September 27, 2023 Engineering Criteria Review Board

1. Call to Order, Meeting Procedure Review
2. Public Comment Period (10 minutes)
3. Staff Updates
4. Appointment of New Alternate Member (10 minutes)
5. Item of Discussion: San Francisco International Airport (SFO) Shoreline Protection Project (Pre- Application). (100 minutes) (PDF).
   The Board will review the SFO (Applicant) proposed Shoreline Protection Project, designed to address coastal flooding and sea level rise out to 2085. The Board will review the proposed design of the new sea wall and additional minor project components. 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.
   (Rowan Yelton) [415/352-3613; rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov]
   Presentation (PDF)
6. Item of Discussion: Oakland Harbor Turning Basins Widening Project, (Consistency Determination). (100 minutes)
   The Board will review the US Army Corps of Engineers (Applicant) and Port of Oakland proposed Oakland Turning Basins Widening Project, designed to enhance the safety for large ships that need to turn around in two places along the Port of Oakland. The Board will review the design criteria and conceptual design for the new bulkhead walls and additional minor project components. 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 bulkhead wall stability due to a seismic event, flooding or sea level rise.
   (Brenda Goeden) [415/352-3623; brenda.goeden@bcdc.ca.gov]
   Presentation (PDF)
7. Adjournment

Meeting Transcript

Crestron: I believe all the Board members have been promoted.

BCDC HOST: I think the recording is on now.

Crestron: Thank you, Grace.

Crestron: I’ll turn my microphone off.

so that Rod can start the meeting.

Crestron: Okay? So good afternoon. And welcome to this virtual Bcdc

engineering criteria review board meeting my name is Rod Iwashta. I’m chair of Bcd’s Engineering Criteria Review Board. Our first order of business is to call the role

Board members. Please unmute yourselves to respond and then mute yourselves again after responding. Jen, please call the roll.

Crestron: Roddy. Watchdog chair. Here.

Jim French vice chair. Here Bob Battalio is here, but he’s recused from both meetings. Since he’ll be presenting for Sfo today.

Crestron: Bill Holmes

is absent. He is on vacation today. Jima Kasalli

not present. Chris May.

Crestron: I know Chris May is here, but is recused also from the first agenda. Item.

Sfo.

Crestron: Ramen Gosarky

present

Crestron: Nick Satar.

yeah.

Crestron: Gail Johnson

present

Crestron: Malia Travisaru.

She’s not here.

Crestron: Phillip Trevetti.

yeah.

Crestron: And Justin Van Buren

here.

Okay. thank you. Jen, we have a quorum present. So we are duly constituted to conduct business.

Crestron: Okay.

we’ve got a half page text read here. So thank you. Everyone. I want to share some instructions on how we can best participate in this meeting so that it runs as smoothly as possible.

Crestron: First, everyone make sure you have your microphones or phones muted to avoid background noise

for board members. If you have a webcam, please make sure that it is on so that everyone can see you. For members of the public. If you would like to speak during a public comment period.

That is part of an agenda item. You will need to do so in one of 2 ways.

Crestron: First, if you are attending on the Zoom Platform. Please raise your virtual hand in zoom.

If you are new to zoom, and you joined our meeting, using the zoom application. click the hand at the bottom of your screen. The hand should turn blue when it’s raised

Crestron: the second way. If you are joining the meeting via phone.

you must press Star 9 on your keypad to raise your hand to make comment. We will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order they are raised during the public comment period for each project.

Crestron: and finally, every now and then you will hear me refer to the meeting host.

Grace, Bcds host, who is acting as host for the meeting behind the scenes to ensure that the technology moves the meeting forward smoothly and consistently.

Please be patient with us if it’s needed.

Crestron: Okay, this part is for board members

ex parte communications in case you have inadvertently forgotten to provide our staff with a notice of on any written or oral ex parte communications.

I invite members who have engaged in any such comic communications to report on on them at this point by raising your hand and unmuting yourself. Jen. Has any board member raised his or her hand.

Crestron: I do not see any. Raise hands.

Okay. so now we’re on to agenda. Item number 2 staff updates.

Crestron: Right now, we are going to switch the order of a couple of items on the agenda.

First, we are going to do staff updates. which was number 3 on the published agenda. also agenda. Item 4. Appointment of new alternate member

was put on the agenda by mistake, since it is the Commission who confirms the recommended Board appointments. we have time set aside for hearing public comment on items not on the agenda for each of the 2 projects being heard today.

San Francisco Airport Shoreline Protection Project and the Oakland Harbor turning basins widening project.

Crestron: But we are going to have this occur in conjunction with each of the presentations.

Crestron: so the order of

each presentation will be to hear the presentation from the applicant. Have board discussion.

Crestron: hear any comments from the public

related to the presentation, and then at the end. we will hear public comments not related to the presentation or engineering issues on the project following staff updates.

the first presentation will be for the San Francisco Airport Shoreline Protection Project. The second present presentation will be the Oakland Harbor interturbing reasons. Widening project

which could begin around 3 Pm. Jen, please provide any staff Updates that you have.

Crestron: Thank you. Chair Washeda. I would like to provide an update on a few items

regarding upcoming engineering criteria Review board meetings. Next month’s October meeting is canceled. since there was nothing on the agenda. There are currently no items on the agenda for the November meeting.

but something may still come up. So board members, please keep that time open for now. and on December sixth we will. We will be meeting to discuss the permit application for the India Basin

Shoreline Park Project.

Crestron: The applicant for that is the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department. Yeah. Ecrb meeting dates have been set for next year for 2024 and are posted on the Vcvc website.

Crestron: Lastly, an update on the recruitment for our open alternate board member seats. The position was posted for several months.

I did outreach to colleagues as well as numerous local universities and engineering societies, including the Society of Women Engineers. the National Society of Black Engineers, and the Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers.

We received 2 applications after interviewing the 2 qualified candidates, the nominating committee that consisted of the chair and the vice chair has recommended for appointment, Patrick Ryan.

Structural Engineer and principal of the firm, Ryan Royce. Structural Design.

Crestron: We will be giving the recommendation to the chair of the Commission for concurrence at an upcoming meeting, and the new appointee should begin their term

at the next Ecrb meetings.

Okay, thank you, Jen. Are there any announcements from the Board?

Crestron: Okay.

seeing none.

Crestron: Let’s move on to agenda. Item 3,

and I have to recuse myself since I’m a city of San Francisco employee.

Crestron: so I will step aside into the audience, and Jim French will take over.

Crestron: Thank you, Rob.

Crestron: I will chair this portion of the meeting while Rod joins the public

section of the Zoom Meeting room. I guess the virtual Zoom Meeting is over there, too.

virtually.

Crestron: just let everyone know any board member with a potential conflict of interest on any given project must be refused from participating in the Ecrb review

of that project, but they may join the public section of the meeting. and they may make comments as members of the public, if they so desire. I will apologize for my mask, so you can’t see mics.

impressions.

Crestron: and my! My voice comes out muffled. I had a potential covid exposure 5 days ago. I’ve been testing negative every time, including this morning, and I’m symptom free. But

remaining math just to be be cautious. This portion

Crestron: of the meeting will proceed according to the following agenda, first up, Jen Hyman.

senior engineer from Bcd. C. Will make a short presentation on the San Francisco Airport Shoreline Protection Project, followed by the presentation by the airport team

Crestron: during the presentation. It’s fine for board members

to ask short questions and have limited discussions. At the end of the present presentation we’ll open the meeting for public comments initially just related to the engineering issues in the presentation.

after hearing comments from the public. Ecrb will resume our discussion with questions and comments. At the end of the discussion. I will ask

Crestron: for final comments and motions, and then close our con. Our consideration of this project. Following all that we will make, we will take public comments on aspects of the project, not under consideration by the BC. By the Ecrb. In other words, not

specifically related to engineering criteria.

Crestron: I’d like to remind the Board members and other participants to please. Please turn on your video when you’re speaking or answering questions. When you’re not actively engaged with the discussion. Please turn off your video

so that we minimize the distract distractions on the screen. I’ll now ask Jen Hyman to provide an introduction to the project.

Crestron: So do you wanna ask Re, retake that part of the role, and just get Jima to

acknowledge that he’s present in participating.

Crestron: So, Jimmy, you are present and not recused from this meeting. I think. Right.

Crestron: Hello, Grace, can you

promote Jima once his name comes up. Thank you.

BCDC HOST: I don’t see them yet.

BCDC HOST: Jen board Member Cassali zon out

I’ll add to our role. Jima Kasali if you’re here. Turn the microphone on and say, yes. yes.

Crestron: that’s great. Thank you.

Alright. Good afternoon, chair. French and members of the Engineering Criteria Review Board. My name is Jen Hyman. I am the senior engineer at Bcd. C. And Secretary of the Engineering Criteria Review Board. This will be the Board’s first review of the San Francisco Airport Shoreline Protection Project.

I have some background information on the project to share with you.

Crestron: Hmm.

Crestron: San Francisco International Airport.

Also referred to in this meeting as Sfo has will be applying for a permit for their shoreline protection project.

Crestron: I’ll tell you in a lot more detail about that in their presentation.

But overview of it is that their shoreline protection project is a seawall to surround the airport designed to comply with fema requirements for a hundred year flood protection

and eliminate the probability of substantial inundation. At the airport from coastal flooding through the year 2,085,

Crestron: the Sri Lankan Protection Project has been divided into 15 reaches.

Crestron: and each reach has its own unique design.

Crestron: San Francisco Airport International Airport has submitted pre-application materials and will submit a permit application to BC. DC, possibly later this year. Now, I will turn it over to the airport team who will present the project to you today.

Crestron: Good afternoon board members. My name is David Kim. I’m the senior environmental planner for Sfo.

We’re gonna be talking to you about today about our shoreline protection program slide.

Crestron: This is this is the agenda for our presentation. Today

I’m going to be starting out with the introduction and the project purpose. And then I’m going to be followed by our technical experts. On the technical analyses, and then we’ll be followed by questions

Crestron: I will be representing as a foe today, joined by Environmental Science Associates.

Coe Tera engineers, and Geosynch.

so put it succinctly the airports here to develop a shoreline protection program under a hundred year flood events pretty much. Most of the airfield and airport property will be inundated as shown on this photo.

This image next slide.

Crestron: So what we’re gonna do is plan. On developing a seawall around the perimeter, the sea shoreline perimeter of the airport. As you’ll see on your hard copy handouts, it’s divided into 15 individual reaches starting from reach, one at the north side to reach 15 on the southern end. And these are just a little

examples of what that construction would look like of the wall. And we can go into more detail into that. In our technical analysis

Crestron: we have a number of project objectives that we want to accomplish with our shoreline protection program. First and foremost is to protect travelers and workers, airport operations and city assets.

Secondly, we want to remove the airport from the 100 year fema floodplain via the clomer process. Third, we want to make sure our protection system is adaptable to future projections of sea level rise.

We don’t know exactly where sea level rise is gonna hit in the future. But we wanna make sure it’s adaptable.

Crestron: Fourth, we want to create a protection system that poses no safety hazards to airport operations, maintains runway capacity and satisfies Faa design standards as a public use airport. There are a number of requirements, rules that we have to comply with under the Faa to keep operating safely

number 5. We want to enhance emergency vehicle access near our fuel tank Farm. This is around reach 2 6. We want to make sure we minimize hazardous wildlife attractants to prevent bird strikes.

This is a constant hazard that we have to deal with. We wanna make sure that whatever protection system we develop helps minimize that that hazard.

Crestron: And lastly, we want to create a protection system as expeditiously as possible for the safe and continuous airport operations and and minimize disruption to aircraft operations during the construction of this project

Crestron: just going to go over briefly what our project description is.

We’re going to be removing our existing shoreline protection, and that consists mainly of some concrete walls, vinyl, sheepaw walls, concrete debris, and some other associated elements.

and also remove the existing infrastructure in areas where it conflicts with the shoreline protection program.

Crestron: We’re gonna be constructing the new shoreline protection system. And this is gonna be largely, mostly steel sheet pile walls with some reinforced concrete walls at reach one and reach 15 with some armor rock revent and open water. Fill

the shoreline. Protection is gonna be approximately 7.6 miles long. It’s going to be about 3.9 to 13 feet high above

above existing and newly graded ground surfaces. and the sheet piles will go down to a maximum depth of 50 feet

Crestron: we’ll be creating a new perimeter dike around reaches 7 and 8.

These are off our runway 19 ends to extend the shoreline protection an additional 100 to 215 feet beyond the existing shoreline into the bay. This is to maintain our existing runway. Capacity.

Crestron: Armor, rock revetment will be used in tandem with the walls to dissipate wave energy and prevent sediment. Scour.

There will be some open water fill, intended to stabilize the shoreline and create a necessary slope for the support of the shoreline protection system. And we do propose filling in the wetlands and reach sub subreach to be. This is near our fuel Tank Farm.

and our reach 14 areas to push out our vehicle Service Road slide.

Crestron: Speaking of our vehicle Service road as part of our associated improvements that go along with this project.

we’ll be relocating our vehicle service road, approximately 12 to 140 feet towards the bay. This is to make sure that we are in line with Faa design standards

for distance from our taxiways for safe operation

Crestron: existing infrastructure will be retrofitted and rerouted. This is, namely, our storm drain pump station outfalls. Make sure that they go up and over our new seawalls.

A lighting stress at the end of Runway 19 left at reach 7 will be demolished to accommodate the construction of the new perimeter dike in that area, and then that new lighting trestle will be reconstructed in the same area.

And finally, there’ll be some floodgates and other access control gates that will be installed associated with the program.

Crestron: So I’m going to hand this over to James Connolly at Coe, and he’s going to go over the structural analysis.

Thank you, David. Hopefully, everyone can hear me. Okay. next slide, please.

Crestron: As David and mentioned, we’ve broken the project into 15 reaches this is partly just given the different topography different elements along the shoreline, and and to make it a little bit more manageable from a design and design perspective.

Next week our next slide. So in the bottom left there you’ll see again the the alignment of the reaches with some color coding. The orange is reaches one and 15. These are concrete type T walls is the current design for those areas.

The green is a sheet pile wall be installed right at the edge of the existing shoreline. This will be replacing existing flood protection elements. There’s

certain reaches with existing vinyl sheets, others with Burns. Essentially, it will be a cantilevered sheet pile wall along those reaches

Crestron: the blue area is at the end of Reach 7 and 8 again, as David mentioned. Is that a a that push out

at the end of the runway in order to accommodate the height of the wall and still have safe aviation off that runway. Essentially, the construction at the completion of that will look like all the other sort of green segments. It’ll be a sheet pile wall at the edge of the shoreline.

Next slide.

Crestron: From a design basis standpoint we looked at the flood wall looking at 2 sort of major

design considerations flooding which we use. The army corps em 111-02-2502, or the design criteria

for the seismic performance. We looked at Fema 5, 4, 3, which is a performance based design methodology. Looking at the risk and the performance next slide.

I won’t go into all the various load combinations. We can come back to this if there’s particular questions. But we did look at a variety of different cases, both from a flooding and from a seismic standpoint to

Crestron: prior to the preliminary design.

Next slide

Crestron: from a seismic perspective. We looked at the 72 year and 475 year seismic events

and then establish performance criteria based on the fema guidance

Crestron: for the 72 year event. Essentially, we’re looking for mild

which represents essentially no structural damage for the 475 year. We’re looking at a moderate, basically repairable damage, essentially

globally, sort of minimal sort of moderate damage. There could be some localized bit more severe damage, but it would all be repairable after the sizing event. like slide

Crestron: from the wave perspective. Again we looked at the 10 year 100 year, which is the Fema flood standard. But we also looked at a 750 year resiliency check

for the floodwall next slide.

Crestron: Again. I won’t go into detail here, but this is all the various loads that we looked at and the diagrams for the cheap power wall and the concrete wall next slide

Crestron: from an analysis approach for the steel sheet piles. We use a variety of different analysis methods.

We use py wall, and including corroded properties. Again, we’re looking at a wall to last to 2,085. So for the non-seismic load cases.

essentially the flood cases. We use Pywall for the seismic cases. We use the mix of inertial plexus, 2D. And we also considered liquid faction, Bob and his presentation later will go into much more detail in these analysis

Crestron: on the T wall. The concrete wall

Crestron: lost the screen up there.

Crestron: Thank you.

For the concrete, we again designing to the army core standards, essentially mostly sort of hand, counts mathcat calculations, looking at a variety of limit states and evaluating factors of safety against sliding.

bearing capacities, rotation, and so on. Next slide

Crestron: as far as the actual results.

