that's not the recording yeah yep okay so we're here uh uh February 22nd uh 1
36 p.m um to do a structural advisor committee um for
1900 through 1990 Diamond Street um pursuant to San Francisco building
code sections 105.6 and
106.4.1.4 a structural advisor committee was formed to provide independent expert
review and to make recommendations to the director of building inspections on the proposed new building construction
permit applications on sites which are proposed to be excavated graded and five
new buildings directed near 1900 Diamond Street under permit numbers
202205-124153 which is 1900 Diamond Street which is a four-story single
family dwelling a permanent application number 202205-124157
which is 1902 Diamond Street also forcing four-story single-family
dwelling okay number two zero two two zero five one two four one one one
nineteen fifty Diamond Street which is a four-story 20 unit Residential Building
permit application two zero two two zero five one two four one seven five
nineteen eighty Diamond streets which is a four-story single-family dwelling
permanent application two zero two two zero five one two four one one nine
on 1990 Diamond Street four story single film family dwelling
I'm undergoing such Sac heightened design review as being
within the Zone subject to slope and seismic Hazard Zone protection act for a
San Francisco building code section 106.414
the sac members that were selected was Craig Shields Geotech engineer John Wallace certified engineering geologist
Benjamin Lai structural engineer and Harvey hacker architect the background under the conditions as a
slow protection act sfbc 106
8.414 the proposed project is subject to mandatory submittals and heightened reviews of reports by a structural
advisor committee as defined by sfbc 1058.6
the proposed permit applications are proposing site excavation and Grading and construction of Earth retaining
structures and new residential buildings along a very steep slope along along the
very steep slope along the Hillside and are subject to the requirement of the review of structural advisor committee
structural advisor committee will convene to review and provide expert professional opinions concerning items
and stipulated in sfbc section 105a 0.63 and 1068.4.1.4
the subject permit application is under the jurisdiction of the 2019 edition of the San Francisco building code
in the version prevailing at the time um we'll read the note to public comment
the structural advisor committee will take public comment on all items appearing on the agenda at the time the
item is considered by the sac for general public comment item number three the public May address the sack on any
issues that are in general subject matter under the jurisdiction of this act other than the calendar items each
member of the public has up to two minutes to comment on an item as a sack review involves complex
technical geological geotechnical and geological and structural issues and considerations
to facilitate the efficient progress progress in the review agenda items four and seven may take place in interlaced
Fashion After various areas of review concerns as appropriate as determined by the call of the chairperson
okay so let's do a roll call so I'll do mine it's a
I'm Phil Chan plan reviewer for DBI from review services
Rock Ridge geotechnical geotechnical reviewer
let's do uh the the sac member roll call First so
for everyone
the Philip you called out the second number yeah uh so Craig Shields
geotechnical engineer are you here yeah Greg Shields okay uh John Wallace
uh certified engineer engineering geologist
yourself
what are you apologizing for proms oh come on
see
and John you you calling in might be having some difficult I saw him
on video he was here earlier yeah
okay um let's give them a minute um let's do Harvey hacker architect
um on video
we'll wait for John let's do the applicant design team and um sponsors
um first and then hopefully John will be able to get back onto this uh call
um I have a first Mark Babson from Emerald fund project sponsor and then Shane Harris is also with
Emerald fund uh Langan you want to go next
door Scott Walker with Langan the geotechnical engineers on the project I also have Richard Rogers
on the geotechnical side and of course Josh Goodman our
engineering geologist on the project makes up the Langan team
and how about I'm egg
okay unmuted but we couldn't hear you hi uh can you hear me
yeah I'm Eric Agnes um and I'm here with Joe Goldman we're
the structural engineers of record for this project do you like a little ginger ale
Erwin that's not me with the gingerette I'm
r102 uh Shoring engineer bka
Christine gersky with BCF Engineers I'm the civil engineer on the project landscape
uh hello I'm Brendan Cox uh landscape architect with Molly Wood on my team
here as well and uh SCB hi this is with SCB we're an architect
on the project I think I think that's everyone on our team that's here
so we're waiting for today ladies and gentlemen so I just want to
remind the applicant team you would be taking the waiting minutes and well
according will be available to you for reference in in case you wants to do it you know to put in submitting Menace for
the SEC hey ewe how do you feel about taking minutes that's the master architect
yeah I can do that all right thank you
oh we're waiting for John to get back online
yes there's someone um Can someone text him
or call him or something somebody was number
nope now he's saying I'm John John hi John hey I got spit out for some reason I
just had to reconnect well we we just finished a roll call so uh I'm here
yeah I I think you uh I I think your counterpart is the
geologists and is uh in language that's uh
that's uh Josh Goodman right yeah okay
so ah okay so let's continue so um we just got done with agenda number one roll
call so I'll leave it to the sack just to do number two select a chairperson to
conduct exact reviewing meeting and that chairperson will continue down the agenda
any motions uh from this set members or electing the chair
any second my second
so let's take a vote uh
whatever I suppose say or post on the set set members
okay uh in favor say aye aye
and John you have no objection now as long as I don't get spit out of
the program again congratulations Okay so
uh the floor is uh on you uh we have to we have the agendas from
I think gender item number
two is done and number three is public comments on item other than the calendars items
so let's see if we got any uplift on this thing here
any course so let me see how to get the instructions
uh
Okay so the dial in Fox can let's see
darling publics can press asterisk then press free
to raise to raise the voice on this thing here
I did not see any hands raised at here
okay okay so I think this I give it half a
minutes to see if anybody's got that of my comment
