installed with a with a basically a handheld Jack hammer type type unit.

Bill Rudolph: And so I think the the idea is that the

Bill Rudolph: that there’s going to be this

Bill Rudolph: excavated pit sort of behind the the wall. I really am not exactly clear on the on the precise dimensions of that. But I I’m understanding that there.

Bill Rudolph: gonna

Bill Rudolph: I install these anchors from within this, this from in this pit and relatively short sex section. So I I don’t know the

Bill Rudolph: so looking at the dimensions, I don’t know what the dimensions of that that clearance between the the back of the pit that the face of the existing wall and the back of the pit are. But

Bill Rudolph: yeah, it’s about 7 feet or so. Let’s say.

Bill Rudolph: you know, excavate something other than that one and a half to one slope at the anchor location. To provide.

Bill Rudolph: you know, more clearance in order to install these anchors from within that pit

Bill Rudolph: and then what will happen is there’ll be a a couple that’s kind of shown in the picture

Bill Rudolph: near the face of the wall.

Bill Rudolph: and then there’ll be a short connector piece that will

Ramin Golesorkhi: all right. So so this.

Ramin Golesorkhi: the wall is coming after the the anchor. That’s the sequence. Then right? So you you will have. So if I look at this.

Ramin Golesorkhi: the drawing here, this green section is not going to be there. There’s going to be a

Ramin Golesorkhi: slope cut there, and this anchor it.

Ramin Golesorkhi: whatever location it needs to be, is going to be. Jack hammered into the ground. and then a section is

Ramin Golesorkhi: kind of sticks out and back pulls around, and then

Ramin Golesorkhi: the wall is constructive. And I,

Justin Pyun: yeah, and I am. I may have missed spoken earlier when I was saying that the wall might be able to be installed before But that’s right. That’s that’s the concept.

Ramin Golesorkhi: Okay? All right. So that okay, I’m seeing how you can get into that little slot there to to install these. Okay?

Bill Rudolph: I mean, I I envisioned that the

Bill Rudolph: that the the the temporary excavation to accomplish this is not going to be this just one and a half to one slope. It’s going to be a a bench and some larger slope back, just because they’re going to need more room at the anchor locations. But

Bill Rudolph: you know a lot of not be able to hold that slope either at one or half one. Maybe it’s it’s all ladder

Bill Rudolph: it could be could need to be flatter. You know, the the a lot of these issues were

Bill Rudolph: are somewhat means and methods. But I understand we need to have a concept that’s buildable that

Bill Rudolph: But I I do agree with you that possibly some of the details of the temporary excavations to make this work are not well reflected in the schematics that we have.

Ramin Golesorkhi: and one last question.

Ramin Golesorkhi: are these anchors design bill for

Ramin Golesorkhi: a good. That work for you are specifying St. H.

Justin Pyun: We are currently specifying it.

Bill Rudolph: But there, let me be correcting that a little bit, is it? It is design, build, and that there is that they are able to substitute another anchor type.

Bill Rudolph: And there is a there is a performance criteria

Bill Rudolph: in terms of ultimate capacity of as in creep that have to be have to be shown in the in the proof test. So they? You know, they’re we’re they’re specifying the the the location and and general

Bill Rudolph: function of the anchor. But the actual anchor it, you know, itself, is designed to build.

Ramin Golesorkhi: Thank you.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Thank you for me.

GKasali: thank you. Raa

GKasali: So I want to go back to the question about the look of our ball layer that tally a race. And

GKasali: I agree with her that I think we need to have a section, you know, showing what the potential and of trouble

GKasali: layer thickness is, you know, relative to this section

GKasali: that we are looking at. I want to ask Bell. I mean, let’s say, if we have about 3 a 3 foot thick

GKasali: like.

GKasali: Do you foresee any potential issues relating to a drag due to like a fraction in the settlement

GKasali: in that layer I just sent to the the sheet. 5

Bill Rudolph: you know the

Bill Rudolph: A. A. Drag, I mean, I think there could be, because

Bill Rudolph: there, there’s several things going on here for first of all.

Bill Rudolph: settlement, just pure settlement without any lateral translation, is is just going to cause

Bill Rudolph: the whole system to, basically

Bill Rudolph: subtle as a unit. There’s no, I can’t see that anything is going to be held up and and and and have a drag or a down, drag load be occur because of that, because the liquifiable zone in that case will be entirely below the new construction.

Bill Rudolph: with, from a practical point of view. with with regard to the impact of liquefaction,

Bill Rudolph: of of the of the layer which I really, I haven’t really focused on. you know it’s a

Bill Rudolph: to. To to a certain extent, you know, it’s a the the the the slope is not that by, you know we only have a 5, but slow.

Bill Rudolph: and it’s and it’s perforated with

Bill Rudolph: timber piles that, you know, penetrate that layer. So the slope to a large degree is is pinned.

Bill Rudolph: So you you know.

Bill Rudolph: you know, just sort of logically, it seems that, you know, even if there is some liquor faction

Bill Rudolph: and you know factors of safety against global stability are somewhat lower, and

Bill Rudolph: that the the amount of movement that can really occur because of the hitting effect of these, you know, double piles every 7 feet along the whole way. It’s it seems like, certainly I can’t say that I’ve analyzed it, or there’s enough information to analyze it, but it’s just seems like conceptually that

Bill Rudolph: it’s it’s not a configuration that seems to have a very high risk in in my view.

GKasali: Okay.

GKasali: has been, has there been any signs of this press in terms of

GKasali: you know. out of the of the wall. Oh. thanks!

GKasali: Fairly radical for the existing.

Justin Pyun: Yes, yeah. We didn’t witness any

Justin Pyun: signs of bulging in fact, actually, at the mudline, you can see that some sections are at like a hundred percent loss, and the walls still perfectly plum and in deck

GKasali: you can.

GKasali: all right. My second question relates to this

GKasali: detail that we are looking at the lightweight material

GKasali: that is shown there is that the same material that your content on to serve as a drainage material?

Bill Rudolph: Yeah, yes, it is.

Bill Rudolph: this this material is we. We’re actually specifying this material that to come from Lake County lightly material. And

Bill Rudolph: it it is a it is. It is specified and

Bill Rudolph: produced as a as a drainage, as a drainage material. It’s a

Bill Rudolph: it’s

Bill Rudolph: very popular as a as a drainage material throughout the vineyard. Industry. Believe in or not that all of them, and the reason that they produce this strange mature, a lot of lightweight material is because.

Bill Rudolph: the it reduces the transportation costs immensely for these large large drainage projects. So we we can. They they do provide. The the supplier does provide

Bill Rudolph: fact sheets. And you know, showing that it that it is a

Bill Rudolph: you know, a certified drainage material.

GKasali: Okay? So zoom. Then at this

GKasali: basically poorly graded material.