Sorry little bit of coverage there. for the steel sheet piles again representing reaches 2 through 14 currently. And again, this is the preliminary design. This will eventually be a design build project. So final design details we determined by that team. But we’ve sized the wall as an AV. 19700 or a Nz 19

with grade grade, 60 steel we have a minimum of 10 feet of embedded into the bay mud, which approximately is minus 35. Again, Bob, we’ll go into that in more detail

as far as the T. Wall. Again, it’s a conventional T. Wall, reinforced concrete construction. Next slide

Crestron: as far as our checks at this stage again, these are based on for the steel sheet pile, considering the

sort of final service life. So it does include corrosion. We are maximum DC range we are aiming for was point 9 at this stage in the project for the T. Wall. Again, we’re looking at variety of factors to safety. And again, the solution that we presented here meet all of the design criteria that we’ve established essentially for the flooding case.

There is no damage for any of the low cases for the seismic for the inertial. There’s no damage. Again, when we bring in soil structure interaction, and Bob will present that there is some localized damage that’s expected during the liquifiable case. But again, it’s within the performance criteria that we’ve established

next slide.

Crestron: I’ll touch on now our coastal. How we develop the the wave loads and the essentially the flood load cases.

This project was built off of the female club maps. Again, David have pointed out the pro er I suppose, within the flood zone for Fema. And so we use that as part of our basis to look at the 100 year flood case building off of the baker Ecom study. That was the basis of Fema’s maps.

Next slide.

Crestron: Essentially, we took the the storm events transformed them to from offshore to near shore, converted those considerations, for for wave run up and perform the extreme.

Statistics! Analysis! Looking at a sort of a 31 year time history to generate what is a hundred year, storm event, and essentially and converted that to design load next slide.

Through this analysis we also established the height of the wall. Again, the total water height. To get off of a fema flood map you need to exceed the one still water elevation for the total water elevation. It’s

with a set free board. You need 2 feet above still water elevation or one foot above total water elevation that’s at our base. And then we building in that resiliency and sort of long-term, with sea level rise.

projecting out 42 inches of additional height. Into the walls. We established the wall height along Sfo shoreline. The table on the right is real small to read, but that those are the design heights along the perimeter

next slide.

Crestron: David mentioned. We also have riprap along the majority of the shoreline. Currently there is riprap out there. There is a few reaches with none. Currently with the new shoreline and new seawall. We are placing riprap

toll to prevent future erosion, and also to knock down the ways again, helping reduce the height of the wall, and sort of overtopping that you would get with reflection of the waves smashing into a vertical surface versus one with riffraff and some run-up

next slide.

Crestron: So with that I’ll turn it to Bob.

Crestron: Thank you, James.

And I’m joined today by John Lim, who’s with Tara and his help. A lot on liquid action analysis.

Turn my camera on. Thank you. Sorry.

Crestron: Great.

Yeah. And I’m joined today by John Lim. Who so with Tara and his help, quite a bit with the liquid faction analysis, and in particular by one Pascana. who’s with us in Tech, and has been working with with Tara and Koe for quite some time

on on the project. next slide, please.

Crestron: So just for some highlights, I’ll be covering the subsurface conditions at the site site seismicity and the site response analysis. the seismic performance of this of the sheep. How walls at the Shoreline Protection Project.

And then I’ll talk briefly about the geotechnical design associated with the infill area or the the field area where the service roads are being pushed out into the bay at reach number 7

next slide.

Crestron: of course. The the airport footprint that we’ve you’ve seen now already was created by placing fill within within the bay and the marshlands.

Next slide, please. This bill is shown here on a generalized cross section that reaches from it goes from reach 5 to to reach 7. We have nominally, you know, 15 or 20 feet of pill that overlies young bay mud.

That young bay mud extends to elevation minus 50 elevation, minus 75, depending on the location. We have Franciscan bedrock at great depth, 225 feet or so.

and the bedrock, and the problem solves, you might say, from the fill and the and young bay mode is separated by some very competent older sediments next slide.

There’s been a lot of really a wealth of geotechnical investigations that have been completed at the airport. Many of these done, and around the year 2,000 by a big study by

the airport Development engineering consortium. Looking at here the location of previous explorations, the orange dots are boring.

The green squares are cone panentrometer test locations.

Crestron: next slide, please.

Crestron: This is a zoom in to reach Number 6,

and what we’ve done when we looked at the soil conditions. As for the various you have other borings or phone kind of trauma pros. You’ve flagged key elevations. This happens to be the elevation of the top of the young bay mud.

typically at about elevation, minus 15. The next slide is the same base map, but it’s showing how we tag the elevation of the the bottom of the young bay mud, and that does vary from elevation minus 50. On the left portion of the slide, reach 5 and

half half of 6, and then it goes down to elevation minus 75 on reach 6 and 7, and it turns out to reach 6 is really the the critical section in terms of the greatest thickness

of the of the young Baymont at the project next slide.

Crestron: With regard with regard to site seismicity. As James mentioned, the 475 year return period has been selected

as the design earthquake based on fema guidance. We’ve we’ve developed a hazard curve for that design earthquake using a probabilistic seismic hazard assessment. The controlling earthquake is the San Andreas event. In and 19 6,

the 7 time. Hist were developed from our dynamic analysis chosen from the peer database. And for those 7 time histories include, a pulse

characteristics next slide

Crestron: in in our report. There’s a table that’s reproduced here showing characteristics of those earthquakes

next slide, please. Perhaps more informative is this graph. It shows a response, spectrum presentation of the design criteria. The target has it. Curve is shown in red.

And then the jagged traces that you see there represent the response vector associated with those 7 selected time histories. They were scaled to match. I mean our mean value with the target spectra.

And and that’s shown as a dotted line. Next slide, please.

Crestron: We did a site response analysis, one dimensional site response analysis input, at the base on the rock. There’s 7 ground motions

propagated it. Through the the model that the deep saw model that was used. We we see the peak peak ground acceleration, the panel on the left. It starts at about point 3 5 at the rock.

propagates through the through the swell profile at, but at the ground surface it’s at approximately 0 point 2 g.

Probably worth noting that at the top of the young bay mud we’re also at about point 3 5G. And that’s actually a horizon that we use as the the input horizon for our ground motions in the analytical models.

Next slide.

Crestron: As far as the analytical work was concerned, we use 2 dimensional plexus analysis.

analyzing reach 6 and also reach 7. Reach 7 is special because it has that fill that’s been added. So we looked at both of those as as kind of the controlling design sections.

We studied separately the liquefaction displacements and and then we evaluated both and combined and considered the combined inform performance based on the plexus analysis

and the liquefaction and these lateral displacements.

Crestron: And I’ll talk about that now next slide, please.

So as far as plexus is concerned. This is the model for the reach. 6. We see the sheet pile driven through the existing conditions there. It extends through the bill

and penetrates 10 feet below the bottom of the fill and into the young bay mud. The ground motions in the model were in input at the top of the old bay clay.

and the sole profile is shown here is consistent with the in information that we have, and and the primarily from those, of course, the the solar borrings

and engineering properties come largely from the Adac study, which was done in the year 2,000 next slide.

Crestron: These are the results. The

for those 7 ground motions. The average lateral displacement at the top of the sheet pile was 1.2 feet standard deviation, a half a foot.

Crestron: What we’re looking at. There are the contours of lateral displacement. The

the the Red Zone to the right of the sheep pile has got about 1.8 feet of maximum movement in that zone next slide.

Crestron: This is the model, the plexus model for the reach 7, where the the field moves out.

The I’ll talk about that in a bit more detail later. The results, though shown on the next slide, we have a calculated average displacement of just over 2 feet.

With a standard deviation of that movement of 0 point 7 feet. I might note that the grounded this situation. The build area will be treated to mitigate liquid vaccine

next slide.

Crestron: I’ll I’ll get to that. But the it’s it’s a

some vibrating beams that go into the ground. They’ve been used successfully at treasure.

Crestron: The Jfk technology.

the

Crestron: this is a summary of the performance of the sheet pile in terms comparing the moment demand

to the to the moment capacity. And it’s an envelope that we’re showing on the left for reach 6 and on the right for reach 7 all 7 ground motions, or in normal and reverse polarity, are summarized here. What we found was the

the the maximum moment demand occurs at the at the as you’d expect at the top of the young Bay mud. It’s about 20 k. Feet. At that location. We compared it rather conservatively to the

a an allowable stress from a from the design sheet pile that we’ve used with a with a yield stress of 36 ksi

and based on that we’re only 25. The demand, the maximum demand is only 25% of the allowable capacity for that 36 K assign material.

Crestron: If we look at the right-hand side for the reach. 7 similar analysis show that the maximum demand is about 40%

of the mild steel sheet pile allowable capacity. Next slide.

we analyzed separate that the plexus analysis didn’t include liquefaction and just movements. We analyze those separately. The peak ground acceleration was based on the site response analysis for Reach 6 that we showed a slide on earlier.

the factor of safety against liquefaction and the relative density came from Cpt data analysis of Cpt data. and we use belongier and address to estimate the maximum cyclic shear strains that occur in the profile.

This was an input we followed a empirical method developed by Zangedol. which allows you to take those maximum shear strains and scale them to the position that you’re at

relative to the to the edge of the film. And we used A, we evaluated that performance based on a conservative assumption regarding the side slopes of the of the shoreline bill.

Next slide, please. We did that analysis. The Zeng type analysis for each of 62 combinatorometer tests that are located around the perimeter of the site.

Crestron: So essentially, what when we do these calculations, we’re assuming that the sole

properties associated with that particular Cpt infinitely and lateral direction. So it’s, you know, one estimate at a time that that we made of the lateral displacements, that liquefaction lateral displacements. Ld.

next slide.

Crestron: And we. This is a summary of those results. So it’s a

looking at the right-hand panel. This is the design earthquake. So what we’re looking at is for those 62 data. How how do those calculated lateral displacements for the 62 cpt stack up.

We we looked at the mean sea level. That’s the solid line and a couple of cases where the groundwater levels were at elevation. And that’s elevation plus 4. We looked at elevation plus 6 and elevation 0. Those are the

the, the data to the right and the left that are summarized. But focusing on groundwater, it means sea level, which is where we find it in the air field. Now. we, the fiftieth percentile estimated, lateral displacement is a half a foot.

and the the ninetieth percentile of the lateral displacements is is 2 feet. the next slide indicates and shows how that those displacements are distributed along the various reaches. The 7 or 8 miles that we have.

So what we have is on the vertical axis is the estimated movement, and on the horizontal axis the station that occurs.

the fiftieth percent, the vectors, the vertical vectors that we have there represent calculations at a particular Cpt tip of the arrow is what the estimated displacement is at that location.

and the fiftieth percentile and ninetieth percentile values of a half a foot and and 2 feet are are shown there for for reference. Next slide, please.

Crestron: So then, we look to combine the performance of the shupa walls, considering plaxis and the zhang type, lip perfection studies the keeping in mind that the maximum

Crestron: moment demand or or stress, if you will for the

analysis. Every 6 was 27 of the allowable that’s really as I mentioned, that moment occurs at the top of the young Bay mud.

It’s it’s related to the amount of rotation that occurs in the young Bay mud which in turn is related to the displacement within the field. As you go from the bottom to the top of the young day mud. So that displacement was 0 point 4 feet

in our plexus analysis. If we compare that to the median value of the induced displacement. Ld. Within the the liquefaction and new settlement. That’s that’s a half a foot which compares to that point 4.

If you simply combine those 2 point 9 feet and use that that’s allows you to scale the rotation at the bottom. And the moment. So that would bring the moment demand up to 60% of allowable.

If if we use a Ld of one foot that boost that moment demand up to 95% of the allowable keeping in mind that allowable stress calculation is very conservative. It’s based on miles, 2

next slide.

Now, indeed, the the Ld that controls the performance at a particular location on the sheepile is really the average ground conditions around, not not one from a single

Cpt. although we have 62 Cpt’s, which sounds like a lot, and it is, I think it gives us a good overview. In fact, considering that we’re talking about 7 miles of shoreline. It’s not a lot of Cp.

Crestron: so we we really need to complete closely spaced Cpt to delineate

areas problem areas, if you will, where the calculated Ld, based on average values might be greater than a foot and in those areas, they may indeed require ground improvement or upgrading the the steel sections.

and that’s something that in order to meet our damage or performance criteria. So that’s something that needs needs to be done.

Crestron: Pardon me.

Crestron: those additional Cpt’s would be in reach 6 primarily. No, they would be along the entire waterfront.

And we’re we’re planning to explore it in a rather uniform way, because the we we expect the liquefaction problem within the fill is everywhere. It’s not just Route 6, so we will be looking at that all along this road.

Crestron: W. 1. One of the things that’s also important for, and we considered was certainly along the alignment of the sheet pile, there going to be some differential movements. It won’t all be one value or another, and that’ll lead to some elongation strains that need to be managed with within the wall. And that’s one of the strengths of the Z-type pile is that through a rotation of interlocks

we’ve looked at that. And it can handle lateral strains of about 5%. And we think that that we’ll we’ll mitigate and handle the the differential zones next slide.

Crestron: So moving on to fill placement at reach 7. it’s it’s it’s in a way, it’s a complicated process, but it’s one that’s very well understood and has been many, many times in the past.

and involved at that facilities like ours. Here at the airport, it involves dredging and construction of a perimeter dike filling behind that installing wic trains. and following that with a preload, fill with the wick drains accelerating the settlement.

and then, followed by deep compaction of the fill and the perimeter dike to mitigate liquefaction potential. And then finally, with the installation of a sheepaw floodwall

within the the perimeter type. Next slide.

Crestron: This is a picture of of the extent of that

outward movement of the service road. As David mentioned. the the dotted red line is the limits of the outside limits of the perimeter pill. The solid red line is the sheepaw wall itself.

Next slide, please.

Crestron: To the right is is the maximum section. This, this is at the end of the runway, where the where it extends out the furthest.

and it’s illustrating the geometry of the concept. There

Crestron: the the dredging extends 20 people or the mudline

the perimeter dike is crushed rock, and that would be crust stone, and that would be placed. That’s the yellow with place within the the dredge zone that we’ve taken

dug out to to give us a stronger material at the base behind. That would be till that would be placed that fill and would be

Crestron: The the whole system would be treated by

constructing a preload fill, which is shown in violet, and prior to doing that, though we would install those vertical wick drains which extend completely through the young bay mud and into the

the upper layered sediments.

Crestron: And as I mentioned the

the compaction method we have in mind, and still it’s early to choose. But at at Treasure Island they they use a vibrating beam. It’s 4 beams that vibrate in, and that that had quite a bit of success. We haven’t mind using that for

for the deep compaction of the second.

Crestron: So with that I think that’s the end of my story. I’ll turn it all over to

command.

Can you?

Crestron: Thank you?

Good afternoon. My name is Matt Brandon, with Esa along with my colleague, Bob Batalio, and using a lot of input from the other technical experts. Here today, we worked on the adaptation plan for

telorized flood hazards. I’m going to give a quick overview of that for the project.

Crestron: As James mentioned earlier, the

current design, sea level rise criteria is 3 and a half feet that’s shown as a solid green line on the left side that tracks across the panel of seal of seal rise projection.

and certainly with 3 and a half years it will rise. There will be significant consequences for the airport’s flooding in terms of the depths and extents, as shown on the right with some inundation mapping of the 100 year flood with 3 and a half years ago, Verizon.

3 and a half feet of civil rise is projected to occur somewhere between 2,070, under the medium-high risk projection curves from the State to about 2,100, at the low risk. Aversion curves to the state

Crestron: in addition to the and and this is 3 and a half years civil rise with maintaining fema accreditation for 3 and a half years civil rise.

The project also considers its adaptive capacity for 6.9 feet of seal rise, which is the yellow line on the left curve, and you see that takes you to 2,100 under the medium High Risk

scenario.

Crestron: So here’s a look at how those work in terms of the crest elevations.

So the reaches are listed down by the rows with their proposed design elevations. Here, in the third column. this sea level, still water level is the augmented still water level from today’s present day by 3 and a half feet, and you can see the free board

for these still water levels are all above to maintaining that fema accreditation with 3 and a half feet still arise. The next column over is the total water level. Calculated independently for each of the reaches, and you can see there the

total water Level Free board remains above the one foot requirement for fema accreditation.

Crestron: I’ll draw your eye to reach 7, which is sort of in the middle here, where the free boards are significantly larger than the other amounts. Reach 7 is the one that Bob Kirby just talked about. That includes fill out in the bay and that has these.

you know, multiple conflicts going on, of working with sea level rise, planning and flood assessments, dealing with faa flight paths and with putting fill in the bay so that one is proposed to have a little bit more allowance and resilience for sea level rise, so it wouldn’t have to be augmented and adapted as soon as the other reaches, given its complications.