okay I don't I don't see any public comments on this item so we're gonna close that item number three agenda
until number three and then we're gonna move on to item number four three seven
uh which happens to be at the discussions on this thing here so
I think for the first first round of this thing here uh Philip you want to
spell the agenda item for the seven just to get an idea what you know what we are
discussing about hey hey Willie one thing um I want to
reiterate right up front is the meeting minutes should be
um documented by the project architect and their team we had that uh we we had that
while you were offline so okay okay okay so they'll be given the recording that
we have the recordings in place so that is going to recording to help them remind them but the thing is they're
supposed to you know I'll pick up the uh the items that's along the way okay yeah
I'm taking the notes okay um so I'm going to read to the agenda four through seven I believe
all right uh so number four application applicant team presents proposed project with documents and plans uh number five
stroke with Sac reviews this review and discussion for the SFTP sections one
zero five eight point six 0.3 and one zero six eight point four
point one point four the stack will perform the design review to provide for the the director of building inspection
with the written report concerning the following review considerations as applicable the safety and integrity of the proposed
design construction the effects of degrading construction activity related to the project will have on the safety
and slope stability of the area during the construction sequence and after the construction of as subsequent
development stages and the interim measures to mitigate any potential sliding and version of the sites
validity of the properness of the geotechnical structural Design Concepts and criteria
adequacy of the geotechnical and geological investigation and study and the appropriateness of the recommended
design parameters the evaluation of the grading design and preparation of the planned future
building structural development to determine the partners of the capability to perform the satisfactory without
failure any Perpetual limitations of the site to be imposed regarding the level
of future development such as the future excavations and or vertical and horizontal editions of the original plan
constructability of different photos structural details and construction sequencing and methods
the sufficiency of the proposed inspection testing monitoring can be provided prior to during and after
Construction the items could be to be reviewed will include but not being limited to the
geotechnical geologic geological investigation and study designs details drainage erosions during
and after Construction Construction erection methods appropriateness and
adequacy of the proposed yarn design quality control and special inspection specified
site monitoring plan during and after an improvement and installation are are
constructed the SAT of the follow-up review by the sac with additional site
finding by the geotechnical engineering and certified geologists of Records
during the grading excavation and construction are assumed and recommended geotechnical and geological design
parameters the review shall include the evaluation of the stability of the project site
with regard to the proposed subsequent development and Effectiveness development in the stability of the
adjacent areas review will consider factors including but not limited to design criteria and
performance objectives soil and site conditions geological factors historical site stability the anticipated
Foundation system designs soil and site Improvement systems design
Shoring Earth and retaining system design structural systems design on an offside
drainage impacts and other proposed Improvement design for compliance with the design criteria performance and
objectives number six would be public comments number seven we sack panel discussion
number eight motion of recommendations to the building director of build inspection for incorporation into the
project design if any and nine would be a tournament okay I'll turn it back to the
chairperson John Waltz okay um what uh item number five would like to
throw it into the project teams hands and maybe give a get a quick overview from the architect on the general scope
of the project and then the architect can hand it over to
um uh probably go to geology Geotech structural and Shoring in that order
and let your team weigh in on any um any items in their area of expertise
that would help summarize the project for everybody
um and along the way you know after each
inspective expert area of expertise is addressed you know there will be action items
called out and those are critical that those get documented by in the minutes
and so we'll try and be very clear on the action items you know things that
will require future uh addressing by the team so we'll pay particular attention
to those and raise those kind of during each area of expertise commentary
um and I I guess now would be the best time I'll go ahead and read into the
record the documents that have been provided by the project team
or structural advisory committee review and let me start
um so in my file I've got a geologic Hazard and geotechnical evaluation
report prepared by Langan engineering and environmental services dated July
31st 2020. we have a supplemental geotechnical
recommendations letter regarding micropiles prepared by Langan dated
September 15 2022 we have a structural plan sheet or plan
set with 45 sheets prepared by ime Consulting Structural
Engineers the latest revision that I have is dated September 15 2022
we have a civil plan set with 16 sheets prepared by bkf engineers
dated July 21st 2022 we have architectural plans 103 sheets
prepared by Solomon Caldwell and Blaine's architecture and design latest
revision September 15 2022 we have landscape plans 48 sheets
prepared by groundworks office Inc dated September 2nd 2022
and we have Shoring plans eight sheets prepared by Irwin O'Toole
dated July 8 2022 and that's the summary of of documents
that I have if there are revision Gates that are later than those
let me know and let us all know but that's that's what I have
great so I I think that is everything it so this is Mark Babson product sponsor
we actually have a uh a presentation that's kind of already it's mostly on
the order you said um I think it goes I was going to cover the intro supposed to
be architect just sort of a briefly of the land um then we're gonna go geological
Geotech Shoring then structural
um is that okay if we do it in that order
sure if you've got it in that order for it and then we'll just change over at the same depth photos
change over presenters I think everyone's got access to that everyone on our team I think everyone has access to the deck so you can share it when