Bill Rudolph: pardon me. So I miss that

Bill Rudolph: poorly graded material. Yes, it’s poorly graded material. It has, you know, low fines. Content. Yeah, right? It does. It does have some fines content. But and then, nonetheless, it’s

Bill Rudolph: one of the reasons that we’ve actually specified these.

Bill Rudolph: filter. You know, they’re fairly sophisticated filtered. We pull apparatus that’s going to be installed to make sure that we don’t have any dredging or fiance loss on the small fines, content through the through the weepage loopholes.

GKasali: Okay?

GKasali: Great. So the compact that fell for landscaping is that

GKasali: plant and soil, or what kind of material is that

Bill Rudolph: we’re we’re specifying that to be a material like, I can’t remember the exact spec. But basically, I think it’s supposed to have, you know, probably

Bill Rudolph: 1520% passing it to it. It’s it’s meant to be

Bill Rudolph: not only landscaping, but it’s meant to be a low permeability cap.

Bill Rudolph: Yeah. So it’s just gonna there’ll be a there’ll be a Geo. Textile fabric to prevent the science from migrating into the drainage material.

Bill Rudolph: The cap is meant to prevent keep surface run off out of the drainage material, and also to provide the media for planting.

GKasali: Okay. that’s wonderful. So my last question relates to the passive pressure of what you discuss with Jim.

GKasali: what a bit. I was kind of wondering. Are you looking at.

GKasali: you know, in determining the you know how much of a whatever the maximum cost of pressure. Yes.

GKasali: you know how much of it is actually mobilized

GKasali: given the performance of the system

Bill Rudolph: that was done by that was modeled using the py. Why, why? Wall model, which

Bill Rudolph: replace the with which which use the passive resistances to develop a passive spring resistance in the py wall model. So you know, there was both a.

Bill Rudolph: you know, limit, equilibrium model used, which did not look at mobilization of passive pressure, but just looked at factors and safety. And then then the design was invalidated or for checked against this. you know, mobilization model using the py wall model.

GKasali: Okay.

GKasali: all right, thanks, thanks, Bill. Sure. Thank you.

Bill Rudolph: Good questions.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): thank you. Shima. Justin.

Justin Vandever: Yes, thanks. Couple of questions and comments. My first question is, what what is the anticipated lifespan of the new wall. How long will it? How long is it designed to be in place?

Justin Pyun: you know, given past history, I would say, probably

Justin Pyun: 30 to 40 years.

Justin Vandever: Okay.

Justin Vandever: and just to follow up on dillips comment about extending the wall.

Justin Vandever: is that something that’s even possible with the current design and what modifications would be required that might allow that to occur in the future.

Justin Pyun: Yeah, so,

Justin Pyun: we’re not aware currently of any splicing sort of connection or device that you can use. But one thing to kind of keep in mind is that This is on

Justin Pyun: a very short portion of this western

Justin Pyun: prop side of the property, and this channel extends all the way down here. So whatever the results are of any future global engineered sea level rise study might have an impact on the type of wall selection that you have further up the stream. So I think that can certainly be considered in a couple of different ways. new wall or maybe at the time there’s a a way to splice it on. But that’s not something that we’ve considered at this point.

Justin Vandever: Okay?

Justin Vandever: And then from your cross section it, it does look like the wall will extend higher than the land side, but behind the wall right.

Justin Vandever: What is that? What is that height up of the ground behind the wall

Justin Pyun: this height here.

Justin Vandever: the height of the top of the wall relative to the compact. So for landscaping.

Justin Pyun: yeah. So I think it’s about a foot to a foot and a half, maybe closer to a foot and a half.

Justin Vandever: Okay, yeah, because I was just thinking your your comment about sort of water levels being the same on both sides. I I’m not sure if that would necessarily be the case, because the ground slow, it seems like it slopes up to where the condos are.

Justin Vandever: So

Justin Vandever: it during a high tide event. I think it’s possible that the water level could be like, say, just at the crest of the wall. but that the area behind it would would not be inundated.

and until it over top. So I think there could be a case where

Justin Vandever: there could be that additional voting on the water side.

Justin Pyun: Yeah, I I see. what you mean. I I think the perspective that I was thinking of is water inundation coming from this side.

Justin Vandever: Right kind of around the flanking

Justin Vandever: perpendicular to the wall. Okay.

Justin Vandever: And and then, just to comment, I

Justin Vandever: I agree with the discussion about probably negligible waves coming from the bay.

Justin Vandever: But during a storm search event, with even just a small amount of sea level rise. If you look at the B. C. DC. Flood maps.

Justin Vandever: There’s actually sort of an interior embayment created by that flooding to the west and to the northwest. And and so, with the right wind direction there. There could be some small waves that are sort of generated

Justin Vandever: on the from the interior side, and I don’t think they would be large enough to cause any issues in terms of like loading, but

Justin Vandever: they they could sort of spill over and maybe scour some of the the back fill of the vegetation. so I just wanted to note that there there, during a you know, based on current topography, that there would sort of be this water body out there to the west, and that there could be some waves generated from that direction

Justin Pyun: understood. Yup and I got the figure here. It’s 1.1 feet of stick up height beyond the

Justin Pyun: so

Justin Vandever: a. And then, just to confirm it, it sounded like you were saying that

Justin Vandever: water would be able to drain through the wall from from them on the back side, like if

Justin Vandever: if inundation occurred or over topping occurred, that when the tide receded that that water wouldn’t be trapped behind the ball, that it would be able to see back out. Is that right?

Justin Vandever: Okay.

Justin Vandever: And then the note about reusing the tie rod. So those are originally installed in in 73. So they’re already 50 years old.

Justin Pyun: is is that, are you? You’re anticipating to be able to get another 30 to 40 years of life out of those. I think it really depends on our site observation. it’s something that we put as a requirement in our drawings. to excavate, expose, and inspect the current condition of it. There might be ways to mitigate the current damage by replacing sections of it with a new section in a couple of rod.

Justin Pyun: but we’ll certainly have to address that once we’re in the construction phase.

Justin Vandever: Okay.

Justin Vandever: And then just just to comment, like my experience with with the public, is that something that looks like a seawall? People?

Justin Vandever: I think it is, I see well, and like a football So I just wanted to, you know. Note that

Justin Vandever: the the homeowners should be made aware that this is not a flip protection. Wall, it’s a retaining wall, and I know I understand why you’re using the term se wall, based on the

Justin Vandever: pass permit and everything but

Justin Vandever: I just think that that should be made clear that that replacing this is not actually acting as a as a flip protection structure

Justin Pyun: understood, no doubt.