Crestron: So this is a table sort of going forward from that condition I showed you this proposed design condition.

So the first row of this table is that 3 and a half feet of seal arise that was detailed in the prior slide. You can see, as I noted, that would go is projected to occur between 2,100, or as early as 2070

and as I showed that provides the fema accreditation of 2 feet of still water level and one foot of total water level free board. and then the table goes down with sort of incrementally more seal horizon about one foot increments.

with an additional foot of seal, arise to 4 and a half feet. that’s when you would. The the project would no longer meet female accreditation, but would really be only susceptible potentially to some wave over wash because of the total wall being a few tenths of a foot

from the top. 5 and a half feet is when the free board would go to 0 for the still water levels. That’s kind of what we think of as the threshold for really being substantial consequences. If sea level rise goes higher.

and

Crestron: so to get from there from 5.5 to the 6.9. So the next step up. That’s about a foot and a half higher. That’s the point at which

since the freeboards would be going negative. At that point some sort of structural modification around the reaches would be probably needed, something like adding a foot and a half or so cap to most of the reaches, as I pointed out, reach 7 has some additional capacity, so wouldn’t need a cap as soon for that additional amount of

to to reach that amount? Question, Matt, yeah. On the previous table, the Twl column does that include is that with 3.5 feet of sea level rise. That’s with 3.5 cso. Rise. And as James mentioned, it’s also starting the the total water level calculations, you know, offshore with additional seal rise, so that added to like the wave depth and the propagation.

Crestron: And so these are

from the Fema study, right? The the existing twl has not been recalculated.

you know, to the offshore water levels additional water depth and then bring the waves sort of from the near shore in.

Crestron: I can add to that also a essentially what we did was we took the the Fema model

and we ran it to make sure our model calibrated. So we match today’s case that airport on the map. And we reran that model with the wall because it’s the structural element that changed and see what impacts that had on the behavior of the total water elevation

and made some adjustments. And then, as Matt mentioned, we did then, look at, you know, would things change in the future would sea level rise. and we ran it that also. And so that’s ultimately how we arrived at the total water and set our wall height.

Crestron: I’m going to go a little bit more briefly onto these slides, but you know we can certainly come back to them if you all have questions. The project, as David mentioned, is looking to get out of the theme floodplain that will fire a letter of map, revision the the Clomar, the the conditional letter of map provision process is currently underway in the airports and meeting with

Fema they’ve been looking at the inboard drainage side of things, and so there’s been a series of models from the hydrology watershed models to riverine models that route the flow sort of around the backside and just to the north and south of the airport, and then also taking input from that and precipitation to look at the

stormwater system, and how that performs.

Crestron: So just give you a quick snapshot of those. So this is a snapshot of the results of some of the storm water modeling. You’ll see here that that

even for cases which include extreme participation event, and as those blue arrows indicate, some overtopping from the adjoining riverine channels. the storm water system is capable of maintaining the water depths below a foot.

because of that one of the sort of programmatic level ideas that’s been included in this project, which is called reach 16 sort of along the western side is thought to not necessarily not be needed in terms of, because the amount of discharge into the site would be small enough to be handled by the storm drain system.

Crestron: here’s some more details on that sort of connection between the riverine system and the storm drain system, which is, you know, using a model to go from the in this case this is flowing around the north side, up by reach one of San Bruno Creek, and there is a few areas of overtopping, but they kind of pond in shallow areas and don’t extend over the entire site.

Crestron: Similarly, it reached 15 here the proposed where it flows just along the

the the the channel actually of Samuel Barry Canal channel flows right by reach 15, and that floodwall would prevent inundation from coming onto the airport. Basically, that green area that currently is at risk from being inundated, would no longer be inundated with the proposed project.

Crestron: The site also

is is. you know, as Bob pointed out, built on former marshland, and not that high above the groundwater table there’s been some hazard mapping that’s been done for groundwater at a regional level. Here’s

2 2 of those mapping efforts by may it all and point blue in the Usgs, showing that the site is sort of just

sort of about 3 feet down is where the water table lies below the ground surface. Elevation, certainly with seal rise, has potential, for there being some inundation hazards from groundwater.

Crestron: the project, the airport as part of this project has been monitoring groundwall on the site.

This plot here shows an example out. The light blue line is the title elevation from the bay, and then there’s 3 other lines are 3 sites in profile along the shoreline there reach 6, and that inset image

you can see in general, that sea level is about 4 feet. As Bob mentioned before. the water levels are a bit below that, and they remain roughly below that 8 foot ground surface elevation, you see tagged on the upper left. So you know it is

consistent with those maps that you know a few feet below the ground surface.

Crestron: So recognizing that, recognizing some of the risks to the

seismic hazard. the price the airport is looking at, doing, continuing to monitor ground water and develop it as part of and manage it. But that would be something that’d be an adaptation to this project, not part of the current project and go into more detail on this.

if you’d like

Crestron: That takes us to the end of our presentation. And I didn’t quite get the order of public versus board questions. But we’ll leave

you all.

Crestron: Yeah, thanks, Matt and team.

And I think what we’re going to do next next is invite the public to. If the public has any comments regarding engineering type of criteria engineering issues or the presentation specifically

that they could go now and then the board will jump in with our comments. So I guess I ask anybody in the room. That’s part of the public who would like to present, or grace if you have any anyone has raised their hands.

BCDC HOST: I don’t see any public with raised hands.

Crestron: and I don’t see any others in the room with raised hands, either physical raised hands.

So then we’ll go on to the board. I’ll invite anyone that has a questions. Comments eventually move on to motion. But just for the time being questions and comments.

That’s the only

I have a commitment. Let let me just let’s see, remember to turn your your speaker on. Make sure your face is showing on the zoom

BCDC HOST: chair. Can I request something?

Aye.

Crestron: is that Grace? Yes, this is me, Grace. If

BCDC HOST: the public and the board members, and the reps when they speak, can they speak more into the mic on my end? It’s very hard to hear.

BCDC HOST: So if we can speak a little louder or closer to the mics, that will be great.

sure. Thanks.

I have a number of questions. But I think the board member

Crestron: how, considering Sfo is a lifeline facility.

How was the 4 75 level of ground shaking. determined to be appropriate for design.

Bob, you want me to start this off. Then? Again we looked at again the fema guidance, and looking at the requirements for this. Floodwall.

The idea, again, is essentially it is a flood wall is its primary purpose. That’s the problem that I suppose, facing immediately. And they are currently on a flood zone need to

get it off the map. So, looking at that and the primary focus there, we made sure that for all flood load cases, 100% resilient, no damage. We started looking at the seismic performance.

Again, there’s a sort of small table here on the right. Again, they give different criteria looking at performance. Again, this coming out of the Fema 543

recommendations. And essentially. we picked a 475 or 475 year event, representing a sort of a typical waterfront structure that you would normally see and checking its capacity against that and its performance.

With the understanding that this wall in essence is again focused on blood protection. So if you were to build it and had a large sizing event and had some damage to the wall. There isn’t an immediate risk to the airport

in the sense that it’s not retaining any in the sense that it’s not retaining any water on every given day. Now there is an increased risk of flooding. Again, you would be basically essentially bringing back the fema flood risk that we have today. And admittedly it does get worse over time.

So that was the idea of the wall. So as as in the future, that flood risk is gonna increase. So we need to build the wall to prevent it. The seismic vulnerability then increases concurrently in a sense, because in the future that flood risk is more and more common. So you do want to have a wall that essentially

perform as well and can be quickly rebuilt. Looking at the more extreme cases, the sort of we would see for an essential facility, often felt that

again focusing on the wall, for that case was difficult choice, and it would require probably much more impactful and costly improvements to address that particular item, and it wouldn’t address anything sort of behind the wall, back on the airfield, which are essentially would be the main areas of concern from an operational life safety standpoint.

Crestron: There’s a very long, rambling answer, but hopefully, is an idea how we got there. I don’t, Bob. You want to add to that.

just might add that. And and and this is covered in a tech memo that we haven’t actually have as an appendix to our geotech report. It’s

It’s appendix B, But we we also have to look at the performance group. But what? What is what is the required performance of the facility? So, looking at combining

the design event with the with the performance requirement. The th, the the 475 year return period. Earthquake. When combined with

what we viewed as a performance Group 3 structure and A and a performance requirement per the fema guidelines of moderate damage. So those factors all fit together. So it’s a risk and performance-based

assessments that that led to that. But my concern is in your presentation. You mentioned that the maximum demand capacity ratio for design is point 9 under the Dbe level.

Structurally speaking. so so are you reaching those levels of demand capacity ratios, because that doesn’t give you a lot of margin once something bigger happens right

Crestron: couple of points to that. And I think Bob’s analysis showed again from

much of the size and behavior. Essentially, this wall is a cantilevered wall. There’s no soil or basically air on both sides from a seismic perspective quite honest, the walls just going along for the ride, for whatever the soil does

Crestron: so. The soil is really the main driver, and Bob’s analysis has shown

the stresses, the differential movements across the length of the wall during those seismic events is actually quite small, because again, the wall just kind of rides with the soil. Now you do get kind of over a long enough period. You do get a chance of differential displacement, causing interlock breakage. But the wall itself is not gonna just fall over because there’s really no

lateral load applied to it, going with the soil. So that’s why, from an inertial seismic standpoint. Again, we are not seeing

much more demand again from that. And again the DC ratios of the point 9. Those are all flood based cases, the inertial. We have those in our calculation package. They’re actually quite a bit lower from a seismic cause. It’s self-weight.

really sees no outside lateral load.

Crestron: So

if you were, did you even consider higher level just to check? See if you have enough margin. I’ll ask my colleague, Evan, who’s online again, we can perform that check if necessary. I’m just Evan. I’m not sure if we did run that calc again given the DC ratios for the seismic were quite low from an inertial standpoint.

Evan Vinyard (COWI): Yeah. So we we did not end up checking anything that was past the 475 year. But we, when when doing the calculations with the 475 year, the forces that we were seeing were, I mean, significantly, significantly, less than anything that we were seeing for the flood loading

Evan Vinyard (COWI): cause that, as James mentioned, it’s it’s the self weight of the sheet pile. So if you’re doing that on a you know per foot basis, you’ve got, you know, your your 3 inch 3 8 inch thick sheet

Evan Vinyard (COWI): times the height

at, you know.

Evan Vinyard (COWI): and that was about it. Whereas the the flood cases with the wave loading and everything were.

Evan Vinyard (COWI): you know, 200 to 400, you know, pounds per square inch pressure against the side were significantly larger than anything that the self weight was gonna create.

I have few other questions, but I’ll wait for others. Let me follow up on your comments there. Ramine. I had some questions about that also on page 19 of your presentation, you had the the maximum d over C.

Rotational stability was point 9 point 9 0 for the sheet pile wall for the T wall bearing capacity was 0 point 9 9. Is that a structural? So that was a if you look at the I think you might have an older version.

we. We did make a correction on that, because it did not logically make sense. Essentially, again, it’s an army corps looking at factors of safety. Essentially, they are requiring a level of factor safety. And but we were writing like, well, we met it. We’re point 9. We’re right on that. So essentially under bearing capacity, we have a 3.5.

Okay, Evan, can you help me with that?

Evan Vinyard (COWI): Yeah. So that that point 9 9 that was shown there. Originally was. It’s the ratio of the calculated technical safety factor 1.1 1

that was the that was the

Evan Vinyard (COWI): yeah, basically it was. It was the

Evan Vinyard (COWI): oh, man. Sorry. I’m trying to remember here. So it was. It was taking the

Evan Vinyard (COWI): the depth of the of step to fixity ratios. That we were providing versus actual

Evan Vinyard (COWI): that we were calculating out.

Crestron: I guess. What do I say? We’ll probably come back to you on that, and give you a little more clarity. But essentially, and from Bob’s analysis with the wall was found to be stable at the depths going 10 feet into the bay. Mud

again under inertial loading effects and flood cases. That’s about an embedded of roughly 35 feet with a stick up of anywhere between. I think the numbers are about 5 to 13 feet.

You know, ratuing that we essentially had enough tip elevation and again looking at a liquid. Ca faction case. Now the whole soil masses sort of moving in the wall is slightly going along for the ride. We do not see any indication of the wall with

potentially rotate and collapse. And it’s sort of a more severe manner. We can revisit that and give a little bit more clarity on that point. Walls don’t rotate and collapse if you have a safety factor of 1, 3

but that’s not a conventional design, acceptable design safety factor understood. And so I’d be interested in seeing an actual safety factor, or you can turn upside down and have it be a

the performance factor. reduction factor, whatever you want to do. But point point 9, II think what you’re saying is somehow the the depth is. you know, point

9. You know the the death required divided by point 9. So you’ve added an extra few feet or something like that which isn’t a safety factor. You’re correct.

Crestron: along that same line makes since I have the the floor here, and since I’m the chair and no one can take it away from me.

Let let me let me follow up a little bit on that is II got interested in the point 9, and maybe that point 9 is not exactly what I was thinking it meant. But there was nothing really that showed II there’s a ton of C of Cpt data. I assume there’s a lot of lab data. I didn’t see it in any of the

Pdfs that were forwarded to us. This showed how that data was reduced, except for a few averages and some plots of cumulative values, and so on. But I’d be interested in seeing

something that shows how the data was reduced and how you came up with your design values. And actually, what were the strength values that were used in somebody’s analyses. You know I see the analyses. I assume that behind that there’s a lot of maybe Appendix B in the Jutec report was something that that was not provided to us.

Crestron: Ye yes, II can speak to that.

Crestron: There! There was a study done from about 1,998 to 2,001 on the

The.

It was looking at the airport development at at the time, and it was done by Fugro and and muffin and nickel. They were the joint venture. and and most of the Cpt’s that that you saw in Bayside and along the perimeter. And what have you? Those were actually done as part of that that program.

And and the and the program included extensive, very extensive laboratory testing, including a lot of focus on dynamic properties.

And and this is what was available to us and was, is a wealth of information in that regard. And so we drew from that database

to to develop the engineering properties that we used in in our analysis. And and you had that live database, you could analyze it yourselves rather than just taking their summary plots, and so on.

Crestron: We that we had there. We didn’t have a a live database. In a sense, we we had reams and rings of appendices and tables, and and the like, which we which we reviewed.

and and one pistana who has worked with us on on all of the plexus kind of analysis, and selecting the dynamic properties

got got quite involved with with that review as well. And. Juan, maybe I could ask you to speak a bit to the to the soil properties, if

if you don’t mind.

Crestron: So how would one do that?

They’re not

Juan M Pestana: can you hear me. Can you

Juan M Pestana: see me?

Hey? Everyone? Yeah, we got you. Thanks. Nice to see you. So the

Juan M Pestana: so that’s a you know. Very extensive question about the properties. I mean.

Juan M Pestana: we actually have gone through all the cycle characterization, going from a strength to a stiffness to share modules reduction. So do name it, except there is a very, very dense database

Juan M Pestana: for for that particular case. So II think your question is a valid one. It would be helpful if you narrow down a little bit, the the concern would be

Juan M Pestana: the particular property that you may be looking at.

Juan M Pestana: But of course, asking a question with the properties of soil, is like.

Juan M Pestana: you know, asking for a 3 h lecture and install property. So you know, it would be helpful to

Juan M Pestana: specific about the question have you had in mind? Does it make sense?

Crestron: Yeah. And and one, I think we would just.

But I thought you might want to speak to the. to the wealth or to the depth and breadth of the information. But it it it’s it’s a extraordinarily extensive.

yeah, yeah. So so I guess my request would be of the design team. That I that I kind of assumed it looked like from the way you’d done what you had presented that there was a lot behind it that wasn’t presented. But I think.

as ecr be reviewer, I’d be interested in seeing that I’m not gonna spend a lot of time going into it. But just see. the criteria that you used for how you selected properties, how you average, how you pick standard deviations or outliers, and

and so on.

Crestron: We know that the criteria that we would like to see has.

II know, you guys.

Juan M Pestana: that’s that’s an excellent question. That’s an excellent question. So III can tell you of, on the properties, the the purpose. We’re extensively not that. And and you would be surprised. But some of those properties are actually quite quite well behaved. And the

Juan M Pestana: yes, of course there are always outliers, but of course, they are those outliers. So we we tend to look at the at the behavior. We tend to look at the

Juan M Pestana: characteristics of soils. So we we have a lot of database, so as far as testing is concerned, to support or deny the validity of someone else data points. And and of course, as a modeler, I mean speaking now for myself as a model, you, you tend to develop a lot of criteria to see how reasonable.