you're up that way you can sort of zoom in on what you want to zoom in on and then um I'll just start
share um okay is that
everyone see that yep yeah okay great um so uh we already did the instructions
but yeah again these are just the team members Langan Geotech and geological
uh Irwin and granite for shoring design iMac structural bkf civil groundworks
landscape SCD architecture so um civil and landscape and architecture don't
have a presentation part but they're available to answer any questions and involve in the dialogue
um so I think we all know this site now it's a three-quarter Acre Site
um slope's pretty decent slips both directions East West and north south
um at the corner of Diamond Heights Boulevard and Diamond Street and it's never been developed uh
and it's in its history currently has a bunch of trees approximately 30 trees
mostly Monterey Cyprus um through uh extensive uh Community
engagement we ended up um preserving 10 of the trees
um and so it's kind of a non-traditional plan you can see that the um that these duplexes are pushed off of Diamond
Street and makes for kind of a non-traditional development but um so a
bunch of different um building types as you'll see in a second um so there's
yeah I think we call it five buildings maybe six um that range from uh all wood all the
way over to the left single family homes to an all concrete building uh to the to
the right of that and then a couple of one a couple of four stories of wood over one of concrete and in the back the
five stories is two stories of wood over three of concrete that's their garage and Lobby and the townhouses above
um structural will get into this but this is kind of just a again a lay of the land
um these are just pictures you can kind of have visuals of what it looks like before we get into the technical stuff so this is on the north side of this
site this is a diamond at 29th uh those those are the Cypress that exist and
will remain behind that um over to the right you see the single
family homes and then duplexes seven eight and a nine
um this is kind of Midway on Diamond Street where uh Beacon hits and you get
to see a few things here uh starting on the left it's duplexes two through six
above that is the two town homes that are top of the garage where you can actually see one of them there
um and then on the right um we're after the the green break is duplex seven eight and nine
um this is still on Diamond Street this is
duplexes one two three see a little bit of four and five off to
the right and kind of looming above that is the top of the garage building the top uh
duplex there and we've got a public stairway on the left there and you can even see people of the fourth letter that's a public
deck um and then when you're up on Diamond Eyes Boulevard uh it's much smaller
um starting from the left or the North you've got again that garage building
with a garage structure and then two units above you also have your lobby
there didn't break where the stairwell is and then two single-family homes um
and then it's a um someone's yard on the right so with that I'm gonna hand it off I
don't know if John or Scott wants to go first but um
I'll shop when I I'll stop my share so you guys can control your own
Tech can everybody see my screen
give me just a second ticket is it up here all right
um well greetings I am Josh Goodman just as a reminder I am a senior project
geologist with Langan I'm a certified engineering geologist as well as a
professional geologist in California and just to give you kind of the overview of the road map of where I'll
go with my part of this topic I'm going to start by sharing giving some contextual
information so share what we were able to glean from the surface from public
literature then we'll look at the subsurface I'll summarize the subsurface information and then I will loop back
and discuss some of the slope stability setting so what we're looking at here
this is a published Regional map by schlocker and our site here is in this sea of what
he's mapped as Ravine deposits the surfacial units and then you can see
that it's surrounded by Bedrock of The Franciscan complex including sandstone
churchale and then I'll also point out there's some green stone mapped by and
I'll come back to that when we talk about some of the subsurface data that we collected and then just the last
thing I'll point out here's the strike and dip data while it does vary around the area
both to the left of the site and to the right it indicates that the bedding or
the layering within the Bedrock is to the West which is into the slope
just to touch on what Mark says this is a contour map these are the index
Contours are five feet North is to the right so this slopes generally to the east uh the slope is
about less than 10 feet to the south over 70 feet
um to the north and its slopes between about two to one to one one and a
quarter to one this thing a very similar thing this is
from the city of San Francisco slope map and you can see that the site encompasses uh areas that are defined uh
as being 25 percent or greater and I'll just point this out
I'll come back to these later on there are these three sites that will bring up when we're discussing
the slope stability issues here's our site plan and I'll just point
out our subsurface exploration program consisted of three looking at three main
types of data or I guess two one comes from test pits which are shown by the black and white
checkers we've got what we're calling trenches down here and these were excavations
that were about you know three to four feet deep these were made for some of
the Landscaping that was done on we went in and we logged those as well and then we also
um through our subcontractor collected two seismic refraction profiles those
are shown as a and b here and what I'd like to do now is just at a
very high level share some of the findings from the subsurface information we'll look at this cross-section profile
2 and profile three which go through the highest slopes on the site and then uh
we'll come back and look at the seismic refraction data
so really quick um this is just an example of our test pit log here this is two feet for scale
and in contrast to what I was showing you with that schlocker map the regional map
with one exception our test pit that we found at the South End everything else was essentially all in Bedrock with a
thin veneer of topsoil our southernmost test pit we did find I
think it was about 18 inches to two feet of what looked like a surficial deposit that could be consistent with colluvium
or those Ravine deposits by schlocker but again we are mostly in Bedrock and
that the rock that we were able to identify included shirt Shale and sandstone and then this uh you know key