Justin Vandever: and then my last question. I I thought I noted on the drawings or in red, and the report that the existing wall and piles would be removed. But then I thought you said that maybe they would stay in place. So it just

Justin Vandever: can you clarify what’s kind of staying and what’s being removed on in front of the new all.

Justin Pyun: So

Justin Pyun: this is kind of an exhausted topic at this point. But there are 2 walls. so there’s the 90 73 wall, and then the 89 wall. So to it’s a good question to clarify. What’s

Justin Pyun: going on currently is the 1,973 plumbing batter piles are cut below the mudline, or in some cases at segment B, the plum pile is sticking up above the mudline, but the batter is cut. so that’s what’s there right now? for the current. 1,989. See? Well, repair. That’s in place. The plan is to cut that off at the mudline.

Justin Pyun: So for any segment like, say, the 73 plum

Justin Pyun: plum pile that’s still there, or the horizontal lagging that would also be removed to the mudline.

Justin Vandever: Okay.

Justin Vandever: soon. No components of the prior walls.

Justin Vandever: What exist? Because I thought you said something about like in the analysis that there would be these piles that would be there. But you didn’t take credit for them.

Justin Pyun: Yes, right? Yeah. So what? What I’m referencing there is the amount of piling that exists below the mudline. So in terms of the passive resistance of the sheep pile to there’s

Justin Vandever: there’s actually going to be something there, but it’s not something we considered in our design.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Thanks. Those are my questions, Justin. So

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): just let me jump in real quick, because I think it was What you had? One of the questions that I had was the design. Why? And is that noted anywhere in calculations or basis of design.

Justin Pyun: We do not have that noted anywhere.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Okay.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): I I

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): well, I don’t know. I maybe it’s

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): I I think I’d recommend that you. You put something in there or

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): and then something, or add an amendment that it does

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): mentioned that.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): okay, Chris, may.

Kris May (Pathways Climate Institute): Yeah. I had a question on the design life as well. I understand that create the timber structures, you know, had a 30 year design life or less. But you’re using a material.

Kris May (Pathways Climate Institute): Specifically so, it will have a longer design life. So I think 30 years is probably too short of a design life. for the material choice

Kris May (Pathways Climate Institute): which makes me question the sea level rise and groundwater conditions and the analysis I know other people have brought up. I know you’ve stated that you know that this development would need to consider a much larger strategy to address sea level rise.

Kris May (Pathways Climate Institute): which would be expensive. But that’s the same situation. It is for every project around the bay, and most of them do it in a stepwise adaptation, function, fashion.

Kris May (Pathways Climate Institute): So if this project did include sea level rise. for at least a 50 year. Design life.

Kris May (Pathways Climate Institute): Then you’ve addressed sea level rise for 30% of the shoreline of the development area. So you’re giving them quite a mint a benefit. for their future plans. And this is areas very vulnerable to both civiliz and rising groundwater.

Kris May (Pathways Climate Institute): so I’m wondering if there was at least some kind of estimate of what it would cost to

Kris May (Pathways Climate Institute): have this address like 2 feet have sea level rise. maybe that’s using you know, a a thicker well material so that it is, could provide a higher degree of protection which would also allow it to provide some protection from the existing. You know, 100 year flood event which this well doesn’t currently cover.

Justin Pyun: That’s a good question. So the choice of the material while it is very durable. it’s it’s kind of secondary to the main reason, which was site access, and you know, material handling and constructibility. in regards to design life. What we’ve seen is.

Justin Pyun: yes, the timber elements are rotting at this this point, but also the steel elements are and there are some steel components like the anchors. which you know, we’ll observe when we get its construction, but also the new ones that might be susceptible to that some same sort of a design life. So that’s kind of where

Justin Pyun: our sort of perspective was. on on that

Justin Pyun: in terms of raising the wall. I I mean, that can certainly be an option.

Justin Pyun: it’s it’s not something that we’ve considered, as you know. We’re really just trying to replace the deteriorated wall. But you know that I think that’s a much larger conversation than

Justin Pyun: And what we’ve had. It’s something that the hoa needs to kind of determine what they’re going to do globally. But yes, I I I understand your question. And in your comment.

Kris May (Pathways Climate Institute): yeah, if they’re if they’re not considering, manage to treat it, it would be good to address it.

Kris May (Pathways Climate Institute): you know, at some level with this project, so they can understand that they’re making a wise investment.

Justin Pyun: Right?

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Yeah. Sorry to recycle back. I have just one more question, I think, and that’s I don’t know that I’ve heard anything mentioned about corrosion. The prophet is specifically

Jim French: excluded from the Rg scope. obviously, for the farps. Corrosion per se is not an issue, I guess at some point they start to age, but

Jim French: the anchors are

Jim French: that, and I think they are galvanized and signed for me.

Jim French: Oh, Designed for some corrosion. But this environment is pretty salty and pretty aggressive.

Justin Pyun: I’m sorry. So is the question. The question is, it has corrosion? How has corrosion been addressed?

Jim French: version of the anchors in particular, and at the end of the whale, I guess

Justin Pyun: right? any metal components.

Justin Pyun: Yeah. So we do have some margin of factor of safety, or not factor of safety. I’m sorry. The demand to capacity ratio to allow for any material degradation.

Justin Pyun: it it it can be considered to address there.

Justin Pyun: but yeah, I

Jim French: yeah, I think it’s not appropriate to address it by factor safety. I think you need to address it by a number of inches of material loss. You’re going to get over

Jim French: whatever the design like this.

Jim French: and and or the thickness of the galvanizing

Jim French: to protect against that. And if there’s going to be any damage of the galvanizing as it’s driving through through gravel.

Justin Pyun: Yeah, we don’t have a actual prescribed, you know.

Justin Pyun: inch per. or you know, measurement per

Justin Pyun: span of life. But

Justin Pyun: I can’t say that we have a margin within our demand to capacity ratios.

Jim French: Rob, that said of my questions, I guess I have you like we often end up with. It’s something we need to to talk about.

Jim French: Are we just approving it as is, or we have any request? Or do you want to see them again? I have a a couple of requests that I’d like to have them address at some point. I’m not sure if this is the time, or if you want to.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): I think I’ve learned from last time I was running one of these meetings. I asked all my questions. Upfront that

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): she the shoreline quite the

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): the folks with the see not to see one, but the

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): somebody. Help me out here, Cardio. Thank you. at the card bill So I I

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): So do you have a few questions. and I guess you know the the easy one is

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): is the material for the sheet pile. you be stabilized. And is that something that you’d be worried about.

Justin Pyun: What I understand. Yes, but I’d have to go back to creative composites to address that. Whatever specific question you have.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Well, I just yeah. I’m hoping that there is some component of the stabilization sort of thing doesn’t get brittle

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): right. And I’ve I have discussed in the past.