Juan M Pestana: The relationship between the properties are properties. So the the report was very, very well documented, and and I can attest to

Juan M Pestana: to Bob’s a comment that there was a well from information there, and it seemed to be consistent with several of the reports that we have not for other projects. So, rather than being

Juan M Pestana: in the San Francisco Bay Area things like the Threshold island. They Berkeley report some you know, some properties for San Francisco Bay matter, and so forth. So II do think they are very well established, I mean, if definitely, if you, if you need some clarification, any specific issue?

Juan M Pestana: and how, for example, we determine we use base average base value, based estimates. And when appropriate. And this was a performance, base analysis. But in some cases, for example, for strength, we use the typical, you know, 30%

Juan M Pestana: and you know, characteristics. So so again.

Juan M Pestana: I would be delighted to go at length in any of any of those any of those aspects.

Juan M Pestana: Bob, is that, Tom? What you had in mind.

Crestron: Yes, thank thank you, Juan.

Did you have? Yes, I think that’s fine, I think just to go ahead. I think, Juan, you cited extensive documentation evaluation of that, and maybe just submit some of that to to Jen to the Bcdc, I just so that we have it on record that. Yeah, it’s all been followed. Re related that one follow-on question, one more on page 44. I think of your presentation.

You show the the fiftieth percentile and nineteenth percentile. And then a handful of points that are larger deformations than that.

I.

Crestron: And you know, obviously, we don’t want to have the average wall to perform well, and only fail in

4% of the locations. and let let me clarify. So what what we indicate is that II think this gives a good overview of of what the general field conditions are.

But we we have recommended to the airport that we we do as a large number of additional Cpt’s. where we would

really do a rolling average of calculated values of Ld. As we move along the shoreline.

Crestron: identify areas that

based on that rolling average lead to

Crestron: special attention and as a preliminary matter, we were thinking that

having a an average Ld of a foot is an area that we look more carefully at and consider either ground improvement

along those areas or upgrading the the steel, but And we we have discussed with the airport about ground improvement as a as an included to assure the

the moderate damage performance. Criterias, Matt.

Crestron: we would. We wouldn’t leave that behind. And we do understand that we need to look

very carefully. You know.

Crestron: You know, every few 100 feet, if you will. I mean not not not not right.

Although 62 Cpt’s are a lot. It’s a big distance that we have.

Crestron: Okay.

really, if you got go ahead.

thank you for the presentation. Very nice, very clear. A few questions. If my biggest one really is the selection of seal sheet file

Crestron: right for a

project that clearly is

Crestron: 2085, and beyond, and adapting to it with

so what was the thought process? And were there other alternatives considered to steal, that was one. and then a follow on to that is that I would imagine that with steel

Crestron: is there a

Catholic protection system that is being included as part of the design. If not, I would imagine that it’s probably with the section loss. You’re probably bulking it up right? And so with that bulk up section.

Your Dcrs are still in the just at about one, or is it substantially greater than one because of the thicker section anticipating section loss in the future.

Crestron: So maybe I’ll stop with that and few other questions which are different topics. Right? So for the the first item as far as alternatives there was an alternatives, analysis, phase, which is actually performed by a different consulting group before we came on board the report looked at a variety of different types of blood protection, Perth and levies

steel sheet piles concrete, retaining walls, concrete panel sheet piles again, a wide variety of different alternatives through that analysis. And looking at sort of the the life and the kind of looking at cost today versus future they made a determination at that time that they still sheet pile, while with a a coding, was the most economical solution for them

for this project. Again, thinking through the period of 2085 leading into that sort of the second part of your questions, we are planning to have a coating on the steel sheet piles on the above portion. We’ll extend it a short distance into the ground.

That coating and the wall itself again. The majority of the time is right at the edge of the shoreline. It will be accessible by foot. On either side of the wall. There is no flood waters, there is no soil retain tension on it, so it is accessible. So the expectation is, if the airport chooses to do so, and a maintenance program, they could maintain the coating over the life of the wall to further extend it.

We, as a kind of a design approach to date. We’ve assumed that they will not maintain the wall again. This is not their decision that you know. Very likely they will. But for conservatism, we assume no

maintenance. So the coding we gave a life of, I believe, about 10 to 15 years. At that point we calculated the corrosion rates we’d expected, based on exposure and and use those for the calculations. The DC. Ratios you were seeing in that table at end of service life 2085 against

the full design loads. So they are much better. DC ratios. you know, in the first 2030, 40 years they’re much better, and then they get less and less towards the end.

Crestron: Thank you. Yeah, thanks for that.

you know. And and so it wasn’t just from that. You know, my, my other biggest question concern is the Cpg. Right? So cpige is a very large piece of any kind of fema floodwall, particularly in segments where

the backland is just about at present day. Bfe! So in the future, even with a modest amount of sea level rise. the steel barrier is the only

separation from the base.

Crestron: So Matt had alluded to it in one of his slides. So currently, as far as this project is concerned. Again, with the media goal of getting Fema getting essentially off the fema map.

we are driving our sheet piles to a distance into the young bay mud to act as a deterrent to groundwater from coming under but obviously over a long enough period of time. With sea level rise. The expectation is, the groundwater interior will will increase, and there could be some potential for seepage.

kind of a long-term projection is eventually again an add on project, not district project. There will be a drainage system. Would it tie into the interior drainage system at the airport and handle sort of that seepage issue? We’re extending the sheets down in preparation for the eventuality that a system like that may be needed.

But again, for this particular project. It’s not needed today, but for sure in the future. And so again. Immediate need is, let’s get off the map.

Okay. My second question was, I didn’t see a plan. I saw only at the end of runway 19, where there is some fill that is taking place. But I see, I think, on Slide 2

Crestron: There are roads being pushed out also up to what 120 feet or so so.

and that is in Reach’s.

Crestron: Oh, is it between reaches 7 and 13? I guess your slide says.

and so

Crestron: is that a new perimeter system that is being created?

Well, David has stepped out, but I’ll do my best as essentially, that’s the Vehicle Service Road. There’s an existing vehicle service road at the airport the current road in certain areas is required does not meet faa requirements.

There is a waiver that they have to request. I’m not sure if that’s annually, but they have to get an exemption from Faa. It is too close to the taxiways, the wing tips.

The idea of the movement of the Vs. Our vehicle service road is to come in conformance with with that, the idea being that if this project goes forth we don’t want to permanently lock in a deviation from the Faa, and that is essentially the reason for those

shifts in the Vsr. So, David, there was a question about the Vsr, so hopefully I covered it. Yeah, my question was, is the Vsr within the existing footprint of the runway? 28 area? Or is it a new edge that is being created for the Vsr.

Hmm. Well, the the existing Bsr along the runway. 19. Excuse me, runway 19 right? And then also around both the 2, 8, yeah, 28 as well. So those will all be also be shifted out

again. My question is, when you say shifted out, are they on new fill in the bay? Which means the new perimeter is being created, or is it within the footprint of the existing

Crestron: shown here would have to be implemented

in order to ship that the the Dsr.

Crestron: If you can go to slide 5,

you know, my question is really on the other reaches on reaches 13 and 14. Is there a new perimeter being created for the Vsr.

Crestron: The answer is, yes, very nominal. We’re minimizing it to the maximum extent possible. It’s much less than at the end of the runways.

But there is at certain components certain areas. We are pushing out a little bit to accommodate that Vsr outboard of the existing dyke system. Correct correct

Crestron: that. So it is a large retention structure. Now at that point, right? I mean, it’s not just a flood wall like in the other reaches. No. There again, when when the wall gets installed essentially, that shoreline will look just the same, or just

sliding it out. And so the wall itself again does not have differential loading of significance. You know there’s maybe a foot or 2 here and there on each side of the wall, but there’s no reach where it’s essentially holding back and retaining soil of significance.

I see

Crestron: I don’t know. Last question was, and I think there’s some other stuff. Maybe Gail might speak to it, but I did see that?

What was it? 90%. So the ninetieth percentile of the lateral displacement of the Ld is at about 2 feet.

which

Crestron: you know. So 10% is is still substantial, you know, that will need to be treated. Are you thinking? Tie backs, or are you thinking?

Just continue with the cantilever assumption and just go deeper

Crestron: cool. Do you mind? Take this? Yeah, from a structural standpoint. You know, once we treat the soil locally.

you know, any sort of seismic risk really starts to go away right. Our our risk is the liquefaction, the the soil interaction with the sheets. So the ideas would be more of ground improvement methodologies.

because again, in the ultimate, the wall itself will not be retaining any soil. It’s purely there to wait for the flood waters to come, which you know, aren’t there often, but it has no retention. So we’re not anticipating adding to any structural elements to be purely ground improvement methods to strengthen the soil locally.

Crestron: Thank you. That’s what I had. Can I take 1 s to? Get a better answer to you about the point 9 on the rotational. So II got the facts from Evan. Here I sent you are correct. We designed the wall to meet a requirement of 1.3 against rotational stability.

Our wall, as currently designed, is 1.4 5, is our rotation factor. Safety 1.3 over 1.4 5 is point 9. Not typical way to present it. So apologize for that. But that is our design.

Crestron: We fixed. We we fixed one. We didn’t fix the other. You’re correct.

If I understood it correctly. you said you use the PGA at reach 6 for liquefaction analyses

Crestron: what was the basis of that.

and I also think I heard that Beach 6 has the thickest payment. which I would expect to have a lot of reductions in terms of pgas. At this at the surface.

And considering the 19 reaches, which means 19 significantly different subsurface conditions to consider what is the basis there.

Crestron: And also, it’s very curious that

reach 6 gave the highest lateral deformations.

Crestron: And why would

you know, go through all of this analysis that you did, and you chose one result from one reach to consider for the whole project.

Crestron: have some other questions, but

we we select to reach 6

Crestron: be because of the the large depth that is the the reach with the with the thickest layer of of yoga. MoD,

we we did our plexus analysis in in that reach. and our expectation is, and I,

Crestron: that that, based on the

and and the the lateral deformations that come out of the plexus analysis are primarily driven by the shear strains within the underlying young bay mud. And and it’s for that reason we

we we felt that that that was the the critical section for the for the for the plexus analysis. we.

Crestron: We followed

suit on that and and the this one dimensional site response analysis that we’re doing here. It was done for a couple of reasons, of course, and well, it’s supporting. Reach 6. Our expectation that reach 6 is the critical section.

Overall for the the lateral displacements. Now keep keeping in mind that the that the plexus analysis didn’t explicitly consider the the liquefaction. But it, you know, really driven by the

by, the the young bay mud. So the site response analysis was done at Read 6. It was used to

Crestron: develop the the motions at the base of the Paxis model, the

to to translate the ground motions from the the rock to the base of the plexus model. It was done to using deep soil to compare that to to the re response of the one dimensional plaxis model. So it was a calibration kind of activity.

Crestron: and and we did then as as we

subsequently did, the the liquid faction assessment we anchored, if you will, on the on the on the on the PGA of of about point 2.

That’s there at reach 6 now, there has been some some discussion about expanding that to to to look at different soil profiles and variation of PGA at the ground surface, as it relates to the lip of action

assessments. At the analysis that we’ve done to date on the on the liquifaction assessment has used the the site, response analysis and Mpga based on on reach.

Crestron: So I think that Ramen is is the point leading up to that

thicker bay mud will give you will will shake a tall building worse than thinner bay mud, but it will give you it will, and it will amplify weak ground motions. But W. Is likely to attenuate really strong ground motions like you’re going to have from a 5 or 6 kilometer away.

San Andreas event, and so

Crestron: for PGA specifically reach 6 may may be unconservative

for the design level earthquake of the 7, 8 at 6 kilometers. Hmm.

Juan M Pestana: may I interject? There, just for a second?

Yes, please.

Juan M Pestana: Yeah. So II think I have perhaps a simpler answer.

Juan M Pestana: So what we were looking at the behavior for the day month.

Juan M Pestana: So it made sense to analyze

Juan M Pestana: reach 6. And then, when we analyze local faction. If we wanted to somehow see how to combine we did it for for reach 6. And then we we wanted to expand that. So we use the the point to more like

Juan M Pestana: for equality

Juan M Pestana: over evaluation, because the the PGA for each individual Cbt, which has a very different, we have a different sole profile is different.

Juan M Pestana: So it would have been need the the analysis on the evaluation of the results much more difficult. So II think the idea here was to use that as a screening tool

Juan M Pestana: for the system, and to see which areas which of the reaches we’re more vulnerable and then focus the attention of

Juan M Pestana: the site investigation to narrow down the

Juan M Pestana: the areas where they have so many Asian needs to be done. I mean all the areas where remediation may not be necessary. So

Juan M Pestana: II do. II do agree with you that there was the first of all, this was not a combined analysis. We we did not do sideways pause with all combined, which could have been done for one of those reaches at one specific location for one particular set of conditions, but it wouldn’t be able to be done for 62 of them even less for more.

Juan M Pestana: So I think you have to understand that graph as a screening tool tool says, if you were to use point to which was consistent for the reach 6 that we analyze.

Juan M Pestana: then this is what we’d see for all the other ones. Yes, absolutely. All the older locations will have a different. So profile will have a different

Juan M Pestana: Ega will have a different amplification, and so forth. And that was not possible to do it systematically. So the choice was made to do it that way. And and then what that gave is to give a very clear indication that their phone areas they’re more susceptible than others. And that’s where we should focus

Juan M Pestana: you sign investigation.

Juan M Pestana: And for those areas, then we can have a representative combined so profile of the Bay mode and the

Juan M Pestana: characteristics on the fill that we can analyze together, and then you could. It’s very difficult, as you will know, to add 2 things that are no wind. So the the response of the fell adding, the map is essentially a screening tool is not, should not be viewed.

Juan M Pestana: So that’s the answer. But it’s a very good screening tool.

Juan M Pestana: And so once we have those areas fully defined, then you can do something that is more specific. And then we do a service, pause by information analysis with the profile. So that that’s my take on on the question. So I hope that

Juan M Pestana: then perhaps shed some light on the, on the choices.

Crestron: but I think it’s also could

acknowledging the conditions change, and our different. and you may get different answers, different places from a system that

is structural.

For the most part.

Crestron: then it begs the question, that is, that an appropriate level of demand that is being considered for these particular

segment or reaches. so that you make sure that reach 17 with the system that you are designing for it has the right demand on it.

Crestron: II can answer that. And again it it sounds like something we should look a little bit closer at, but from purely a

seismic demand again, from a structural perspective. The flood case

Crestron: is significantly more than we’re seeing. Again, from an inertial standpoint.

View, increase the Pgna Pg, or say PGA, or the each reach again, we can ultimately check that during the design, or probably, you know, during the final design that will be a check. My anticipation is, the flooding case will still control the structural design

by an order of magnitude. If I’m incorrect, the way to address that will be essentially thickened. The wall thickness, and A. Z. 19700 is not a particularly thick

sheet pile. Wall it, that is again driven by the economics, and also our flood demands. But if we do ever run into a case where the values of seismic inertial

demands are much higher, we have a way to address that. Okay, thank you.

Crestron: Nick. Nick, you had your hand up.

Crestron: Okay, since

Crestron: yeah, since the

question here is resiliency against flooding.

Crestron: I think it was your slide 28. But I’m not quite clear you indicated that there is a potential

in certain settings to have inundation at I don’t know which one hit the inundation map. from, I think, was San Bruno reach

Crestron: Channel.

And my question is that, yeah. Okay. So it would be 55, is it?

Crestron: Yeah, this 1 56.

Crestron: What provisions you? You indicated that

you know you think that the current. whatever pumping stations there are to evacuate the water are sufficient. But have you really carefully looked at that these are

properly resilient? I’m I’m thinking. You know, it’s not exactly the same thing. Fukushima power plant had plenty of pumps. The power supply for those pumps was flooded.

and therefore those pumps didn’t work, and 30 cm of water on the runway effectively shut down. A few centimeters of water on the runway. Shut down the airport. So? My question is, have you, you know, in the overall evaluation of resiliency against flooding? Have you carefully looked at that those

elements are, in fact. well

Crestron: situated, so that you can prevent

damage to those elements that are critical to keep the water out, should there be overtopping by whatever means?

No, it’s a very good point. again what our analysis showed, and it was a very detailed combination of an interior drainage analysis performed by H. And TV and Lotus, our consultant, looking again at the Riverine, this analysis was again driven as part of Fema’s

requirement for a Colomar Lomar package. You have to look at all flood sources. Beinga put the airport on the map due to coastal flooding. However, we have to make sure we have addressed coastal flooding and all our all other sources

in this particular case. The river, and analysis, as indicated on the slide, has shown a couple of spill points. We’ve taken those and inputted those into the interior drainage model H and TV ran and calculated and reran the analysis and showed the current pump systems can handle that

flooding. Now, as far as the resiliency of those as part of the Clomar and package of the Lomar Package airport is required to prepare an operation maintenance manual.

identifying many of the topics you’ve you’ve brought up that these pumps will be operational when they’re needed. That’s part of. They will not give you a letter of map revision unless they have confidence that your system will be there when it needs to be there, and that includes the operations of the pump systems.