point to make with respect to slope stability the both the betting as well as some of
the joints or the fractures consistently dips into the slope
and just uh you know give you kind of an intuitive understanding of what that looks like here's just a representative
photo of what we were finding in our test pit so you can see um you know this
blocky material um this is the Bedrock this is the spoils pile here and I hopefully this is
obvious but you can see um these lines or these Stripes crossing the excavation
that's the stratigraphic layering um and that's inclined
into the slope and here's um the first of the two cross
sections that we wanted to show you this is the existing profile here
um in case you can't read this is 10 feet each of these heavy marks this is a one to one
um horizontal to Vertical scale so no exaggeration North is to the right these
are the two test pits that intersected this cross-section line and what we're showing here are this lollipop looking
thing this shows the measured orientation of the stratigraphic layering so the apparent dip so that's
resolved into the plane of the section and then the square looking lollipop
that shows uh the apparent dip of joints and what we've done yeah this is the
proposed excavation outline in blue and what we've done with these thin lines is
just take that structural information and show conceptually what we think if
it's consistent into the hill slope away from our test pits what
um what effect that that might or what that geometry might look like during the
cuts and like I said before um we do think that
um they're consistently across the site that that is inclined into the hill
slope just the same thing here so it won't go into the the level of detail only
differences of the geometry of the cut will be a little bit different and then here in red this is a retaining wall
along the western site boundary but again the take home message is based on
our subsurface investigation we do feel like we've got pretty consistent conditions across the site and that
those conditions are defined predominantly by Bedrock of The Franciscan
here to look at um share with you the findings from the seismic refraction data again also
um you know here's the the scale here um the the index down here so the Purple
colors indicate faster velocities uh perhaps denser materials and then the
warmer colors um relatively lower velocities and this
yellow line shows the seven thousand foot per second contour and the reason
that we're emphasizing that is that's generally corresponds to the upper limit of what can be ripped with a d8 dozer so
kind of a common um Earth moving equipment and really the take-home message here is
um that one the material the velocity structure does or the velocity of the
material increases with depth that um and we're interpreting that as being
evidence of probably a decrease in weathering uh prob possibly a tightening
of the fractures that we were able to observe in our test pits in just an
overall increase in the competency of the Bedrock with depth and that of
course is important because as we saw in our our geologic cross sections these
excavations will be um you know kind of founded in this uh
more competent material
uh so just to kind of wrap this up now with the slope stability this is a snapshot from the California Geological
Survey from their seismic hazard map of the San Francisco seven and a half minute quadrangle
and I know it's a little bit faint but um in red here this is our site outline and we've got a polygon a little pieces
of these areas that they're mapped as potentially earthquake prone to
earthquake induced landslides and I think specifically with our site
uh probably the reason that these areas were flagged has to do with the last part of this Clause that it has to do
with the local topographic um characteristics specifically we've
got steep slopes um and then regarding the geological and or geological conditions it is possible
that based on the schlocker map where there were these surfacial deposits that
while we didn't encounter them or we only encountered them in a very limited spot it's likely that if those things
were there that they may have been removed during um possible grading of Diamond Street or
Diamond Heights Road but in general we don't have those conditions here and
again shallow bedrock and then I wanted to come back to just
point this out um north of our site there was a series
um there was some slope failures that impacted some of the nearby properties
this was associated with the Vista Del Monte apartment buildings and reading and
reviewing the reports um you know we our conclusion was
that yes these landslides have occurred near the site but if you look at the
conditions that they concluded led to those landslides very different from the
Bedrock that we had at our site specifically they documented you know between about 10 to 17 feet of fill
soils over a claystone bedrock and the conclusion was that the failures
were happening along that interface of The Rock and soil which we don't have
there was also a natural spring that was present no groundwater was encountered
at our site during our investigations and then there were also a series of
other anthropogenic factors that they thought might have also contributed to the landslide and
that includes you know the presence of a retaining wall and other water conveyance features
um so that is all I have and I will now pass the Baton on to my colleague Scott
Walker oh I'm sorry one last thing the only evidence of slope instability
that we documented at this site was very surficial raveling or um you know
creeping of loose material under the effect of gravity very small
predominantly soil with gravel size materials so now I will hand it over to Scott
Scott let me know if you want me to drive or if you want to I can stop sharing
okay why don't you go ahead and stop sharing and I'll give it a shot thank you
all right see if this works here
can you guys see my screen yes
perfect thank you thanks Josh uh again I'm Scott Walker with Langan with geotechnology engineer
in the state of California um and we've done this uh worked on this
project in conjunction with Richard Rogers who has a lot more experience than I do which is a great resource to have
really quickly we'll jump from the raveling story of the surface kind of
potential instabilities into a 3D picture we've seen what these buildings look like in up in the air and we've
seen cross-sections but this is a view from the West I suppose or sorry from
the East and it's kind of looking into um what the the building will be founded in
so we talked about there being you know Bedrock on site and they're being uh you
know potentially a more competent Bedrock as you go down um this is a 3D view that shows the
potential uh or actually the planned very assuring systems and the foundation