Justin Pyun: whether they have certain codings that they would recommend. And I know that there are options. on that front.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): okay, yeah.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): And then the this is, I think, a good slide to have up. But I was curious about the returns, you know, with retaining walls.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): sometimes, and I think it’s good practice to have returns

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): at the ends of the seawall, for of a retailing one that kind of contain the forces, and I notice that

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): the tie rods, don’t that they don’t appear to continue at both ends of the

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): of the retaining wall. And it was just so. Is it that you’re going to continue to use

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): that are piles in those locations? Or

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): is there some other way that it’s being

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): you know. Fix study. J,

Justin Pyun: yes. So segment. B, let me go back to the plan.

Justin Pyun: Segment B, is this middle portion here that already has the tie rods? there’s additional anchors that are being placed and where it doesn’t occur at segment A and C.

Justin Pyun: The idea is that we would just drive anchors throughout.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): and then, you know, I don’t know that this is

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): for you, the designer. But are you? Are you going to recommend some sort of long term monitoring

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): program that looks at the displacement of the wall, and perhaps you know indications of

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): anchor or tighter rod failure.

Justin Pyun: Bill, you might be able to shed some light here, but as as it currently stands, we we’re not requiring one or recommending one.

Bill Rudolph: my.

Bill Rudolph: my! My! My feeling is that there should be some

Bill Rudolph: you know, monitoring to to look at the sort of the long term performance of the of the wall. not only to checking the plumbness of the wall and but

Bill Rudolph: but the I think it’s important that these week that these we polls all are are maintained. The the particular product that we are has specified is a is designed to be maintainable.

Bill Rudolph: And so, you know, they, you know, a lot of fouling can occur, and those can get clogged up. So I think there should be.

Bill Rudolph: you know, some guidelines given to monitoring and maintenance of this of the system over time.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Yeah, I I would. I would think so as well.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): What is the

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): kind of

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): typical or standard tension in the anchors? Are they? Are they going to be, you know, post-tensioned after they’ve been tested? Or are they

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): set up

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): but slack pension

Justin Pyun: there. So there are just a couple of performance tested anchors. But then the rest of them are all proof loaded. And the idea there is to kind of monitor any creep. So it it. You are kind of engaging that passive pressure and then locking it off.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): So, yeah, and do you know, I mean, do you have a right? And what’s the design? Walk offload? I guess 4.7 kips. Okay?

Justin Pyun: And that’s well. that’s the design load. Yes, yeah.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Locking it off after your

proof testing

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): at 4.7 K,

Justin Pyun: right and, Bill, you might be able to chime in here. But it’s yeah. It’s a cyclic loading. So you actually exceed the 4.7 kips at times.

Justin Pyun: but they kind of relax.

Bill Rudolph: My my understanding here is that they’re going to be tested to that design load. But I but I do think they are going to be just snugged up, and you know I I don’t think they’re going to be locked off at any at any. I think they’re just not slack, but do it. But just snug, you know. Not not not not pre loaded.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Yeah, that’s that’s the that’s the question I was thinking about is that when the contractor is off the job, what’s

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): what’s this tension? And the the anchor rods?

Bill Rudolph: Right? It’s just snug.

Bill Rudolph: okay, that’s fine. Yeah, any. Any working tension in the rods will be associated with sort of the whatever

Bill Rudolph: fast, whatever active and passive pressures develop, and with some small, you know, slight movements of the wall to to actually engage those engage those pressures, and hence the the tensions and the rod. So I like. I say, I I don’t. We don’t have a super strict wall movement, tolerance here. So I I think that they’re going to be just locked through, just stubbed up and left left the

Bill Rudolph: left in that condition.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): And then I I know Justin and Chris talked about it a little bit, but I just was going to ask in a way that that I was thinking about it. Are they gonna be scuppers.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): you know, basically where the

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): the fill and wall, or, yeah kind of meeting, so that you can drain you know.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Say, an extreme precipitation of that.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): I just

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): where are you? Just retaining? You know that 1.1 for the water that can build up in a big re of that

Justin Pyun: right? Yeah, it’s just the the 1.1 feet of water.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): and that’s been accounted for in the design.

Justin Pyun: Yes, yeah, we have a certain amount of hydrostatic load. Are are you talking about at the top? Or, yeah, you want to find a slide that shows the section.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Yeah.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): So yeah, yeah, that. So that between the compact with fill for landscaping and the the top of the Rp sheet pile

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): that if that’s a triangle, triangular, inverted, triangular load of

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): water there is that has that been

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): accounted for in your design.

Justin Pyun: Yeah, I,

Justin Pyun: our analysis assumes that it’s permeable.

Justin Pyun: So there’s a way to to drain through, you know.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Okay, so

Bill Rudolph: my, my.

Bill Rudolph: my understanding is that

Bill Rudolph: that you know that there is existing surface drainage

Bill Rudolph: on the property.

Bill Rudolph: and that that that that surface drainage which will, you know, collect, and and, do you know discharge, the water will will have to be maintained, so that, you know I I I don’t. I don’t think we’re going to go there and have.

Bill Rudolph: you know, pondered water occurring behind here, that that you know

Bill Rudolph: the the surface green it is going to have to be. We will will be addressed in the final analysis, I think.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): okay. yeah, I you know. But if you’re excavating for anchors every 7 feet

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): you know, are you? Then, disrupting whatever surface range you you’ve got, or

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): just wondering how that water gets out.

Bill Rudolph: No, I I think you’re right. It’s gonna be gonna be disturbed. But it’s it’s gonna have to be. You know the the grades that

Bill Rudolph: it’s my understanding that they did. It drains now, and that that ultimately, when it’s all backfilled, that the the positive surplus drainage is going to have to be

Bill Rudolph: restored as part of the of the landscaping and

Bill Rudolph: final final back filling operations.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): I think I think that’s what I want to do here. So I’m assuming that that is not part of the design as yet. Right? So

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): I think that’s the end of my questions, and I think Jim’s right, like we have to

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): kind of decide now whether or not we want to hear back from you, or whether or not you know, the the Board is satisfied with

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): the responses, and maybe if the the requests for information that we’ve we’ve made our addressable by, you know, transmitting like that she’s transmitting, or

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): the applicant transmitting responses to those outstanding questions to B. Cdc.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): what does Bob you get? And Jim, you get Bob. He gets your hand up.

Bob Battalio: Oh, yeah, I was just gonna jump in to start the discussion. It it seemed to me that what I heard there were comments on.

Bob Battalio: you know. There, there probably should be some sort of discussion by the community or the neighborhood about sea level rise. And what’s going to happen in the future? And and

Bob Battalio: That may not be part of this project. or it might be

Bob Battalio: something that

Bob Battalio: there’d be some notification of that.