In particular, we have identified, you know, the vulnerabilities of the airport flooding much of the power, and the transformers are within this perimeter without the flood wall. You know they’re very vulnerable. Hence this project.

once the flood wall’s there that does provide. The major source of flooding being coastal will now be cut off. Now we’re dealing with interior drainage situation, which is again, that’s something they’re living with right now. They have their interior drainage system has been effective, it has been maintained. It has a proven sort of history to that.

So the expectation is the operation and maintenance that’s in place right now, which has effectively kept those pumps running for the better part of 30, 40 years, will be effective in the future.

so that’s our position. Having having worked on the project here in California, upwardly. expectations were. and nobody actually looked at what the reality was.

I would suggest that some consideration be given about making sure that the elevations of all these elements are above any potential flood flood, hazard the fact that they worked today.

It’s fantastic. I’m happy to hear that. but we’re looking at future. And so it’s a while elevating the runway. Might be a much more difficult problem because you can’t maintain the

operational operation of the airport. Elevating the power supplies above any potential inundation level is a relatively minor things that would be easily easy to do. So what I’m saying is that looking backwards

is not really the way to address this issue. The the issue should be address. Looking forward. That would be my recommendation. Definitely understood again, from a philosophical approach, the airport essentially had choices.

One take all the critical elements and raise them up and just accept flooding across the airport. They’ve chosen option 2, which is to is that essentially protect against the coastal flooding

by building the wall. So I aren’t completely understand. But the idea of all these critical pieces of infrastructure are now going to be located behind this wall which is providing the flood protection. There may be absolutely benefits to consider raising critical pieces. And that’s something

we’ll discuss with Sfo. But again, the fundamental. I definitely understand I’ve seen both approaches. But this case, they decided investing in raising all these pieces of equipment. We’re gonna protect the entire area. Because again. There’s a lot of benefits beyond even those critical and elements.

the wider spread Sfo getting it off the flood map.

Crestron: Gail, I think you’re next up.

Yeah, a few questions. so it sounds like you’re saying that seismics just flat out, not governing anything. I would say from us a structural engineer’s standpoint.

It’s not a significant from a loading standpoint, flooding out ways from a Geo technical soil structure in action. It’s very important. I just I did note, Bob, you mentioned

you were looking at Dcrs based on mild steel. but it looked like you’re basis of design, was specifying 50 or 60 ksi steel for the sheet pile walls. So it’s even more conservative. Right?

Yeah, the comparisons that I’ve made

Crestron: very conservative because we compared the moment demand to a

capacity is actually an allowable moment

Crestron: based based on a mile steel. And indeed, you’re planning a stronger. Is that correct? Yeah, it is correct. Again, given a little bit of the uncertainty. Still, with Cpt data, we didn’t want to go too far if you conserve it at this stage.

And I also understand. So

Crestron: there’s very few areas where there’s going to be

soil behind the actual sheep bells are mostly just cantilevered sticking up. Yes, that’s correct. I actually can’t think of any particular area where we’re retaining any soil of significance.

Okay? So that takes care of that. Can you go to your slide where you showed the extent of lateral displacement. It was like, Slide 39 on the dropped when you said.

Yeah, I think you had one for each but 6 and one for each 7. Yeah. What? What is the lateral? What is the horizontal distance? Going back to? How? Where? You’re having 2 feet of displacement? I was having trouble reading the scales.

Crestron: Oh, oh, it’s

yeah. nominally.

Crestron: Yeah.

Crestron: at 20 or 30 feet of 2 feet.

Okay? And what?

Crestron: What? What are you? What are you impacting at this point, I mean, are you like

hitting the edges of the runway, or what kind of are you in terms of? I’m just looking at the performance. How local, how local are the displacements? That’s where I’m going with this.

Crestron: And and and this is Reach 7 that we’re looking at here. That that was the analysis for reach 7. So this is

not not typical floodwall. But this is the the reach, 7 floodwall. And and we we analyze that cheap file being in the in the center, as I recall, of the perimeter diet.

and I believe the the top width of that was

Crestron: nom nominally 30 feet or so, so that that particular, that particular setback, I think.

20 or 30 feet, so that it it, that setback is probably 10 or 15 feet scale from the edge. So how far, how far back.

Crestron: how far back away from the cheapel wall

do you have to get before you would actually start impacting any operations. That’s what that’s kind of. So maybe a better slide with the overall airport map. Majority of these are, you know, away from the runway.

so the the nearest physical element of that’s being used by the airport is the vehicle Service road. You know, and there’s also sort of a curve. There is locations. The vehicle service road will be very close, basically adjacent within 5 to 10 feet of the wall.

So there those are locations where there could be some localize cracking of the payment, so on. But the actual runways are further away now. With that in mind again, our wall, our project and our focus of our analysis is on the flood wall.

We haven’t analyzed behaviors further back, much further back from I seismic standpoint, if you understand, like looking at liquid faction across the wider air field. Yeah. Yeah. But but

as far as the impact of the seawall goes. it sounds like it. It truly won’t impact operations. Yeah, ultimately, the in the wall itself. If we built the wall tomorrow and then had the big earthquake the day, after all you would be doing is returning to your current situation today.

Right? There’s a flood risk. The flood risk will be restored

Crestron: in the future. The flood risks are increasing over time with sea level rise. So it does become. You know, the performance of the wall does start to become a little bit more critical to operations because it reintroduces a flood risk. It doesn’t. The behavior of it seismically

has no impact on anything else on the airport other than the flood risk component to it. Okay. I was curious. Going back to actually remains very first question about

using 475 years. It sounded like you said, it’ll have a big cost impact, but everything else I’m hearing sounds like it will have almost no cost impact again. I may have misspoke in the sense of if we are my thinking on. That was if we were trying to prevent

any sort of lateral or liquifaction behavior, and to a very high case.

Crestron: the cost of ground improvement over a much, much broader sense. There’s significant cost

Bob. And our approach right now is to be more selective, based on Cpt data where the most benefit to the airport for ground improvement will be obtained. And again, it’s a cost balance ratio.

Structurally. yeah, you can throw a bigger earthquake, and it will be fine geotechnically. So a structure in action is where there’s, you know, some concern, the bigger event you look.

Okay.

Crestron: II think that pretty much takes care of my question.

Justin. I think you’re next up.

Hi, Justin Vandiver. I wanted to start with just kind of a general comment about the sea. Over rise criteria and the adoption of 3 and a half feet which seems like an appropriate

number for kind of an initial build. and that essentially, what’s documented in the report is that the risk that the airport is taking on of sea level rise exceeding that amount is essentially

just loss of fema accreditation initially. and then, as it gets higher, then you have potential person wave overtopping and maybe flooding. so that all seems fine.

Crestron: I wanted to ask if the

if it’s billed as proposed. and sea level rise does exceed 3 and a half feet.

Crestron: and there’s no additional adaptation implemented. Has that water level and wave loading been assessed for higher sea level rise on the as built conditions?

Let’s hit the wall could accommodate those loads with no further adaptation. Action.

Crestron: And in essence we have looked at sort of these stream, I think, as a 750 year sort of flooding event.

The wall and it’s in itself, in a certain sense, controls a load. So once the water reaches a certain height and goes over the top. There’s no load on that wall, right? So if we don’t adapt it

that, extra water is going to go over the top and cause issues of flooding, you know, hopefully be handled by the interior pump system. But that’s not our intent. So from a structural standpoint

once the water reaches the top, it can’t really introduce more load to the wall. Now we have looked at adaptable potential adaptation on the sheet piled by adding, Let’s say, a concrete cap. Right now we have a bent plate, partly for seismic performance. We’re trying to. If we get seismic moving, having a rigid seismic cap on it

creates sort of locked in behavior. We want to have a certain level of flexibility to dissipate the energies and also make it easier to repair. But in the future, again, the site flooding risk starts out weighing that we could add a concrete cap. If you’ve seen the Foster City project

essentially what they built there that can easily gain a foot and a half 2 feet extra height in the future, if necessary. So no other modifications would be needed to the wall.

No. Again, ultimately, during the final design, these are some of the criteria will establish for the the design builder. As far as performance criteria. They would have to consider that case if there was an adaptation when they designed the sheet

to make sure they build that in and pick appropriate thickness of the sheet to accommodate additional height and additional flood forces water forces on the wall.

Crestron: and then, in terms of the

fema accreditation, I just wanted to note that it, you know, based on the information presented. It appear that Pre. Board and conditions are appropriate to attain.

See my accreditation. and that I appreciated that incorporation, see overize into the analysis as opposed to just adding it. They split elevations.

Crestron: so thanks for that.

A just to go back to the discussion about, like the combined sort of co-occurrence of a seismic and flood event. can you just for to describe, like.

what is that post-sismic condition of the wall. Look like you talked about lateral displacement. Is there any like vertical change or settlement of the wall, or like separation?

They could allow water to pass into the airfield. Not not like if a hundred year event were to occur, but just like a king tide, or some like a much more common event

are there gaps or a drop in the wall? It could result in flooding, even in the absence of like a severe coastal storm event.

Crestron: Again. This is a problem that gets worse over time. So again, in today’s case, you need close to the 100 Year Flood event to flood us, though

that’s a bit less. But you know you need to get closer when you start looking at 2050, or 2085 end of service life. That’s where you could potentially get king tides or small storms, causing kind of a turnaround and a flooding event.

Maybe, Bob, I’ll I’ll let you respond a little bit. You’ve been looking at kind of post performance. And what’s the expected damage after, say, 475 year event?

Yes,

Crestron: we. We have looked at the post performance, we we focus on the lateral movement. And I and I think the the primary movement that we’re we’re dealing with here.

Is lateral, although there, you know, there there may be some down shaking of the of the fill. It itself course. The pile is driven through the fill.

Crestron: Having having said that the the pile is deep, it it goes through the pill, it goes into the 10 feet into the underlying

young Baymont. So we we believe the

Crestron: you know, the the thing that

you know, the primary movement that that’s going to occur is lateral

Crestron: as far as damage to the sheep piles. I think the

the the potential, for we’ve looked at the the stress conditions in the sheet files and and and and that assumes that it’s essentially a plate, if if you will, in the in the process analysis. So

we th, there is some potential, and particularly at sharp turns, if you will, for for the interlocks to, to. to, to be compromised. And and I think that you know that that would be a potential for

a need for a repair. You know, following the earthquake. But we do think that that would fall into a repairable category.

Crestron: That’s pretty much a summary of. And the kind of that post performance, and how very air program reacting. And it’s still being and discussed. But our expectation is after a post

events. Right now. We’re reintroducing a flood risk. addition to, I’m sure some of the other issues they’re addressing at Sfo. After a large sizing event like this. The expectation is you can bring in

fan sandbags. Things like that look for the gaps that may form again. If we have some differential movements where the wall changes directions to temporarily fill that again at re, add back in some level of flood protection, to provide

an interim period until more long term permanent repairs can occur. But that was our our belief. And again. the immediate next 25 years going to be very rare, but it will increase. So having that sort of plan in action is is something we have been discussing with us about.

Okay. yeah, just think it could be good to sort of document the thinking around the potential, for I mean when you read it, and you say, Well, what’s the likelihood of a large earthquake, followed by a hundred year coastal storm. You’re like, yeah, that seems really unlikely.

But the possibility of a king tide with 3 feet of sea level rise. And that’s a much higher water level than it is today.

Crestron: Flooding through. I mean, that would be a lot of water coming through.

Yeah, we have actually ran some of those scenarios and shared with us.

Yeah, let me just observe that we were sort of aiming for 30’clock, and it’s 12 min after 30’clock we started, maybe 12 or 15 min late, but

see if we can wrap up quickly. Ramen, you got your hand up again.

Crestron: I wanna be making sure that I’m clear

Crestron: as you, said James. Flooding is one thing, soil structure, interaction in terms of movements, and the

Crestron: performance of the system is a different thing.

Crestron: Do I understand correctly

that

Crestron: one set of

deep soil runs were run at. preach 6,

Crestron: and that form the entire basis for all the other analyses. Am I correct?

Yes, okay. so. And then the comment was made that that soil column. the response at the top of the old bay clay

was taken as input. In all the Plaxis runs

the the ground motions at that level. At that. Yeah, the the ground oceans at the rock were defined. and then what they

and turned out to be at that particular level was documented. And that was the input to the and that’s from Reach 6.

Crestron: That’s that’s correct.

Okay? So that begs the question that whatever is between rock and the top of the old bay clay is seen everywhere else.

Crestron: What is the basis of that

Crestron: conclusion, or that assessment? Or that point?

Crestron: The

keep keeping in mind that the focus of the the analysis, the 2 dimensional plexus analysis where reaches 6 and 7, that that is a a localized area that we’re dealing with.

Crestron: that that

keeping, that in mind. We we so SSI was only done at reaches 6 and 7. That that’s right. The blacks analysis that you saw was only done at 6 and 7.

Crestron: Then whatever results that came out of that was applied

everywhere else

Crestron: for structural evaluation, for ground deformation, evaluation.

hazard evaluation.

Crestron: So, Bob, maybe I’ll add, at least from our perspective, from instruct. Again, the airport itself.

entire airport, and all these reaches is was filled like going back to the original shoreline. so the that layer in question. It, you know, varies in thickness. Bob and his team calculated, you know, the depth to the top of young Bay mud.

Crestron: The rest of it is assumed.

You know there there may be differences within the bill, but within the kind of the aggregate of this project we felt that was a good representation of that material. And so kind of you have this young bay mud layer

still layer surface, and that’s why we felt that reach 6 and 7 was appropriate. When you look at reaches one to 15, all of them have that same layering effect.

Crestron: I understand that. But

then, what was the criterion in terms of calling one area reach one versus the next one, reach 2. Was it just thickness of the fill, and be my well, the reaches are actually more driven by physical structure. When this project was laid out, there was trying to sort of manage the description and presentation

7 and over 7 miles a wall. It’s kind of hard to get your head around. So there was a breakup of the reaches more driven by what you’re physically seeing there currently on the surface versus any sort of subsurface designation. So the link between the reaches and what’s the soil properties is not a

that wasn’t the driver. It was more of like reach, one along the North San Breno Canal. You go outreach to around the fuel farms, reach Fors Coastguard quite honestly. That’s how we divided it.

Now. Bob and his team looked at every reach to identify the thicknesses of the bay mud and the bills. And then through that basically said, you know what reach 607 at this stage, in the analysis, is representative for us to create a representative design that we can present and say, you know, generally, the expectation this behavior is going to hold

across. Now, there may be variances based on local, but not to the point where we feel our design is presented would no longer apply. That’s understandable that the where it wouldn’t wouldn’t work. Our DC. Ratios would go from point 7 to 1.3 from a structural standpoint.

Crestron: I think you’re planning to do some additional analysis. Right? You’re you’re pushing a whole lot more cones, and I think there’ll be a better definition of the thickness of bay mud, tops, and top and bottom of bay mud, so I can’t can’t speak to this from the timing, and one that occurs is still being discussed with Sfo. Again, this is a progressive design build project.

Crestron: Ultimately there will be a design build team

comes in and finalize the design. The timing of that. it’s going to occur. Whether it happens under our team or this, follow follow on

that will be to be determined. So as as the Ecr. We don’t care about the timing exactly as long as we would like to. By the time the project is built and impacting the bay.

that the appropriate design criteria has been implemented throughout. And I think what you’re suggesting remain is that by the time all is said and done. We want to make sure that you know, reach 6 may or may not be the the most representative, and that there may need to be some additional specific analyses at other specific profiles

to to confirm that that there’s appropriate pgas or other depth ground motion site responses. I fully concur. The the long term plan. As a you know, the engineer of record, not our team.

That expectation is, they have to look at every reach. And there is data gaps in the Cpt’s that we have identified. We’ve used the information we have to extrapolate the behavior. But, as Bob has, you know, mentioned and presented.

there is a clear cap. The expectation is more cpted, but there’s also subsequent reanalysis that would.

We’re expecting to be appropriate to perform kind of suggesting that. And also

Crestron: there is a basis that you chose. A system for a particular reach.

Is that being looked at completely in a specific way to say, Yeah, this is the right system for reach number, whatever

Crestron: ye? Yes. And again, we’ve looked at that for each of the reaches to date, and our best

based on where we are with the data we have key pile works for reaches 2 through 14 concrete retaining walls reaches one and 15 is currently where we’re at during the final design.