levels that are being proposed across the site so the idea here is that all of
the buildings will be founded in Bedrock essentially on shallow foundations uh
supported in in Bedrock and all of the plant cuts that are
upslope um that are you know could could potentially have a hazard associated
with either the nearby improvements on Diamond Heights or the nearby structures
will be actively supported with Shoring systems whether that's a permanent retaining
wall in some cases like it's shown in red here that's the cantilever wall that was shown on Josh's figure
or some of these blue and orange walls which are uh will be covered by Irwin
It's a combination of temporary Shoring for the construction condition and then
the buildings themselves end up supporting the the load that's potentially on those walls to protect
our upslope improvements uh as Josh discussed we did not find any
groundwater on site uh however you know our experience is that groundwater can
travel through fractures in the Rock especially as you get to more and more competent Rock rain water gets trapped
in those fractures uh so the overall project has been designed to have all of
the walls back drained to make sure we don't get any accumulation of groundwater Behind These systems we
don't load up the walls as well so back drained and then the bottoms of the slabs or the foundations of each of
these units is going to have an under slab drain system so all that water is collected and then because of the the
side soaps we have they can drain by gravity and exit the site down here into an appropriate system
we have a couple um these are the same cross-sections essentially or similar cross-sections
that Josh showed now we've got the proposed layering of the buildings I'll
let imeg talk more about these but as you can see the original ground surface is there highlighted kind of behind the
intent is that the building steps into the below the ground surface in every
location so we're not perched up above the existing ground surface and all of those surfacial materials that were
present potentially across the site ultimately are removed there's no planned cuts that are
unsupported on the upslope side of the site so we're not steepening any slopes or anything like that everything's
actively shored see
um these are some of the design parameters that have been presented in our reports
um what we've done here is we've taken the the given wall pressures both for the
Shoring conditions as well as the permanent structures and we have determined those with the loads on those
systems will be based on the slope of the ground surface up above the wall they leave the steeper the slope the
more load that needs to be retained to actively mitigate any potential for movement on the upslope side
uh and and those with a Keen Eye can see that um we've accounted for the fact
that much of this rock may be really fractured so essentially we're using soil parameters with a pretty high
friction angle but soil parameters uh as the guiding principle for the various
storing and wall pressures because the fracturing we expect to be variable throughout the system so we're
not in not counting on the rock all being intact and holding itself up for any of the values
here is the um the portion of the Shoring that will be tied back
or braced temporary Shoring and lagging again we've got a a here we're using a
trapezoidal system for the apparent Earth pressure diagram again we've got a slope where we have sloping ground
conditions we have variable values in the table
the document that this one that this figure is from was actually a supplemental document as well it was not
listed um John in your list I'm not sure if you guys have it if you don't we certainly
can uh that can be a comment that we can close by providing it we believe it was
included in the package that was sent yeah I haven't seen that this particular
one okay thank you for that clarification yeah I think it's in the it's in the slopes or
a Shoring letter we had two two supplemental letters right one's micro piles along with Shoring
correct those are the two okay
um and and here we're coming back to this 3D view just to kind of get an overall approach to the very assuring
Irwin O'Toole is going to pick it up from here and uh talk in detail about the very assuring activities
um but again we can see uh you know we do have some of the improvements so the buildings that are nearby we have the
one-story garages uh two to three story structures here that are kind of embedded into the hill slope a little
bit uh and then a four-story structure uh down here on the inside all three of these are supported by the various ring
systems as planned I think Irwin I'm going to pass it on to
you
good afternoon um hi my name is Earl 102 I'm the
Shoring engineer for this project I committed that again
yep yes so I I noted uh John in in your
um opening notes he said that you have eight pages of uh showing drawing uh
there is a 16-page document site that dated 12-2 that's been reviewed by our team as part of the package
so uh I hope that that's the one that's being reviewed uh instead of 12-2 but anyway
um a little oh sure can you hear me better now
you're you're pretty muffled I don't know what's
okay one second please
okay how's this okay thank you so um
in front of us here on the screen we have the four types of Shoring that
we've planned uh in Orange it's Soldier beams and lagging
uh with the blue which is a snail designed uh
chakris uh soil level the red is permanent cantilevered beans and then
the green is a combination where we have a beam holding a concrete faced wall
again these Cuts have been mentioned uh
here we have the um the back cantilever wall leading into the back unit with the
blue in front of it down to the soil there wall uh similar Cuts here have already been
referenced by other members of the T this is the type of cut that we expect
and here's a similar Sac approved project Drilling in this type of formation
these type of machines are actually pretty small footprint given the size of
a and the type of soldier beams that we have um luckily for for our project there is
access on both the top and the bottom of the slope which makes it a little bit
less of a challenge compared to some other projects in San Francisco that
have been reviewed by this battle um
the the next image is simply just showing uh for more for the general public showing um some Soldier being
lagging and tie backs um
and and here the following image we have what what is in blue and my drawing is a
shotcrete wall with soil nails and more importantly here we see this uh drainage
panel here so this is the type of conditions we expect on the site
the um nice clean lines and a sequence
depth uh formation with an adequate bench size to install these soil nails
or tie back over here next image is simply
um the chocolate wall being installed um