Bob Battalio: also, as as Justin indicated, it’s not a sea wall, it’s a retaining wall. And that’s why more of a bulkhead, I guess, and

Bob Battalio: that’s why the water level didn’t seem to be the a driver

Bob Battalio: brought based on your what you just said. It sounds like

Bob Battalio: the wall loading should have loading all the way up to the top of the wall.

Bob Battalio: you know, soil or

Bob Battalio: water, or something, you know, or whatever. The worst condition is for the largest

Bob Battalio: active load on the wall, because.

Bob Battalio: you know, it’s gonna either have water behind it or soil behind it at some point, probably. yeah, I don’t. I didn’t review it closely enough to see if they consider the

Bob Battalio: And then there’s a question about the project. Live.

Bob Battalio: So, in my opinion, if those things are addressed. I don’t think we need to see it again. myself. I mean, I don’t.

Bob Battalio: just from my perspective. It’s like a civil coastal, but I’ll just throw that out there unless see if somebody else.

Jim French: yeah. So I would probably be inclined to agree with Bob that I know that’s an Ec. Orb. Needs to see this again. But I do have several on topics that I think should be addressed by the design team

Jim French: prior to approval and probably resubmitted to BC. DC. For staff Review, just to say, Yeah, it’s been adequately, it’s been addressed. But if you. What we’ve done in the past is if the staff still

Jim French: feels that the responses are beyond their expertise and we can weigh in again. But I’m not inclined to think we need to at this point.

Jim French: that’s the first point

Jim French: was related to liquefaction kind of raised by liquefaction and global stability and some re-related issues that you started with

Jim French: to indicate that somewhere, and I think Bill was agreeing with this that somewhere it would be appropriate to

Jim French: to indicate that the global stability and lateral spreading really are beyond the scope of their specific analysis. And they’re just looking at

Jim French: the retaining wall stability. and that that should be probably documented.

Jim French: but

Jim French: and it’s all you noted that there was. it would. Looks like there was some liquor faction within the wall depth.

Jim French: it’s kind of interesting that the geotech report plates. let me just see what the plate numbers are of 4 on 5 of the geotech report, I think.

Jim French: our output from a computer program called

Jim French: all see that fruit?

Jim French: Something a tradition test, liquefaction analysis.

Jim French: but they don’t show the results of the lipfaction analysis. They do show the results of the thin layer correction. And so you can see that. you know, it looks like there are some zones within a couple of feet of oh, of

Jim French: of the sheet files that there is liquid faction, material types and low, liquifiable and penetration resistance values that are pretty low.

Jim French: Oh, and I, some C values that are pretty low. So all around. It looks like there’s it’s notting. So that’s a that’s an Amen, I guess, to that

Jim French: But I think there is lucifaction. I think that the geotech report should include the extra plots from Celic.

Jim French: That show for liquefaction is actually occurring.

Jim French: And the the design team then, should explicitly look at the impact of liquefaction on the wall, stability

Jim French: for passive pressure. in particular, if it’s going to affect active pressure as well.

Jim French: and that that should be documented.

Jim French: I don’t know. It’s that difficult to do that. We need to review it again, but I think that ought to be in terms of engineering criteria. It should be that they should document, that they’ve evaluated the faction rather than showing the C liquid for it without showing to see the outfit

Jim French: and then include a comment explicitly. The the liquefaction

Jim French: will not affect wall stability. I think somewhere they need to document what the design life is of the project.

Jim French: and probably impact it. Document someplace, a statement about sea level rise. however, they want to document it that it’s not considered, or that it’ll handle the next 4 years of sea level arise, or it’s the sea level rise. It’s already exceeded

Jim French: what this projects are really good regarding us or whatever, but provide some sort of documentation that

Jim French: the script describing sea level rise, and and how it relates to the project.

Jim French: I think.

Jim French: Probably the the design needs to explicitly address corrosion. Whether that means that Sgh needs to go back and take some samples for corrosion potential and then document it.

Jim French: or whether some conventional numbers out of you know, you can almost assume that it’s buried in seawater or in bay water. I think there’s some standard values for corrosion potential in that. But in some way

Jim French: corrosion, I think, needs to be explicitly addressed.

Jim French: in the design

Jim French: both in what is what the demand is, as well as how it’s how to be, how to mitigate

Jim French: from

Jim French: corrosion.

Jim French: And then Rod mentioned

Jim French: UV resistance, and somehow it needs to be a documentation that that the I.

Jim French: F Rp

Jim French: is will adequately handle UV And this isn’t really a required comment, I guess. But just to note that I I would recommend that the lock off is probably more than a more than a nominal

Jim French: seeding value, but probably 50% or something like that, so that you don’t encourage movement to happen before the wall will take so

Jim French: But I’m open to whether

Jim French: Bill St. On this more than I have, I’m sure. And then someone else commented, I guess it’s it’s it’s it’s retaining. Well, notice.

Jim French: that’s what I have.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Okay.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): that was pretty complete. Exhausted. Are there other

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Items that the board would like to see addressed in the the applicant’s response. Letter to Vc.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): For me.

Ramin Golesorkhi: Yes, I would like

Ramin Golesorkhi: we’ll have a official position on this project for Bill. I mean. honestly, today, Bill is the face of the ge technical aspect of this project, and

Ramin Golesorkhi: that needs to be for a wise in whatever way that 13

Ramin Golesorkhi: things is appropriate.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Okay, Justin.

Justin Vandever: just wanted to confirm that one of the notes was about

Justin Vandever: loading on the wall, either assuming

Justin Vandever: the water side is at the crest, and it’s dry on the land side, and the reverse of that

Justin Vandever: and that there’s some clarification of the plan to accommodate drainage from behind the wall of water that could get pond it back there, either from over topping by marine waters, waves, or the accumulation of

Justin Vandever: rainfall run off from behind the wall, and if there’s a way to either drain it through the wall, or that the

Justin Vandever: grading behind the wall can allow it to, I guess. Drain north south somehow. I. My sense for looking at the pictures is that maybe the current drainage? It just goes through the wall because it’s the timber wall, and there’s gaps, and and I don’t think that will be the case with the new ever you will.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Okay. Okay.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Jen, did you get all of that? Is there anything else?

Bob Battalio: Yeah. I as we were talking.

Bob Battalio: I was thinking that the the statement about sea level rise

Bob Battalio: just to clarify could be like Jim and Chris were saying, in terms of

Bob Battalio: you know, future adaptation. and whether or not what vertical capacity the wall has, and like how many feet of sea level, rise, we think the wall could handle. And

Bob Battalio: you know, I think specifically what Chris was getting to before was. you know, does it make sense to build something bigger now?

Bob Battalio: because the incremental costs might be favorable. So and that’s probably over the consultant’s head.

Bob Battalio: But it might be something that

Bob Battalio: we want might want to mention for the owners benefit.