Again, there’s boundaries on what could be changed to. But generally it’s gonna fall into one of those 2 categories. For the majority being. Still, she piles that final design team will be the designers a record signing stamp in order to do that more geotechnical data, and produce much more calculations than we have at this stage. Thank you.

Crestron: Keeping your head. How you might formulate that as a motion for the end. I think

what we’re gonna need to do. Aima, you had your hand up.

Okay, I have a few just short question.

Crestron: the first one is, for Jim is kind of related to the question that Dilla passed to you about corrosion effects.

Crestron: I think you had indicated that the rate of corrosion. I mean, you basically determine how much corrosion would take place.

And you’ve sort of a concept for that in your on the highest.

Crestron: That is correct. We use the Caltrans guidance, I think.

recently updated in 2021. They give frozen rates. piles, steel piles, and sheep piles

Crestron: in a atmospheric splash zone commercial use those rates. We also use army Us. Navy guidance on kind of durability of coding, and that kind of our basis.

Crestron: So my suggestion would be, I mean

kind of dog sweat

Crestron: corrosion related to salt there, I mean, which is what

the issue is here the rate of corrosion changes is very site specific. So

Crestron: a generic

rate of corrosion. It’s fine. But I think that project size you want to be

Crestron: site specific, and maybe the services of corrosion engineers. It’s required to make sure

the salt air.

Crestron: basically model that they are using.

It’s applicable to this location.

Crestron: no, definitely noted corrosion rates are very hard to predict. What we are recommending. Airport is again a durable marine coding on the sheets.

Then the corrosion rates hopefully, it is maintained as anticipated. So the corrosion that we’re going to calculate

Crestron: conservative.

That’s

Crestron: coding will be maintained. You’ll never see the

point well taken.

Crestron: Alright. Ii looked at the details. I

I was kind of interested in what the existing conditions before you do your

pause

construction. I don’t see any existing walls in terms of the sheet pile. It looks like, what do you have? Is mostly a firm type

Crestron: structure, or it’s actually a mix within the basis of design documents. We we submitted so images of each of the reaches. There are some reaches where a vinyl sheet calls

was built, particularly around reaches 14 that provide current level protection. There’s concrete flood walls along other reaches. Some are urban firms, and some, for instance, outreach for the Coast Guard is essentially unprotected. Central Coast Guard, straight town of the bay.

Crestron: Okay. So your new construction is going to be outboard

of all these existing

Crestron: it’s sort of a mix match. But it’s going to be very close to alignment, and the idea is that whatever gets built you’re not removing the flood protection there

until the new one goes in, because we don’t want to reintroduce less protection during construction.

Crestron: That’s the intent right now. If you go through the drawings you can see

the location of the existing structures. Okay.

Crestron: thank you. So for Bob. I think you had mentioned. You know you were discussing the availability of this wealth of information.

Soft surface information

Crestron: is that related to the Defund

runway extension that

Crestron: was done by Fugro 3 years ago. Yes.

that data is

Crestron: yes, I that that is the study.

and it was, I think, related to airport expansion, but it but

Crestron: and and that that that is the the data and the reports that are you able to lay hands on? Yes, yeah. Because

I was familiar with what they were doing. I mean, they were actually doing pull in swab from the ground and testing them

Crestron: on that on that book, you know, that was

abort. So

Crestron: right they had that information. Then I think that’s a great

wealth of information

Crestron: using that. That’s correct. That’s that’s the primary source of the engineering property data. Okay?

So the other question I had is related to the actual installation of the sheet file.

Crestron: From my experience at the airport

a lot of the fill other than the hydraulic fill was from the San Bruno mountains.

Crestron: Okay? And they had large pieces of

rock in in some cases in the Phil. So so you need to be aware of that in terms of. you know. Drive-in sheet pops.

Crestron: you know. You might want to look more into the historical call

data. With respect to the characteristics of the material

Crestron: into which we are going to be driving this sheet file

a. Absolutely. This is a consideration. I part of the other benefits of the future. Cpt is to try to see if there is difficulty. That’ll be an indicator

we have in re meeting and researching what sheets have been driven at the airport in the past. Again, there has been final sheets.

Crestron: admittedly, are not always the most robust in the airport. Generally had successes there. We’ve had, made a couple visits to Foster City and their plug protection wall.

very similar type of

Crestron: construction. And we they had a procedure where

they had a crew ready to pre drill out ahead as they were driving the sheets to keep the production line moving again, being a design built means and methods ultimately decided. But you’re very correct. It’s a it’s something we’re considering

and then finally, for Bob, I mean, you mentioned deep compaction for

Crestron: the I was kind of curious. I mean, what kind of material that you

thinking of using ourselves

Crestron: for? For the the new field being placed. Our intent is to have

granular material, and this would be dredge filled that would be brought into

Crestron: for the the fill behind the dyke. That that would be dredge material that would be brought in for the

for the dike itself. We have in mind using questions question for that. and that would be quarry material. So I mean, the deep compaction is for

the dyke, or this. I think it’s it’s amenable to to both. In in the system that

Crestron: that we’re thinking of. It’s it’s essentially for long, heavy duty

H. Piles that are have have a weight and vibrates itself into the ground. Yeah, I mean, I was just curious, I mean, with the horrid material probably would work. But if you’ve got

a lot of fines and

Crestron: the material that’s behind it died.

I mean, that might not be an effective way to.

Crestron: you know, compact that material.

II think the the the properties of the fill that we expect, and we’ll of course it will be specified. It will be an imported material. I think it’s it is so. The quality

similar to that. This was. use the Treasure island where this technique has been used within the the the general bill. Okay. Alright, thank you.

Crestron: Thanks.

a.

Crestron: I guess we need to wrap up pretty quickly here.

I, too. Maybe one quick, quick, quick question. It seems like what you’ve got is up to 100 to 250 feet of fill that’s extending out in some places. Is that

Crestron: I mean, in 10 years on the Ecr we cringe when someone puts a layer of ripped wrap in because it’s kind of encroaching into the bay fill.

Just to observe, this is kind of an extraordinary fill over the last, you know, since they stopped randomly filling and dumping refuse in the bay.

I guess you’ve addressed all that properly with in other places besides the Ecr. I think it’s not really our purview, but just just to make that observation and passing that this is kind of an extraordinary event in the San Francisco Bay in recent decades.

Crestron: We do have to mitigate that bill, and we’re working with the army corps the water board of Ddc, on that, putting together a mitigation package. Okay, good enough.

And I think then the the deep compaction that you’re talking about it sounds like it’s relatively preliminary in your design considerations, and so

possibly you’ll address that further, or possibly that it would go to the design, build people to address that further.

Crestron: This this is preliminary for sure, and it it needs to be addressed further by the

during during the final design.

Crestron: So fellow board members, what do we think, are we done, or we wanna see it again?

Jim, I just like to point out the questions that I put in the staff report for the board. Consider alright. I didn’t present those earlier scenarios and design criteria in the geotechical stability analysis appropriate for the site, hazards and conditions and site criticality.

Crestron: Our current and future flooding concerns, IE. From groundwater, coastal and rivering, flooding sea level rise, address adequately based on the references and the nature of the project

Crestron: as the applicant demonstrated that adverse impacts to adjacent properties

Crestron: from the project have been minimized in the design.

Crestron: You know, I need to share screen. I guess.

Okay.

Crestron: is there any data monitoring you recommend Vcd. To require the applicant to enhance the future safety of the project in light of its projected 60 year, estimated lifespan. Are there any other design and physical concerns that have not been addressed?

Crestron: So I think that we’ve talked through pretty much all of these without

referencing these specific bullets. But it seems to me that there’s probably some additional things that need to be done, at least before it goes to construction. Whether it happens

after it goes out to the design build team, or what happens before. I think is not necessarily within our control. But I think that probably we have a few questions that we would like to

see addressed before we sign off on the project for the final time. Fair enough. I wonder if we can.

Crestron: just throw out a little bullet list of things that we’d like to see. I’ve got

2, maybe, and the rest of you can throw some other things out. I think there would be a motion. Then I would entertain at some point in the Mo. In the near future.

One is that we would see some. I think, probably basically present further documentation of the database you’ve got and how you analyze, reduce, analyze, and reduce the data to develop design parameters.

Crestron: and then that would be combined with the subsequent subsurface investigation, with whatever subsequent or related

how lab testing is performed

fair enough.

Crestron: probably geotext.

And I would add that

Crestron: at least present more site specific if you will, conclusions that

a system and a set of analyses that were done were appropriate for a particular reach.

Crestron: That’s a second point. I think

it’s not unrelated, but but it’s distinct. The analyses would be not lump things together too broadly, but and make sure that

analyses and recommendations are appropriate. Reach by reach

something to that effect.

Nick’s got his finger on the button. May I, Mr. Chairman? There is one aspect that you just

Crestron: briefly touched it to very, very end. But we really didn’t discuss, and I’m not sure whether we need to, and that is the has the applicant demonstrated at first impact mitigation which we really did not discuss

in this meeting.

Crestron: So that that is 1 point

Crestron: may not be in our purview. Others may be looking at it. But okay. what what I’m saying is that the point about the demonstration of mitigation or the adverse impact

we didn’t really discuss at this point.

Ha! Maybe I can quickly answer that part of the lomark package to Fema is they specifically look at that. Any flood protection elements needs to demonstrate. You’re not creating additional flood impacts or flooding issues. I’m not sure if that’s the point. No, the the Bcd see, specifically adverse impacts are on the environment of the San Francisco Bay. Not

that’s the encroachment that was raised by

Crestron: Zoom friendship, the very end. But I think maybe

David Re responded to that, saying that you’re addressing that with waterboard. And so it’s It’s a

fuzzy on our

Crestron: within or without our appropriate

and and so and just so that you know our we completed the Eir process on this, and that was completed back in June. So we’ve analyzed all the environmental impacts required by sequel.

Yeah? So so I think it’s potentially within our purview. But it’s being addressed by others at this point. So like, we’ll just accept that

Crestron: other points that we want to request additional

input from the team on

Crestron: so specific to bullet 2 there, I think. you know, I mean, I look through the basis of design and the plans itself, and

Crestron: and I’d like to see a little bit more on the alternatives, analysis.

and not just in the material treatment, steel versus concrete, but alternative edges that are being created, so new edges wherever they are being created which are significant.

You know what was the process that you followed through, you know, particularly in cases like the end of Runway 19, where you’re already putting in a large amount of fill.

Why would you put a wall there? Why would you not just raise perimeter

Crestron: like the existing perimeter itself, rather than you know, create a dyke and then have a wall there just for the free board part of it. Things like that again you don’t have to necessarily answer, but well, I can quickly answer that one we did look at again. Earthen kind of

firms, but it creates more bay fill cause you have to go further out to support it. So the higher you go, the further we go out, and with the runways, with that location is set by the like. We had to have the wall. The height at a certain point couldn’t not be any closer runways, but we didn’t want to go any further, because that’s creating more fill and more mitigation.

So when we did look at Earth in type structures, it created more bay fill. So that was ultimately why we went with the steel sheet pile solution because it minimized those impacts.

Crestron: And so I think the emphasis has been on meeting the fema obligations which I agree, you know that is the first

Crestron: part of that process with Sfo several years ago. So that definitely is. But I think going beyond that, which is what I think bullet 2 is getting at

is you know, is the treatment appropriate for situations where, for example, you have a sustained tide that is going to be higher than the

elevations on the airport side, on the runway side.

Crestron: And so that flood wall is now really acting as the only barrier.

Right? So it is

Crestron: very different than Foster City and many of the other treatments where you have a wall on top of a levy. Right? So these are becoming flood walls that are

Crestron: effectively like the New Orleans type of, you know, walls so

like to see, you know, just some of that thinking and the alternatives analysis. Maybe the Eir has addressed it, perhaps as part of the alternative for B one, or

I’d like to see some of that.

No understood. Again, our sheet piles, our experience. We’ve designed a lot of coffer dams. It’d be d watered, and so they are generally effective as retaining structures for water. So we felt that in the future cases where they would be truly holding back on a daily tide which is quite late in the project they should perform effectively. But the point is taken and to look at the interlocks in the you know the seepage of that

right and simple adaptation, such as raising the berm on the inside right? So that gets you at least some amount of protection. If there is so delete, maybe we can just leave that because we’re late here. But I think there’s an appropriate request for additional discussion. Maybe it’s happened in house behind doors, but

we’d like to see a presentation, maybe of it. Additional discussion, presentation of alternatives. Analysis without trying to at this point

Crestron: seems to me like there’s maybe 3 points right now that we’ve got

it would be additional presentation of data data analysis and how design parameters were developed from technical perspective. In particular.

Crestron: second, additional analyses.

including potentially site response ground motions, deformation analyses. First reach specific and consider whether ha! How much, how broadly you can lump things together.

And third additional discussion of of alternatives analyses.

Ramin Golesorkhi: is that a good summary of what we’ve got here? Someone like to make a move?

Crestron: We got too many people going here, so did I hear it so moved by Ramen.

Yes. there! A second to the motion. I’ll second second moved by remain seconded by Nick. Is there any further discussion of the motion?

Crestron: Hearing no further discussion, all those in favor say, aye.

aye, aye. any opposed?

Crestron: Oh, let’s say, source but

BCDC HOST: chair. This is the host. If you all can speak up a little louder on the next item

BCDC HOST: that would be great. It was very hard to hear you all speak.

BCDC HOST: Sorry guys. Like, it’s very low.

My, my.

okay, so

Crestron: so the public is invited to address concerns.

About this project about any issue related to this project.

Crestron: So

public present, I don’t see any hands raised here in the room. Grace, do you see anyone online that’s expressing interest.

BCDC HOST: I do not see any

and

BCDC HOST: or anyone wishing to speak.

Crestron: Okay, I think then with that we will

transition. Take a maybe a short 5 min. Break and be back in 3, 48 sharp and Rod will resume

chairmanship of of the remainder of the meeting. Thanks.

thank you.

And where

BCDC HOST: what happened? Kasami.

BCDC HOST: won’t you go over?

Crestron: Okay, everybody.

Crestron: can we? Can we?

prepare to get started here, please.

Yeah, I don’t know

Crestron: how we doing?

Hmm.

Crestron: Grace, can you please promote

this meeting is being recorded.

Crestron: Our next speaker.

Crestron: Bernard Ware.

to a panelist.

Crestron: Okay.

Crestron: agenda. Item. Now, I guess this is Number 4,

Or 5. Item of discussion. the Oakland Harbor turning Basins. Widening project. We are now considering the Oakland Harbor. Turning basins widening project.

The project proponents for for this project are the Us. Army corps of engineers and the port of Oakland. Jen Hyman, senior engineer from DC. DC. Will make a short presentation

with some background information on the issues before the Board today. followed by a presentation by the core on the engineering issues related to the in water structures.

Crestron: I would like to remind the Board and participating members to please turn on your video when you’re speaking.

we’re answering questions when you’re not actively engaged with the board, please turn off your video so that we minimize distractions on the screen. I would like to ask the board if you can please save discussions until after the presentation.

Clarifying questions can be asked during the presentation, if needed. At the end of the presentation we will pause for public comments related to the engineering issues in the presentation followed by

board discussion.

Crestron: One board discussion once board discussion is concluded.

we will take public comments on the project not related to the presentation. Okay, Jen.

Crestron: thank you. Good afternoon. Chair washed and members of the Engineering Criteria Review Board. This will be the Board’s first review of the Oakland Harbor turning basins. Widening project.

I have some background information on the project to share to you.

Crestron: This project

would widen 2 turning basins. or the port of Oakland. one in the outer harbor shown in the photo, the picture on the left.

and one in the inner harbor

Crestron: and larger picture on the right, on the slide.

the outer harbor widening impacts, only subtitle habitat.

Crestron: the inner harbor widening impacts 3 areas on the land.

Mr. Steele Howard Terminal. the port of Oakland, and a warehouse site in Alameda. This is not a permit application, it is a phase, consistency, determination.

Crestron: So what is a consistency? Determination

under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1 72, as amended Federal projects must be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the Region’s Coastal Zone management program.

Crestron: Ecdc. Has a federally approved amended Coastal Zone management program for the San Francisco Bay Segment of the California Coastal Zone

for Federal projects. The Commission reviews a project for potential effects to the Coastal Zone and consistency with the San Francisco Bay Coastal Zone Management program.

This is the consistency, determination. The Mcateer Petrus Act and the Bay Plan are a significant portion of the San Francisco Bay Coastal Zone management program

Crestron: for this project. The Us. Army Corps has requested a phased consistency determination

presenting information in the feasibility stage of the project today.