with the last lift at six feet down another similar type of condition up
here we've got some of the drainage layers in in place and uh we're gonna
uh pneumatic hammer tie back rig and mesh over here
again up at the top of the Canterbury this is the type of look uh the exposed
lagging uh with oversized beams and in green
we have the uh the area where we have a soldier beams
and then a chocolate facing um
next we're looking at some of the traditional drainage techniques for both
the for the uh temporary condition Behind the Walls and this mirrorified
type product actually gets put in place in two locations one behind the shot trees lagging
or the shot creek soil there wall and actually it's part of the waterproofing
system it also gets placed in front of it to ensure adequate drainage
and that is actually a location is is here
and where there's where there's shock rate it's here and here
um so one of the the items that we well many of the items
that we're trying to discussing that I take on board is because contemporary and permanent shoring design
um which reviews the geotechnical parameters they've been reviewed by the
team and the construction sequencing which I think I should speak to a little bit
here because I'm not sure how well this will present but it's it's it's a six uh
page document that's within the 16-page Shoring plan what it tries to do
is show the team each stage of how we would build a
project uh from the top so a better way to actually to uh present
this is to go back to uh this image right here and uh
all right um just talk through it so it's presented
in the construction document but an overview would be
we we start off at the top of diamonds
um and we we install the the Shoring in Orange and that's why I've chosen
Soldier beam and lagging in this location here that allows access from the street to
install these improvements and then we build an Access Road
uh from the left which is the South all the way over to the right
and that allows us then to travel at the top location here and install these these Soldier beams here
and eventually Traverse our way across the side to the red area which is documented in these sequencing plans to
allow us to install this cantilever are continuously removing dirt off the site
and managing any drainage as necessary
with that flat bench built we can then proceed to top off some of
this blue wall with short fact Soldier beams to get the grade to the correct
elevation and that allows us then to start the shot crease
and tiebacks in lips and that sequence of operations safely
then allows us to exit to the east or bottom of the page
and in my 16-page document I think I've presented
uh clearly each step of the operation and I'm happy to answer any questions as
to the logic of um how that's achieved
and I hope that you can understand it clearly so with that if
you have any questions um please feel free to ask otherwise I'll hand it over to
structural so this is Craig I think the the eight
pages that John referred to was in that large uh yeah I don't we didn't get a separate
uh so so and you or when you said it was dated in December was that the date for
your at least more recent one or your 16 page correct yep okay so we don't we don't
have that I don't believe I don't yeah
um and I I tried to access the the portal for the documents several times and
wasn't allowed to re-access it so that's why I was wondering if there were other
documents out there um that had been updated since the ones we received initially
yeah I'm wondering how if this is gonna lead to probably a lot of your questions and comments are going to be on the it
was an earlier version of the um that was a not complete set that it sounds
like you're reviewed is that true for the other groups or just for sure
yeah and I think Craig and Ben probably spend a lot more time on the Shoring than I do
but I certainly had a lot of questions because uh just the the couple of things that
Irwin presented were things that I had questions on for sure on back drainage
because none of that was Illustrated on
yeah um trying to make the most of this time
with all the notice maybe everyone you could stop the sheriff's again so we can see each other for a second
um Erwin are you able to walk everyone through your plans yes
that makes sense or do we just stop this meeting and for a month it's uh
okay thanks for calling Wilson all right
I think walking through the plans would be good for now um what do you think John I mean
yeah maybe um maybe finish the presentation and then
when we go through each respective X area of expertise more closely we can
dive into the nuts and and start with our questions on the Shoring
and he can Erwin can walk us through it that time I think the the I think that what the
process was supposed to happen was you know we gave you like a progress set to do the bidding and then there was
supposed to be you know uh the review based on the final set that sounds like
something was lost in transition there so um so Russ assured that drawings were completed
but uh yeah I think that sounds like a good um a good approach John and um I I think
we just have uh I made the left and did you have anything else Irwin from your
presentation no thank you
yeah so this is uh Joe golden with iMac we're the structural engineer record um similar I think our our set also has
a December date on it um but we'll go ahead and walk through some Structural Concepts here
uh so thus far we've heard conditions we've heard a lot about the Shoring uh we're going to talk more
about the the permanent structure that'll be there we'll touch briefly on the the main structural systems but um
in the bulk of our our discussion will be
um uh the bulk of our discussion will be on
on the um you know the retaining system uh because most of the structural systems are
pretty standard they're light frame construction we have concrete um it's all pretty typical
um you know to hold back the hill site we have a a buttress wall system with
tie downs that help resist some sliding so we have Eric Agnes here who's going to go ahead and walk us through some
diagrams that we have and some of the structural systems
are there thanks for the introduction Joe uh can you guys see my screen
yes yes um so I'm just gonna give a pre uh
pretty brief description first of each of each of the buildings um and I'll dive deeper into the
retaining wall structures and the foundations and how we've designed them to resist sliding loads um just real
briefly this is our site we have um on the left S1 S2 this is just four levels
of wood frame um to the right of that we have building 1A which has a garage structure that has
two levels of concrete and then units T1 and Q2 which is two levels of wood framing above that
um low that structure there is uh units D1 through D6 unit D1 is four levels of