Bob Battalio: I don’t know if Jen got that, but that’s kind of like the sea Level Rise thing

Bob Battalio: deal with that.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): I’m I’m hoping that the owner of the Hoa

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): you know, is thinking about this. But it is.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Yeah, I I don’t know.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Well, I guess

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): we yeah, I it just. They’re on a little peninsula, right? And when sea level rice comes, I think managed retreat has been mentioned. That praise has been mentioned a few times.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): you know I don’t want to point out or make inflammatory statements, but

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): if there was

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): a a place to see manage your tree

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): you know, I’d be assuming that it’s on a little peninsula like this.

you know, there may be other adaptation strategies which

Bob Battalio: I have no idea about the economic viability of this. But maybe they could put the homes on piles, or, you know, build new ones on piles or

Bob Battalio: floating homes, or, yeah, yeah, I don’t know, I mean, but I just feel like, you know, just from A, you know, they’re coming to DC, DC. And they’re not, you know. It’s not serious it over wise. It’s called a sea wall. But I just kind of feel like we should say something like, Hey.

Bob Battalio: you guys are vulnerable to sea level rise, but probably obvious. And but if not, there’s some resources, and you might want to think about whether or not you do want to invest a little bit more in this wall

Bob Battalio: to save you money later in your adaptation plan. I Chris, is that you? You’re probably better at this than I am in terms of. Does that make sense to you like

Kris May (Pathways Climate Institute): that? That absolutely makes sense to me? Yeah, I should consider that incremental cost. So that day.

Kris May (Pathways Climate Institute): you know, could potentially be solving. You know, a portion of their civil rights problem in the long run. I mean, I know it’s just a piece of the shoreline. But every bit helps.

Bob Battalio: Yeah. And then, on the other hand, of course. this is real money for a Homeowners association. So

Bob Battalio: you know. Actually, I feel like

Bob Battalio: the sea level is not directly a design criteria for this project. It’s more of an indirect criteria in terms of

Bob Battalio: the loading as it relates to drainage. I, I believe, is with. And so

Bob Battalio: I I think I feel okay with not including civilized criteria. But I’m not comfortable without clarity that somebody acknowledges that that’s an issue.

Bob Battalio: Yeah. So I mean, if I and I think thanks for for that

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): other perspective, because I think if I were the I’d be saying, I gotta pay how much for for this, and I’m hitting, you know. Extra. I’m paying extra now for

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): a a a location that I’m probably not going to be in in 30 years.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): What you you know. So I think.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): I would.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): I I I I don’t want to split the baby, but I would think that, you know, if there’s some sort of

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): actual statement on sea level rise, and whether or not it’s I guess they’ve already said that it’s not a pro or not part of the design criteria. I’m not sure that.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): and that they recognize that the design. I think that’s why this design life thing is important, because you can then say, Okay, we recognize that we’ve kicked the can down the road.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): And

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): you know. In in 2,050,

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): we have a a real problem, or we have. We have to come back and address another problem.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): And I think if that’s explicit here.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Yeah, that’s a good point. I mean, they’ve probably heard this discussion. So

Bob Battalio: anyway, I didn’t mean to. But I I agree. However, you want to

Bob Battalio: say it. I was just trying to

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): one last thing here. I mean, it is a requirement of the permit application, right? So I’m just

Dilip Trivedi: looking for guidance to us, for future projects which come in with Savior, not addressing sea level rise because this is a repair project. Well, most projects which online improvements on repair projects.

Dilip Trivedi: And so you know what is the precedent that we are setting for ourselves by looking at any shoreline to pair project as not accommodating.

Dilip Trivedi: So I think that issue needs to be addressed. Maybe not, Ecrb, but from a permitting perspective.

Kris May (Pathways Climate Institute): I I absolutely agree, because in 1,973 and 1,989. The wall high. It was enough. you know. Now, in 2,023, it’s not. and

Kris May (Pathways Climate Institute): it it is gonna be a big consideration.

Dilip Trivedi: right? And it’s it’s part of our. Our.

Dilip Trivedi: The instructions that we received was to look at this because it is part of the Cdc’s date Plan amendment.

Dilip Trivedi: And so it is a requirement no different than you know many of the other basis of. So

Dilip Trivedi: I can do anything to Jan for at least some guidance as to how do we review future projects

Dilip Trivedi: which do not address sea level rise? Because it is a

Bob Battalio: yeah, and just just to the the follow up on that discussion.

Bob Battalio: I also think that this, the sea Level criterion.

Bob Battalio: is not

Bob Battalio: driving the design that going back to my first question. So it’s not just that it’s a repair.

Bob Battalio: It’s just that.

Bob Battalio: you know, the loading is going to be, let’s say, extended to the top of the wall because of granted, and then the like concerns.

Bob Battalio: But you know, water pawning on the inside, and then the tide dropping, or something like that. but I think that’s more of a civil engineering, or, you know, kind of drainage issue that doesn’t necessarily

Bob Battalio: require that the

Bob Battalio: and in fact, the yeah. So I I kind of feel like it’s not just a repair project. It’s

Bob Battalio: suitable.

Bob Battalio: The high water level is not necessarily a design criterion for the for the project design.

Bob Battalio: I don’t know if I’m splitting here, but that’s kind of

Bob Battalio: my rationale for not pushing harder on it, as I usually do.

Bob Battalio: and I will have to say I’m a little biased because it. You know, these are homeowners, and

Bob Battalio: it probably does make sense. I can go above my head here

Bob Battalio: from a public policy standpoint. To have a retaining wall that is upgraded and not doesn’t fail.

Bob Battalio: with people there, you know.

Bob Battalio: even if it is kind of inefficient in a long-term adaptation to climate change perspective. In other words.

Bob Battalio: I think we’d all rather have this see the sea wall, intact and functioning, even if it is the short term.

Bob Battalio: So that’s kind of my my thought. on how I’m

Bob Battalio: not feeling too guilty about letting them off for sea level rise.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Okay? So I was looking back at the 3 questions that we were supposed to respond or answer

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): today. And

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): it sounds that like the design criteria of the site are appropriate.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): with

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): some more clarification and a bit more work and disclosure.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): whether current, flooding and future rising. Suitable impacts on the retaining wall are addressed adequately, based on

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): on the references and the nature of the project, like we just had that discussion.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): and whether there are any design and physical concerns that have not been addressed, and I don’t think we, I think we kind of have been pretty complete in our.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): you know, assessment of

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): of the project.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): so, Jen, you’ve got all of that stuff written down now, right? Or that I’m assuming that

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Pj. And Bill have have made copious notes as well. and that we’ll see a letter. What is that?

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): How does that work, Jen? Are you going. The the letter will be sent to BC. DC. And will it go out to the members of Vcrb just for review and comment?