Crestron: which will be heard by the Commission at the November Sixteenth, 2023 meeting. The Us. Army Corps is requesting consistency at this time

to support the submission of the project or the chiefs report, and then proposed authorization and appropriations by Congress

Crestron: once authorized and funds appropriated.

the Us. Army Corps would request further consistency review in the planning, engineering and design phase.

Crestron: The proposed schedule for the project commences construction in 2027, and completion in 2 and a half years.

Crestron: So the Oakland Harbor training basins widening project both the inner and outer harbor areas involve deepening and widening the turning basins to negative 50 feet mean low low water.

Thank you.

Crestron: I apologize. My slides were not advancing.

Crestron: The proposed area in the outer harbor

is currently negative. 5 feet mean low, low water. a shallow subtitle area covering about 21 acres. The inner harbor area involves excavating fast land and dredging to negative 50

mean the low water about 20 acres in size.

Crestron: In these areas

mean low low water is used as an elevation, and that is about equal to the elevation in the datum nav. 88.

Crestron: The inner harbor turning base in widening is the one that includes 3 new Earth support structures.

The first one number one in this figure. is an underwater bulkhead wall, just off the shoreline of Schnitzer steel

Crestron: number 2. In this figure is a bulkhead wall to support the shoreline at the port’s Howard terminal

and removal of the wharf. A portion of the wharf that has 3 cranes on it.

Crestron: the third

mark 3 in this figure on the Alameda side. as a bulkhead wall to support the shoreline at a warehouse site in Alameda. and removal of a portion of the wharf and land there.

These structures are not designed for flood risk reduction.

Crestron: So the questions for the Board to consider in the presentation. Today

one are the scenarios and design criteria in the geotechnical stability analyses for the new 3 to one dredge slope appropriate for the site, hazards, conditions and site criticality.

Crestron: 2 are the structural engineering design criteria.

including seismic criteria and design loads for the 3 new bulkhead wall structures appropriate for the site hazards, conditions and site criticality

Crestron: free our current and future flooding concerns, IE. From groundwater and coastal flooding address adequately based on the site, hazards, and the nature of the project?

Crestron: 4. Are there any other design and physical concerns that have not been addressed?

Crestron: And lastly, 5. Do you recommend a future Ecrv meeting for this project?

Crestron: Now?

the army corps will give their presentation.

Crestron: It says, I’m sharing.

I’m sorry.

Crestron: Okay, is it? Gonna show up there.

Crestron: Nice dark background.

Crestron: thanks, Jen, and thanks to the board for allowing us to present our project to you. As Jen said,

we are in the very early stages of our project. You know we’re we are looking for a phase. Consistency. Determination

was.

So I did want to start just by introducing some of our partners with port of Oakland. We have Justin Tosser. Kamloole, Chopp. Pauline Leung, Sammy, you and I offer this

first week of support. Welcome, welcome we also have, Eric Jolly from on record of engineers. Who is our environmental planner.

Crestron: I did just want to start by talking a little bit about our our process. It’s I think it’s a little different than what you may be

used to, especially after that last presentation was very technical. like, I said, we, we are in our feasibility. Study portion of this project.

The basic goals of this is to determine if there’s federal interest in this study. So we’re going to look at the economic benefits and the environmental and social impacts

than the costs. So we at the end of the study, we’re looking for a solution that’s technically feasible, environmentally justified or economically justified and environmentally acceptable.

Crestron: What do we mean by economically feasible. What we do is we look at the

benefits. So in this case it’s increased maritime efficiency versus the cost of the project. And if we have a positive benefit. if it’s a cost ratio, it is economically justifiable for the Army corps to move forward the project.

At this stage. We are looking at a total project construction cost of over 500 million. But there’s also the benefits are about 30 million dollars annualized.

So it has a benefits cost ratio about 2.5, so it will pay it for itself. And so that’s looked as very positive.

Crestron: At the end of our feasibility study. We are going to have about a 10 to 30% plan set.

And so it’s it’s not as far as the advances. The presentation that we just saw before this.

Crestron: Our goal is to submit our final report to headquarters uses headquarters

in January 2024. And then after that, we’re gonna hopefully get kind of congressional authorization to proceed. And then we’ll move into the pre-construction engineering and design phase. Hopefully, in the 2,025 range

with the start of construction around 2027.

Crestron: this says a 2 year construction duration, our estimates closer to 2.5 years.

Crestron: and just the reason why we’re doing this. I see. When we previously widened the turning basin in the early 2 thousands.

the design vessel was 1,139 feet long. Today vessels are calling the port are much bigger. They’re about 13 110 feet long.

Crestron: This is a overview of the port of Oakland. and there’s 2 turning basins. If you can see my pointer. This is the outer harbor turning basin.

and then the inner harbor turning basin. So these are the 2 areas that dictate what size of ships can call to the port? This, these are the areas where they can turn around.

Crestron: So this is the outer harbor turning basin. Currently, what it looks like is the diameter is about 1,650 feet.

The entire area is dredged to elevation minus 50 feet. with 3 to one side slopes over here. One other important

Crestron: thing to recognize is that during basing goes all the way to the edge of the wharf

during this project we’re going to move it further away, because when there is a ship berth there, it basically limits the or shrinks the size of the turning basin

the effects of sizes.

Crestron: It wasn’t really apparent from that last picture, but this is the symmetry. So you can see the this is the Federal channel that stretched every year and maintained at minus 50 feet.

And so the turning basin is widened in that area.

Crestron: and what we are planning to do is no additional dredging

along this part. The dash part of the circle that’s already dredged annually to minus 50 feet. We are looking at expanding the turning basin to the northwest

out in this area with again 3 to one side slopes.

Crestron: This is just a plan with the showing, some existing subsurface information. So there is not a lot in the where the actual cut will be made. But we are planning on doing additional exploration out there during the ped phase of the project.

Crestron: There. There was a fair amount of explorations done within the turning basin area in the past for environmental sampling and disposal dredge material as well as during the minus 50 foot project.

occurred in the early 2,000.

Crestron: So there there are additional Cpt’s and boring. In this area. There

they’re shown as smaller dots just to make the figure a little less busy

Crestron: but this entire area, all the bay mud has been removed, and we’re down into the denser San Antonio formation all throughout this area.

Crestron: And so this is just a cross section.

Go back and cut right through this area if you can see my pointer.

Crestron: And so there’s the existing 3 to one slope.

Crestron: and we’re moving that all the way back here. Sorry for the lag.

So we’re just going to create another 3 to one slope out in this area. And this will be the edge of the new Federal channel. And so what we do annually is we come. So when we build this project, we will dredge

this entire area, including the including the slopes.

Crestron: but on an annual basis. We’ll come through and dredge everything inboard of that

down to minus 50 feet. So we don’t dredge the slopes on an annual basis.

Crestron: and I just just want to show

some of the engineering analysis.

Crestron: So we looked at, you know, circular failures going through the tow. We looked at more wedge type failures that are shallow. And then we looked at deep seated failures.

It’s not shown here. We also looked at block failures as well. They came up with higher pressure safety. So I’m not showing them. As I said, we we don’t have a lot of geotech information where the actual 3, one cut slopes being made. So we selected what I think are fairly conservative strength parameters.

and

Crestron: we’re getting acceptable results of the the only ones that are below. 3

are the very shallow wedge failures which you know over time. Those may occur. And if if you know, shower special soils, do slide into the turning base, and they’ll just be dredged out annually.

Crestron: This is the last slide on the outer turning basin. So

if there’s any questions. Please stop me. I know I’m going which we’re on time. So I’m going a little fast.

Crestron: Okay? So the inner harbor there’s 3 areas that we’re looking at

in the Northwest. This is the steel property.

Crestron: and we’re I’m going to go over these individually.

So the Schnitzer steel. And then we’re looking at doing work within this cove area between Schnitzer Steel and Howard Terminal. This is the Howard terminal. And then down here is the allometer or the fist property.

Crestron: What’s shown in blue is the Bcd shoreline band jurisdiction.

It was kind of complicated through these areas. There’s several different things. So out in this area. We’re

Crestron: the dash. Green line

is the 1965 shoreline. And so the jurisdiction extends

Crestron: 100 feet in from that. Then, as we go here there’s a bulkhead wall

and

Crestron: is so. The jurisdiction sends 50 feet from the bulkhead, and we transition into a slope.

and it’s the shoreline is marked by the mean low, low water point, or mean high water point. and it’s a extends in 50 feet from there.

or sorry a hundred feet.

Crestron: and then there is an existing bulkhead. Wall here that’s buried that was constructed in 1,915,

and I guess there’s some previous

Crestron: What do you call it?

Crestron: principles that this is that

the shoreline band extends inboard from that 1915 wall.

Crestron: And then on this side, similarly, there.

there’s a 3 to one slope here. I’ll talk about this wharf later. but there’s a slope that comes up and ends beneath this wharf. That’s why the band starts not the edge of the wharf, but somewhat inboard of that.

Crestron: And then there’s a bulkhead wall that was constructed as part of that

minus 50 foot project right along here.

Crestron: Everyone see my pointer. I realize it’s

and heart disease.

Crestron: So I’m going to talk individually about each of those 3 areas. Ask a question on that previous slide there.

but it shows 3 to one along the Howard terminal.

Crestron: Is it really 3 to one? Does the port not dredge

for the birds also to 50 feet there along the terminal face?

Crestron: I think that is actually not 100% accurate. There it stretched to, I think, minus 42 feet right along

the base of that

Crestron: good catch.

Crestron: So this is the Alameda side in. I’ve I’ve

Crestron: drawn in where the wharf structures are since is an aerial photo from 1,939. And so you can see that this is all former marshland

along the south side of the Channel.

Crestron: and sometime between

1939 and 1946. The war from the warehouse structures were constructed.

Crestron: So here by 1946. These are in place, plus.

These bursts have been dredged into. This is a area called Bay ship and yacht. So all these areas have been deepened by 1,946,

Crestron: and then moving forward. This is 2,000, which is just before our minus 50 foot deepening project, you can see those.

The wharf and structures are still in place.

and then, after the project we came through, and we constructed a bulkhead wall right along through this area and trimmed off a portion of that wharf structure and several of the phase of the warehouse.

Crestron: this wharf is a hundred percent pile supported as are the buildings.

But it’s not the basically, the southern two-thirds are sitting on land. whereas the there’s about a 5 foot gap under the northern portion of the wharf

here, so you can walk underneath this wharf.

Crestron: and this is just a typical or a detail of the structure that was constructed as part of the minus 50 foot project. So it’s

It’s vertical sheet piles

Crestron: vertical sheet piles down to so 75 feet long, tipping out elevation minus

minus 70.

Crestron: There’s battered piles in front, 24 inch diameter, steel piles

at 11 feet on center. Add a 2 to one batter

Jesus.

Crestron: and they’re they’re partially filled with concrete. So the the lower portion up to elevation minus 30.

So basically, the lower two-thirds are filled with concrete.

Crestron: and it retains about 32 feet, and then in front of it there’s a

1.5 to one slope with a 4 foot layer of rip, rapper, rock, slope, protection.

Crestron: Here we go. So this is proposed condition. So all we’re proposing is doing is building a very similar wall

back in this area so as far as construction, sequencing demolishing the warehouse buildings install. This bulkhead wall, the vertical

and excavate in front of it. Remove the Rip wraps install battered files similar to what you saw in that detail, and then the last thing will be to install the

riprap, which is the up yellow areas.

Crestron: So this is just a rough cross-section.

I realize, kind of at the end that we didn’t hadn’t drawn these files long enough.

Crestron: So these files actually extend

as shown here. And so basically. you know, in our feasibility level analysis, we’re we’re we haven’t really redesigned this entire wall, we’re saying, we’re we’re going to build something very similar to what was built.

And so it’s offset back pretty far here during our ped analysis we will go and do some additional boring back in this area.

Crestron: So I think there.

we’ll do some. at least here, where there’s a space. Be on this side of the warehouse. and then in between the warehouse. we’ll try to get at least one

Crestron: along the alignment of the wall

Crestron: the only other thing in this area is, there is room to kind of

3 to one slope here without impacting the existing wall. But there won’t be any structure here. Just a excavated slope.

Crestron: And so that’s the last slide about Alameda. Are there any questions?

Crestron: I’ll I’ll keep going.

Crestron: So this is the Howard Terminal. So

these are the existing conditions plus

Crestron: borings that were done out there. Most of the

black dots were just probes that were done prior to construction of Howard terminal. So basically, they just drilled down till they felt firm material and logged that. So they aren’t very detailed logs.

Crestron: this shaded area here.

I realize this looks very monochromatic is the outline of the existing rock dyke

Crestron: just shown here.

So it’s a

Crestron: fairly massive rock dyke. We’ve got 1.5 to one slopes.

and then

Crestron: 24 inch octagonal piles were driven through it.

This rock dyke is constructed of material. It’s up to 12 inches in diameter.

Crestron: Then this entire area behind it was hydraulically placed sandy fill

which is going to be an issue. There was a history of liquifaction during the 19 90 99 earthquake at Howard Terminal the only effects were settlement of up to about 6 inches.

Crestron: so we know it is hydroly place fill. We know it’s liquefiable. We are going to explore it more. Starting in a few weeks. We have some. Cpt.

Crestron: Let’s see. So this is the proposed condition we are looking at building a bulkhead wall.

and it’s mostly behind that rock dyke. It does first through the rock dyke at the very end here.

Crestron: and just at the feasibility level. We’re we’re thinking this is

If the material behind it is not liquefiwall, the wall will look very similar to what the wall looked like on the almet side. There’s only we only have one cpt in the backfill zone right now, and it

shown that the that material is fairly loose and can liquefy. So we are going to explore that more in the next few weeks.

Crestron: And so this is just a cross section going through. And

Crestron: as was pointed out, it’s not a 3 to one slope right in front. It is cut down at minus 4 to 2 feet.

Crestron: and so

this is where we’re planning on building that new bulkhead wall, you know, as I said, you know, it’s probably gonna look fairly similar to the wall on the Alameda side. The question is, are we gonna have to do any ground improvement on the backside of it

through the liquid viable soils?

Crestron: So that’s the last slide on Howard. Any questions about the Howard terminal side.

Crestron: that folder.

Crestron: Yeah, but it it is a curved structure. So it it changes as you go along the alignment.

So in in this area, we’re removing the entire rock dike

Crestron: up until here some of it will remain.

Crestron: I did. I did have this one question on this, given, that

the dike has worked, and successfully, and it even went through structure similar to that was, has not been considered as a new edge for the turning basin here.

Crestron: No, it hasn’t. We are trying to stay on the inboard side of this green line, which is that 1,950 playwall there is, contaminated soil on that side of the wall, so we are trying not to excavate very far

Crestron: is this project contingent on the Oakland is moving to Vegas.

Crestron: No one of our constraints was to stay on the west side of their entitlement line. Okay.

yes. And and there’s been. And as part of the A’s studies that have been done, there’s no more data on Howard Terminal. It’s part of that study available to you guys. Yeah, as part of that study, there’s the Cpt right about here.

And so that’s the only existing Cpt that we have in this area.

Crestron: And then there’s there’s one’s further in

that also show lucifiable soils.

Crestron: Okay, so this is the this is the cove to the west of

Power terminal.

Crestron: What we’re trying to avoid touching this the snitcher steel property again, there’s we don’t own it, or the poor rope doesn’t own it, and there’s contamination.

There. So we’re trying. What we proposed is a varied bulkhead wall or buried retaining structure where we where we get close might be easier just to show a cross-section before we go into this.

Crestron: So this is the proposed edge of our turning basin.

Crestron: and if if we were to

cut a 3 to one slope we’d be, we’d risk undermining the existing bulkhead. Wall. So what we’re proposing is a inboard retaining structure. Not quite sure what it’s going to look like yet

it could be driven concrete or steel piles in a row

Crestron: drill drill piles maybe a drilled secant wall. So there! There are many options. We don’t know quite what that wall is going to look like.

We just know about where it’s going to be.

Can I just ask a quick question? Since you mentioned ownership and contamination on the port of Oakland side? Does the port of Oakland own the Alameda side. No, they don’t. That’s private property, and I would assume, based on legacy land uses and bay ship and yacht that that is also contaminated land.

I don’t know. I’ll put that to Justin the camera.

Crestron: Okay, but I guess if there is contamination it will be dealt with appropriately during construction. Oh, yes.

Crestron: yeah, so sinister steel. This is

the wall kind of what the geometry looks like.

Crestron: And then, as you get further away, there is room to cut a conventional slope in this area.

Crestron: These slides are out of order. So we have some upcoming work.