raised concrete floor um level two or units two P2 through E6
are all wood frame structures uh to the right of that we have building 1B 1B has
one level of raised concrete floor with four levels of wood structure above that
and um in one end to follow the same with one level of concrete and four
levels of wood above that um I'm now going to go into a deeper dive
of each of these buildings I'll start off with the left hand side and move to the right I also have a key plan at the
bottom if you get lost so starting off here with S1 and S2 we
have a cantalator retaining wall structure for uh this building it's very
common within the residential um industry especially uh
wood frame structures that aren't able to support your retaining wall you have to typically design it as a cantilevered
retaining wall um so this means the foundation alone is resisting that overturning force from
the retaining wall itself um we can see here that uh in section one
we'll start off with just our loading that we have for it we got our typical triangle
distributed uh retaining Earth load at this location we also do have a
traffic surcharge because we have the street that is close enough to impose
that load and then we also have our seismic loads as well
um so all three of these interact to Sliding points
now how that force is resisted is uh two two ways for this building we have our
friction Force which is the interaction in between the bottom face of the footing and the soil itself
um that friction can resist the movement and then you also have the passive pressure which is uh the vertical face
of the footing uh being pushed against the soil itself for these buildings we have relatively
small retaining loads in comparison to some of the other buildings and the
passive pressure alone was adequate to resist all sliding forces again this
includes both the retaining Earth load traffic surcharge and the seismic load
um the red is we have two sections this is the wing wall
um again here it's just one level of uh retained Earth
and we're utilizing the passive pressure to resist that loads are a lot smaller because it's
just one level of retained Earth and we also have some sight retaining
walls adjacent to that we took those into account by just having a traffic
surcharge just to account for any sort of surcharge that would be implemented onto
those uh moving on uh we're now looking at
building 1A um really kind of focus our attention on
the plan view first we can give some uh just brief descriptions
uh we have the garage structure which again has that concrete floor which allows us to utilize that floor to make
a restrained retaining wall which means the concrete diaphragm is going to be
supporting the top of the wall this makes the retaining wall span
vertically in between the Green Foundation here and the blue uh raised
concrete floor um on the back side of units D1 through D6
we have a back retaining wall this spans horizontally uh to each butcher's wall
which is separating each unit itself um the butcher swells
um are shown here in blue and then we on the sides of unit P1 and
D6 we have a wing wall which is a buttress wall and also serves as a retaining wall because there is soil on
the side to the building as well um and one thing to note we do have a site
retaining wall that is connecting uh units D7 to D6
um that'll play a part on the next slide but for now let's look at um section one
just cut right here through both the garage and uh D1
um so if we focus our attention on the garage loading real quick um
again we have our typical retaining wall um that's restrained
and we are resisting the lateral Earth loads via friction
um within the mat footing for the garage
because we're able to say we're resisting it with friction we're not seeing any loads imposed onto units
uh E1 through D3 um also one other point that's uh to
note here is the foundation is connected to the back wall the back retaining wall of uh
D units one through D3 which uh doesn't impose any surcharge load that would be
acting upon the back retaining wall for those units
so moving forward to uh the units D1 through D6 this is our typical butcher
swell system that we have here uh it's pretty common where you have large retaining loads that um
you can't utilize a diaphragm to resist it um The Butcher swells act as a point of
resistance so the back retaining wall would span horizontally to these and then that load
would get distributed to the footing below um that does create a tce couple uh
tension and compression couple and if we look at the left hand side I have a plan view example of what our
foundation is it's a kind of dog bone shape structure the toe of the buttress wall
um as a compression load that gets distributed uh to the soil via the
spread plane um just limited by the allowable bearing pressure and then the vertical tension
load is resisted by the gravity design of course and then we have vertical tie
downs as well um where the gravity load alone is not
adequate enough relying on these tie downs to resist any movement vertically
as far as sliding is concerned again we have our building seismic load and our
retained load as well those are resisted by again the same
passive pressure and friction force that we talked about before with S1 and S2 we
have another way to resist sliding as well for these buildings and the rest of the buildings
moving on it is a incline tie down
this is a tie down that's at an angle uh
reduces sliding um pretty common
the next slide is our wing walls the left one is unit D1
as I said before unit D1 is all concrete floors so we have a diaphragm there
which allows the retaining wall to span vertically
um that diaphragm then distributes that load into the butcher swells and the
back retaining wall as far as sliding is concerned we utilize the passive pressure to resist
lighting as the Earth is pushed against the side of the building um
for unit D6 we have wood frame structure
so we don't have that stiff diaphragm so our retaining wall is spanning horizontally to that site retaining wall
that I mentioned earlier and then the back retaining wall um and then again we're utilizing the
passive pressure to read this any sliding forces here one thing to note that is um
of significance we have a permanent Shrine wall at this location
um and there's not very many locations where we do have uh this this condition
but I thought it'd be good to bring it up here um to account for that load that would
be imposed onto our back retaining wall we take the height of that permanent
sharing wall and impose it down into our back retaining wall
um this was suggested from the geotechnical engineer
and that load again is uh analyzed
system um moving on um we have a
building 1B this is going to be a very similar structure to what we saw before
just slightly smaller um we again have the same buttress and Wing