Jim French: Think what we need to do is make a motion

Jim French: and vote as a board. that. We agree with all of these points or not.

Jim French: and then we can send that, and it becomes a motion from in the minutes of this meeting.

Jim French: if you like. I’d like to. if if you consider it in order. I’d like to make a votes, and I can delay it, I think, in it quick form.

Jim French: My summary of the points we got here.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Yes, once you go ahead. Yeah.

Jim French: So I would like to make a motion that the board accept the project

Jim French: but required the following additional input from the design team.

Jim French: first related to liquefaction

Jim French: to show the plots from See Lick

Jim French: that’s called Cl. IQ. For whoever is taking minutes

Jim French: and then you value. You explicitly evaluate the impact of those. And

Jim French: it’s appropriate. And a comment that liquefaction won’t affect the wall stability.

Jim French: Second.

Jim French: make a document and make documentation of design life of the project.

Jim French: including a discussion of the relationship to sea level rise.

Jim French: The third require corrosion.

Jim French: evaluation. including in discussion of the demand and mitigation.

Jim French: Fourth document. Use UV resistance of the and include specification requirements as appropriate.

Oh.

Jim French: fourth document that it’s retaining. Well, not to see well.

Jim French: fifth

Jim French: require a clarification and documentation of Bill Rudolph’s position. and roll on the project.

Jim French: and if I understood this correctly, then

Jim French: 6, the time I have to document how to accommodate water that may collect behind the retaining wall.

Jim French: That would be the end of

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): the components of my motion, but also down the road.

Jim French: I like to make a motion while I’ve got the floor here for a second that we request. I think this is what how the discussion was going. Is that the Ecrb request

Jim French: in the form of staff, or maybe the Drv. To a direct sea level criteria.

Jim French: sea level rise criteria for cases like this, which are somewhat ambiguous, and we can talk about engineering criteria.

Jim French: but that’s different than policy.

Bob Battalio: Well, I just on, I I think that’s a really good well, am I out of order? So we have a we have a motion.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): and do we have a second, and then we can have discussion.

Bob Battalio: Oh, I’ll second. Okay. Thank you. Now, now, do we have any discussion?

Bob Battalio: Yeah. Thank you. sorry to be out of order. There, I really, I really like what the go up in. Jim brought up

Bob Battalio: until in terms of special cases

Bob Battalio: But I didn’t. I wanted to ask yeah, that’s a question for BC. DC. It, whether Jim wanted to address the lock off loading on the

Bob Battalio: on the tiebacks or not. I just had that on my list. That was the only yeah. it’s next, Bob. I I think that it ought to be done, but I don’t think that needs to be in

Jim French: our top to the team for the motion.

Bob Battalio: Okay, thank you.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Any any other discussion?

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Okay, so

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): let’s have a vote. Let’s vote on this motion. Jen, do you want to call role?

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: I think Did somebody second the motion?

Dilip Trivedi: Yes, Bob did.

yeah, I will call roll

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: ron. It was Sheeta.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Yes.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Jima Casali.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): No. Still on me, too. Ma, let’s give a

Jim French: just by raising our

Jim French: digital hands. Maybe.

Dilip Trivedi: Yeah.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Italian.

Thaleia Travasarou: Yes.

Bob Battalio: yes, and I will raise my hand and speak. No, I will lower my hand

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: just in Vannevar.

Justin Vandever: Yes.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Ramen Gosurkey.

Ramin Golesorkhi: Yes.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: file out Italia.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Dill it

Dilip Trivedi: yes.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: and Jim French.

Jim French: Yes.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: and I Chris May.

Kris May (Pathways Climate Institute): Yes.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): no, Justin, and g much back off on mute.

GKasali: Jan. Sorry about that. Yes.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: okay. Great. I think I got Justin.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Oh, okay.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: Everyone said, yes.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Well, that’s great. Then that motion passes. Thank you, Jim. Thank you, Bob. Everybody.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Let’s see

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): there anything else here.

Jim French: One is going to suggest a second motion that we request. we see DC, either

Jim French: the Commission itself, the Rb. Or staff to address sea level criteria for

Jim French: on cases like this.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): So there is that workshop for that meeting that we’re having next month

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): on rising tides.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): can I suggest we we go through that first, before we

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): we, we, we participate in that meeting before we

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): make a motion and vote on something.

Jim French: I’m okay. With that I would suggest that we make the motion just so that we’ve go on record that this is a concern that we have.

Jim French: I don’t think it may well be that the responses adequately performed by that upcoming meeting?

Dilip Trivedi: This idea, maybe this motion can be a discussion item in that future meeting.

Dilip Trivedi: It might help trigger that discussion.

Bob Battalio: Yeah.

Bob Battalio: yeah, I kind of with Rod. I mean, I I think the fact that we brought it up. I think the staff. And I think Steve Goldbeck was on for a while, so I mean, I think they’ve heard us. And

Bob Battalio: you know one of the things that occurs to me at Jim. You had mentioned that the seal rise not really an engineering criteria and earth quite serious, that. And I think that’s true. But that’s

Bob Battalio: really only true, because California and some other States are way out of the country, and you know, as ce etc. has not come, you know we don’t have a code yet for, but it doesn’t mean that it’s not important.

Bob Battalio: And and in our practice here, locally, it’s it’s, you know. really considered. So it is a little unusual for us not to address that head on in a strong way, but I think

Bob Battalio: anyway, I I I do think it’s a very important question. and one that I wrestled with before the meeting, you know. Honestly so

Bob Battalio: I think.

Bob Battalio: It would be interesting to see what is being said. And I have some other comments about, you know

Bob Battalio: the program and how they talk. People talk about total water level and things like that. So I don’t. Yeah. Anyway, I I’d be okay with not making the motion or making the motion. I’ll leave it up to someone else.

GKasali: But, Rob, maybe. Can you explain why you think we should withhold? Make an emotion now?

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): So I think Bcdc staff are kind of down going down this path already of

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): how they want to look at

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): or how they’re looking at sea level. Rise. And I’m I’m you know, just a little. I’m a little nervous that if Ecrb kind of tells.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): you know B. Cdc. Staff to do something, or to come up with something that they’re going to come up that they may not.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): you know, be as free as they want to be, to come up with their

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): their application or their

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): interpretation of how or where things need to go.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): that that’s my. That’s my concern. But you know I’m hearing that it sounds like folks are wanting. you know, to be able to

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): have some direction. that we can just look at. And

Bob Battalio: well, you know, Roy, following that. what that comment you may, which I think is very

Bob Battalio: I mean, if I was on the staff, I might say, wait a minute. What? Why does the ecrb tell us? I mean.