We are, gonna do some environmental sampling throughout that cove area. and

Crestron: through that will also, you know, be able to tell the geologic contact between the Software Bay mud and the underlying dense San Antonio formation.

We’re going to do some Cpt’s at Howard Terminal along the alignment to show the the depth and consistency of the field that’s out there.

Then we’re going to do a geophysical survey of this entire curve area atov area.

Crestron: And so what that the geophysical survey is gonna do

asymmetry size scan sonar, which is shown here as an example. Magnetomer survey and a sub bottom profiler. So the what we’re really looking for is

buried obstructions throughout this area, then the sub bottom profiler will not only tell us very obstructions, but it can will also tell us the thickness of the looser deposit. So this is further down the channel.

where everything has been excavated down to hard material. Except for the there is some looser deposits in this area, as you can see

Crestron: as shown right here.

Crestron: So we’re hoping to get a better handle on the depth of bay mud in that covariance. That’s really one area where we don’t have a lot of information.

Crestron: And then this is our sea level rise analysis. I didn’t do this, so I’ll have to go to my notes.

so the core engineers, as I mentioned earlier, we we looked at things as a 50 year analysis period. and then we look for adaptability out to the 100 year timeline.

Crestron: And we look at 3 sea level rise curves that

army corps engineers created. I know they’re different than the State of California curves.

Crestron: What this is showing

is that

Crestron: this top figure is showing sea level rise based on title current data from 1,992 on.

and showing about

Crestron: point 8 7 rise per year, or about. That’s about 3 hundredths of an inch

Crestron: per year. For our study. Our base year is 2,030,

which would represent about the end of construction and going through 2080.

Crestron: The the one thing I take away from the sea level change. Analysis is that.

yeah, we’re looking at changing the shoreline only in 2 areas. And Howard Terminal and at the Alameda side. and both those structures. The Alameda’s about elevation 13 and a half.

you know, Howard, we’re about elevation 12 and a half to 13. So even at the

Crestron: before. We start overtopping those areas. It’s quite a ways out. So so I think this is

sea level rise plus

Crestron: King tides.

It’s all the way out till

2095 before you start overtopping either of those structures, and that’s on the highest curve only.

Crestron: And then, considering extreme events. It’s all the way out to like 2050 before you start overtopping those structures.

And again, that’s on the highest sea level rise curve.

Crestron: And that’s my last slide on sea level rise. I know we have some extra work in the room, so hopefully.

hopefully, there aren’t too many questions on.

Crestron: Well, I would just say, I mean.

I don’t know. You probably can’t change it in chief support if you’re submitting it in January. Looking at Alameda’s tag gates for such a sort period. Probably isn’t at all gonna go with sea level, rise trends and sea level rise with

suppressed for a long time by the Pacific decadal oscillation. I would encourage you to look at the 2022 Federal Civil Rights Technical report which the Army Corps is a co-author.

and it includes projections of sea level rise based on satellite data and tide gauge data to 2050. It shows that

in the bay area. It’s tracking with the Federal intermediate low curve which is about the Army Corps intermediate curve. Just for reference we are. We do have lower sea level rise here than a lot of other areas in the country, which is good. But

yeah, when it goes into like further design, probably use kind of the latest Federal science.

Crestron: Okay? I’ll mention that to our coastal engineer. Also, the coastal appendix is posted. So if you do have

further questions or comments. Yeah, I’m sure we’d love to.

Crestron: Let me ask, with regards to sea level rise

like on the Alameda side, what are your what would your commitment be? And maybe this is for Jen. What’s the

Crestron: what are? What are they required to do to protect like the wharf? Because the the wharf you can’t

raise up. and I know, for the further down where it’s being developed for Alamine Landing. They set up the barrier behind the wharf, and they raised the elevation of all the new buildings behind it.

And the wharf is basically staying where it is. So what do you?

Crestron: What are what are these guys supposed to do?

What’s their commitment to do? Even if the wharf is inundated due to sea level rise.

Well, I would say, for for the consistency determination which looks at if the project’s consistent with our policies. this

Crestron: this is probably similar, and we haven’t had a big talk about it internally yet.

But the one of the last projects the Ecr heard was run one greenwood, which was also a bulkhead wall. and I remember Chris May had the comment that even though bulkhead walls aren’t designed for flood protection.

they may be missing an opportunity for an incremental cost to provide additional flood protection on top of that. But it’s because it’s not part of the project purpose.

Crestron: It doesn’t have a flood protection

standard to me

Crestron: as far as Vcdcs.

We’ll probably look at it.

Crestron: But it it may be valid comment that there may be a missed opportunity here, depending on what the regional

plan is for sea level rise in the area.

Crestron: Okay?

actually, that was my last slide. Jennifer encouraged me to put some questions in here.

Crestron: so one thing I thought of is you know, there, there’s a lot of research and kind of the late.

you know, around 12,008, 2,010 about seismic Earth pressures. And honestly, there was just so much stuff coming out. I haven’t kept up on it. So I was wondering, you know if the board had any input on.

You know what the latest and greatest is. I know we have Professor Sitar here, worked on a lot of that material.

Crestron: too many of them.

Well. I think. Yes, we. There are publications on this at page WA. Actually as incorporate some of it in their manuals.

and the latest fema document on it is pretty good.

Crestron: and we can certainly share on this.

The liquefaction is pretty straightforward.

Crestron: slow, liquid pressure.

Oh. if you go back to your profile to to suggest that

Crestron: support for the I guess it’s the yeah. That’s one

one more forward.

Crestron: Those are standard books. There is nothing really there. But if you go to, I think it’s the Schnitzer steel where you have the

double next one. Yeah, this one

Crestron: that that that really becomes a slow stability problem.

Yes, and these things should be analyzed as a sort of stability problem. Because if the material mobilizes. you really are putting. It’s not really a seismic.

Crestron: So my recommendation would be that this would be carefully looked at as a slop stability problem.

Crestron: Yeah.

for this particular. I guess I was asked to speak so again, let me repeat that that these should be analyzed as a slope stability problems rather than just seismic or pressure. The seismic first pressure generally

is not much of a problem. Once you consider the full pressure of Baymud. the basically the static pressure. When you have clay backfill. You get already very high pressures.

and what is often missed is the slope stability aspect of this. Because you have a you have a slope there that may yield. and if that yields, then you’re

okay, of course, doesn’t have the passive support that you are counting on.

Crestron: and that would be the place to look at.

That’s a sort of off the I saw your question earlier. So I did think about it. But that’s basically a short answer to your question. We can, of course, have longer discussion.

Anybody, you know, I can make a presentation. Of course, we’d be happy to.

Crestron: So that was my last slide. So

if there are any questions.

please. okay, so

Crestron: At this point of the meeting we would like to receive public comments on the presentation.

When called upon, you will be unmuted, so that you can share your comments. Please state your name and affiliation at the beginning of your remarks. You have a limit of 3 min to speak on an item.

Please keep your comments respectful. We are here to listen to everyone who wishes to address us, but everyone has the responsibility to act in a civil manner.

Hate speech. threats made directly or indirectly, and or abusive language will not be tolerated. Anyone who fails to follow these guidelines, or who exceeds the established time limits

without permission, will be muted.

So

Crestron: is there any public comments

on the presentation in the room.

Crestron: See any hands

great? Do we have any? I see none.

BCDC HOST: There are no, there are no public comments on my end.

Crestron: Okay, thank you very much.

Okay, so public comments. On the presentation is closed at this point, let’s have a

Crestron: board discussion. Are there any

items that

Crestron: we need to

looks like Rameen has a question or a comment.

Crestron: I have a question.

I’m actually pretty surprised that the 3, 2, one slope is stable. is. Is any of those dredge slopes? That you talked about? Do you have the symmetry of

what is the inclination of those? Is it? Yeah. So

Crestron: the reason why I think 3.1 is pretty tried and true. Design is.

there is, you know, over 2 miles on of slope that is cut and has stayed for a long time. We do have what I showed you in that

the blue slide is a full bathymetry survey. That was done in 2,019, and you don’t see any failures. Several times a year before and after dredging we do

the symmetry along our channels. which extend, you know, we usually send 20 to 30 feet beyond. So you know, we have 10 years of data that shows, you know the bottoms of those slopes, or.

Crestron: okay, II have another question.

You assigned a strength parameter to the bay much, and it increases about 12 pounds per square foot per foot. Considering this is normally consolidating material. Say.

stress ratio is about point 2 5, maybe 2.3.

Crestron: If I take the 12, and divided by your effective

unit weight of the Baymont, which is about 28 pounds for school per cubic foot.

Crestron: So you get a ratio of 12 over 28, which is more like point 4 something.

Crestron: What is the basis? How? How is that justified? in this case? Site? Specifically, it is justified. There’s volunteer data

in not only this area, but all along the alignment. That shows that it is a fairly consistent relationship.

Crestron: there’s theoretical basis, as well, you know.

The Chancellor procedures, you know. and but for an Ocr. Of one in Bay MoD, you get pointfour, I’m a little surprised. We’re cutting. And so you have less effective stress. So

higher. Ocr, in those areas.

Crestron: I would ask you, do, do you? I I’ve seen 12 Pcf use

increase 12 in many other areas, have you? Well, what I’m saying is, the the stress ratio becomes about pointfour.

Crestron: yeah. Su, over P, or to get it really technical. Yes.

then that that to me sounds high, pretty high for Baymont.

8 or 10. I have seen 8 pounds per square foot per foot. which is around a factor of point 3.

Crestron: Yeah, I mean, point 3 is the commonly used number

Crestron: our static analysis is showing factor safety of 3.

So II agree. If if we back down the number that we use, we may get a lower fracture. Safety was still stable. I

Crestron: okay, I can follow up with, you know, data to kind of yeah.

back up our number. Thank you.

Crestron: Okay, any

anybody. Oh, looks like Jim’s got his microphone on.

Crestron: So this is a pretty early presentation from what we’re usually seeing. And it’s so different questions, maybe, than what we usually are are trying to address.

Crestron: I think you’re kind of asking. You know what

what particular approaches ought to be used. And I would point just for starters. I guess I would point to port of Oakland, especially Alameda, less, maybe port of Oakland has a lot of studies that have been done pretty extensively.

Crestron: In the 90 S. And into the early 2,000 in particular, with a lot of data. Subsurface consultants.

you know. Make sure you have everything that subsurface consultants done from the port of open

Crestron: they have a ton of data, you know. See if you can

Crestron: dredge up, so to speak.

some of their their Gis databases. I think they’ve got everything pretty neatly put together and packed up. And that’s Fugro now. So I’m not sure what Google is going to charge to try and borrow some other old data.

Oh, we we do have those Sci reports, and so we’ve digitized, you know database from them. And then the port of Oakland Wharf and Embankment strengthening program also

should have some some good.

Crestron: a

databases as well as extensive

a static, but focusing on seismic stability and deformations.

Crestron: first met Gale, I guess. Huh!

Crestron: What? The West project? Yeah. Early. 2,000

a and

Crestron: well, there was just one other thing I was thinking of, anyway. So it’s a lot of extensive data to make sure that you’re familiar with, not just the databases, but also the analysis and what those results have been

Crestron: in all those analyses that were done back. Then

they were done for 3 to one slope, or even steeper. You know they proposed.

Crestron: Once you get into the San Antonio, even steepening it.

Crestron: Yeah. So so one of the things that’s gonna be tricky is, you know, like, for instance, if you’re removing a dike and moving things backwards and putting a wall in place.

there’s a little bit of material removal, and so there’s a little bit of over consolidation, which will give you a little bit better strength.

Crestron: Whether that reduces your at rest, earth pressures or active earth pressures is, is a is an interesting question, I guess.

but just encourage some. you know, especially looking at bay mud pretty sensitive to stress paths, and what the latest

Crestron: the the latest, most current conditions are. What’s the state of drainage as you’re excavating things are gonna strange

strain

Crestron: slowly, as they drain. So I think you got some really interesting

complex analysis that needs to be done. Especially with

Crestron: time related aspects of excavations, and how things are disturbed. But pile driving, and so on.

Oh,

Crestron: Following up on

on what Jim was saying, I’d say. Also take a look at and report might have access to the work that was done for the Howard terminal

Crestron: expansion. I think Ngo really did do a deep dive to look at a lot of the prior data that existed.

including the original construction of the raft. Right? There might be some data there. Yeah, we have the the geotech reports that were done prior to the rock dyke, and then the plans for the rock dyke.

We have looked at that

Crestron: underneath the rock deck all the bay mud has been removed.

Crestron: and and the only other recognizing that. Yes, this is fairly early on. And so you’re probably looking more to us, which is what we would be looking at

in the future. you know, following up on what Chris said, I would imagine that the local community would probably

Crestron: look at some form of flood improvements in the future.

pretty much along the same

Crestron: footprint of whatever the bulkheads are.

and so just keeping that in in mind, you know, if there is wall extension of of an existing pile cap that might occur in the future. There’s opportunities.

Just something we would.

Jim. Yeah, just to follow. And I think maybe you were here during our previous presentation.

Crestron: When you come back to us again at the next stage.

One of the questions that we’re gonna want to know is, you know, you just said you have all this old data from Wasp and from Sci gym, matrix has a lot of studies from the port of Oakland. Also

just make sure that you give us a documentation of all the steps along the way. Not just say, yeah, we have that data. It’s extensive. But but show us and we’re not. Gonna

Crestron: we don’t recheck all of your calculations. But we do want to see that you’ve done those calculations. So so just kind of walk us through the the process. I think that’s what we’re

we’re gonna want to see how you develop your engineering criteria. Definitely, we’ll we’ll do that. is.

Crestron: you know, these engineering and parent appendix to feasibility studies are just kind of supposed to represent the final. So they don’t want us to put all the.

It’s supposed to be a very short document. So yeah, there’s a

Crestron: inconsistency that we can do that. You know, we’re not going to spend a lot of time on your backup information, but we want to be able to glance at it and see. Yeah, there. It’s it’s in order.

Thank you, Jim. Anybody else. Lima. anything?

Crestron: Just a quick question you. You going to be doing some seismic analysis of these slopes.

We we’ve done some kind of screening level analysis. It wasn’t in the

Crestron: appendix that was submitted, which was a

few months ago. Basically the seismic analysis we did was starting with the Usgs hazard tool. We ran it for a site class C, which would be represented kind of the top of the

San Antonio. Yeah. And then we looked at published report that was done for the quarter to San Francisco. There. including amplification ratios through bay mud. You know they they had different ratios for

depending on depth of bedrock and thickness of mud. That was kind of how we did back of the envelope. Okay.

Crestron: alright.

Crestron: Okay, Philip.

Sorry I had one more, you know. Looks like you’re you’re starting a campaign. Pretty vigorous campaign of exploration and geophysical and sonar and stuff. I didn’t see any boring’s in there. On either side Malameda or Oakland. Would that be something that that would happen during the frequency construction and engineering side. Basically.

Crestron: Okay, I’m looking right. I’m looking left.

I don’t see any more red lights except for mine. let’s see

Crestron: to do. Okay, Jen, do you have those questions that you can put back at. Let’s just make sure we’re

Crestron: we’re addressing those.

And then we’ve addressed them.

Crestron: Okay, so

Crestron: quick glance here

sounds like

we have.

Crestron: answered. I think we’ve got answers to all these questions. Jen.

okay. so

Crestron: are there motions? Is there a motion that’s appropriate?

Crestron: Thank you. I’m not sure we have much of a detailed.

I’m not sure we have much of a detailed motion other than to say. This is not our the final time. We want to see the project.

Crestron: which is, I think, was you said that at the beginning, I think more in in essence. So

Crestron: we agree. Okay.

Crestron: is that a motion? I don’t know beneath the motion

that well, just to invite them back, invite you back when you’re ready at the next phase next step.

Okay. is there a second

Crestron: second? All right, all in favor.

Alright. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Passes. Oh, all opposed. Any opposed? Okay.

thank you.

Crestron: And now we move to

public comments not prefer items not on are not on the project, but not related to the presentation. Anybody in the room. Is there anyone present who would like to make a comment on the project

not related to the presentation?

Crestron: Okay, I don’t see. But any hands raised in the room. Grace, is there anybody online who’s got their hand raised?

No one has raised their hands.

Crestron: Okay? Well, then, I think that closes the item. And

we did a very good job of doing this in about an hour and close finishing up on time. Well, do we have a motion to adjourn.

Crestron: Okay. Second, all in favor. Alright. Any opposed.

Crestron: Okay, we’re closed at 5 PM.

Thank you. Everybody. Next other place

Crestron: go there. And what?

Yeah. But I think that heading now more and more towards

Crestron: well, they’re gonna they’re gonna have to do that because they’re kicking out.

Crestron: Yeah.

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.