Bob Battalio: yeah, you know. I mean, it’s a there’s. There’s a policy question. But there’s also an engineering practice question that that

Bob Battalio: there may be a discussion that needs to happen

Bob Battalio: before a a decision can be made. In other words, we might have a role in that discussion. So I kinda like the idea of

Bob Battalio: allowing it. There’d be a little bit of a process before we start

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): defining what we want.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): you know. Be addressed in a project.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): talking with Staff first and giving our

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): our considered opinions on it seems like the right

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): venue, and I’d rather us not

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): be here kind of separated from from staff.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): you know, asking for that clarification right now.

Jim French: it’s actually the motion has not been seconded yet. So we’re not technically not discussing the motion. But

Jim French: I think that

Jim French: it is. My understanding is that the Vcdc requires all applicants to address sea level rise.

Jim French: All right.

Jim French: I I I guess there’s some subtle language in there.

Jim French: about what’s a big project and what’s a new project? And what’s an old what’s it? 6 of an old existing project? But I think there’s to me it’s arguable that we aren’t really meeting the request of B. C. DC, by not requiring silver rise in this particular case. And we’re basically saying, Yeah, we’re taking the word of the applicant that we’ve got a short design lives. And it’s really some kind of funny things that our engineering issues per. Say.

Jim French: if you want us to address sea level rise as any Crb, then we can talk about the technical issues that’s involved here.

Jim French: but we’re basically saying

Jim French: we’re going to accept the applicants, request that we not address sea level rise. So it’s a funny position here, and I would like to just push it back to the

Jim French: Ec. Orb to the you see

Jim French: the Commission, or the or somebody and make sure that this is a specific question that gets addressed at our meeting to discuss. See that the rise in general.

Jim French: I think this is one of the key issues.

Jim French: that’s why why they should. They should have a meeting at all about the topic.

Kris May (Pathways Climate Institute): I I absolutely agree I’d be willing to second the motion on that. And I my concern, is setting precedent on. This is not a flood protection structure. It is a retaining wall, and therefore

Kris May (Pathways Climate Institute): I don’t have to address

Kris May (Pathways Climate Institute): and I I think it is an important issue that we need to discuss. But I do think the Ecrb and the Drb should be engaged in that discussion.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): So that’s and that’s my point like, let’s have that discussion with the rb. yeah, and staff and and ha, and then, you know, we can address it. We we may have a meeting

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): the day after right, and and certainly within a couple of months

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): we will be able to to make that motion and and vote on it.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): But I I I suggest

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): that we have that conversation first.

Ramin Golesorkhi: I agree with Rod. I mean, this issue is on the table. It’s not like. you know.

Ramin Golesorkhi: I understand that the position in this discussion I I appreciate what Jim is saying, but you know throughout the point, it’s next month that this is going to be

Ramin Golesorkhi: kind of discussed, and I I hope, at some point decided on

Dilip Trivedi: the direction, at least from

Ramin Golesorkhi: this group.

Ramin Golesorkhi: from B. C DC. To all the applicants, and then we can kind of

Ramin Golesorkhi: make sure that it’s included.

Dilip Trivedi: Yeah, I mean, Jen can take that. You know. I I would say that the

Dilip Trivedi: that is not just because it’s a small project versus. There is no definition of a small project, as far as I know, in the guidance policy, but I think the biggest differentiator here is that there is no public access.

Dilip Trivedi: So we were looking at a project which has no public access.

Dilip Trivedi: and it was not specifically for flood protection. And so, therefore it is one of those special cases.

Dilip Trivedi: And that’s fine. If that’s how

Dilip Trivedi: you know the directions to the Crb are.

Dilip Trivedi: you know, and Staff might pick it up anywhere. That’s different, you know.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Yeah. And I think there are nuances like that. They look that may not come out in a kind of. you know, 1 one policy or a and a policy that

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): yeah. And I. And I think it’s really worth us having this discussion and engaging with staff and Grb about

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): you know what? Where are the where the Nixon granny is, where we don’t, what we’re not going to enforce sea level rise. requirements.

Jim French: I guess I’m still not clear why you’re speaking against the motion. My! The motion that I said was, I request to request that B, C. DC. Or staff or Drb

Jim French: address, sea level rise criteria for cases like this.

Jim French: I think they’re gonna do that in a month. But it’s just this just puts us on record as saying, Hey, the question matters to us

Jim French: because it affects how we do our job. So we don’t ask them to do anything different than what’s going to happen next month, except to say.

Jim French: this is, you hold this hold Ecrb’s question in your mind as your having having this discussion.

GKasali: So how about this? I mean, it’s like, you know, we all in the same thing, I mean, and the motion be amended to basically say, you know, the eclipse is an important issue

GKasali: what my required join discussion between B. C. DC,

GKasali: the

Bob Battalio: I second, that like the motion amendment.

Dilip Trivedi: So it’s not a motion amendment. It’s a friendly amendment that if I if I and Chris agree to it.

Bob Battalio: and it just becomes I’m not out of order again. I’m gonna go back on you.

Kris May (Pathways Climate Institute): I I

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): okay. And it sounds like we’ve already had our discussion.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): So

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): so g, and Jim, what what is? Do you just state the motion one more time with, I have a gym or restate it because he had the the revised language. Yeah, I appreciate if Gemma would repeat it

GKasali: moves that. there’ be a discussion on the issue of sea level rise

GKasali: with respect to various projects. and that there’d be a discussion between the B C, d, C. R. B.

GKasali: to come up with a policy on how to address that issue.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Okay. thanks.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): I’m okay. If Jim, it becomes the mover of that motion.

GKasali: Okay, I move. That’s my motion.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Okay, thank you, Jim.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Okay, everybody in favor. Let’s just raise our virtual hands.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: I see

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): It just raised a regular name if you want. Oh, there you go! Oh.

GKasali: my computer is not cooperating, but I have.

Jenn Hyman, PE, BCDC: I see all 9 members of the Ecrb have their hands raised. in favor.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Great Is there any other business that we need to? That’s one, too.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): Okay, if there’s not, is there a motion to close the meeting?

Jim French: Who moved

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): everybody in favor? Raise your virtual hand again?

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): All right. Okay, thanks everybody.

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): great discussion

Rod Iwashita (ECRB): look forward to seeing you next month. And yeah.

Bob Battalio: this was this was fun.

Bob Battalio: Thank you. Great to meet you all, too.

Bob Battalio: Hi, Jim! Welcome, thank you.

Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act

As a state agency, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting.

How to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits

Pursuant to state law, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically, (2) all teleconference locations, which will be publicly-accessible, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting.

If you plan to participate through ZOOM, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above, which will be distributed to the Commission members.

Questions and Staff Reports

If you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda, would like to receive notice of future hearings, or access staff reports related to the item, please contact the staff member whose name, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item.

Campaign Contributions

State law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year, and if so, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest.

Access to Meetings

Meetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities, as well.