wall system and back retaining wall system we're utilizing the same methods
as far as gliding is concerned we have the passive pressure the co-fiction of friction and we have tie downs location
again there's the same TC couple as before
design we can take a look at the wing wall for this it's slightly different
um we do have one level of concrete which will allow the wing walls to span
vertically my cantilever past that diaphragm as well to catch that a little
bit of soil that's above that um as far as sliding is concerned for the wing walls so again we're utilizing
passive pressure and then the section three shows the
wing wall on the right hand side of the building this swing wall is not taking a lot of
load because we have an adjacent structure next to that that's building in one so this red section that you see
right here is the only soil that's pushed up against the swing wall so we're seeing pretty light loads there
moving on to N1 and N2 again it's going to be very similar to what we saw before
we have the typical buttress wall on Wing wall system and the back wall
one thing to note there this is just a butcher's wall on this side it's on a
wing wall because uh the unit there D9 so there's no soil pushed up against it
let's just use to transfer load from the back retaining wall to the battery as
well um again it's all the same methods as I described before we have our passive
pressure or friction and our tie downs to resist sliding um
and the same TC couple that I've mentioned before and on the right hand side we do have
our wing wall uh for unit and two again we have a concrete diaphragm which
allows this wall to span vertically and cantilevers past that diaphragm to catch
the soil here and that is all I have for you
I did notice that um John when you were talking about our drawings there was a
September date on there we did have a uh a December set that was set though
hopefully we can get that to you if you don't have it yet
um am I the only one that didn't ban or Craig did you guys
have any updated no I just got that the ones that I got originally I didn't see
any emails with new drawings uh attached there I went back through the emails
they were there everyone was on them right December 2nd third fourth all this discussion about the the new drawings
being completed and Tom sent another link we all were on there it's kind of upsetting
you know sent to Willie on December 5th and everybody is on there and uh
saying that they're available to the Dropbox link and uh announcing that the new drawings are
ready the next day I wish if people hadn't been able to access somebody but have notified us
um disturbing
so Mark you're saying that they were available made available to everybody and we're all in the emails yeah and
yeah December 5th Thompson went to Willie same what files they were in and they were available to the Dropbox link
originally provided to you put us an email
um with the Dropbox link from Wheeling on December 5th asking and then as there's some requests
for updated calculations from Shoring from Benjamin
um on the fifth and then Willie asked me and we provided a link there is an email from
Billy foreign talking about how we're going to submit on the second I mean lots of
dialogue about it I mean it's you guys reviewed what you reviewed but
you know disappointed
okay well we all need to to have the most
updated so whatever it takes um whatever link I just went on this
week to check I couldn't get on so I don't know if there was a different
link than the original one I think Tom said in the December 5th that it was on that he was seeing them up on the on the
original link and you know people weren't able to access that it would have been great if someone could have
let us know um
but um
all right well um I think the the best thing we can do is make that link
available again and make sure we can get on it and so we can all have the same
thing to look at um as far as the rest of the meeting
if if anyone needs to take a break when you take a a couple minute break and
then I'll address the geologic um portion of the project and then
we'll throw it to Craig and Craig probably during yours we can weave in
the Shoring since it's probably more Geotech than geology you can weigh in on
at least what you can with what you've reviewed and then we'll go to structural
and and anyway you know if and you Tom is the one who is putting things into Tom's not here this week uh can you
access that link and um make sure all those latest documents are
on there and yeah let me double check my link
and I'll forward you I just looked at the link Mark and and I
did see the documents there you know you see the documents there um
yeah the last email I saw was the December 5th from Tom to everybody
um I don't know uh I'm gonna put you away on it here
the very bottom of that particular email that came from Tom on the fifth there there is a link and I just opened it and
it has documents dated uh December
yeah is this you're gonna find out a copy
from from the November
I'm just gonna hit send everybody again
maybe there's someone on the sack open it up and see if it worked for you
yeah that opened and these are the drawings the December
second drawings
those are them and I and mark the difference back in December in the I
also was able to open that link so
you know from my standpoint I mean the Geotech report hasn't changed so Billy Mary review is looking through uh the
showing updated showing which we could do fairly quickly
there there have some been updates to the geotechnical report Craig
so the December one has an update on it uh because it's it's one it's one that I
got looked like it was the same date in July there's not been an actual update to the
report we did the updates through the those two addenda letters I got those okay you know I'm good
so really the there's no change in the recommendations themselves that were covered by those agenda some of the
finished floors did change so some of the concepts on this particular on the South Side how our recommendations were
taken slightly different but I feel like it needed an update
yeah for whatever reason I didn't get the second supplemental so if you could forward that to me or if
it's in that latest link yeah maybe you can maybe you can check and see if you
know Geotech letter that we sent those to wheelie separately yeah
I I think the biggest difference is the fact that excavations have gotten a little deeper
than what the original report envisioned
the supplemental letter goes into the Dropbox any like material for that will go into
the Dropbox anyway can you add those two letters into the Dropbox
I think I set them separately since that Dropbox is managed by Kyle
they make a suggestion is to have the project teams to account it the
basic difference what the update drawing and all calculation is between
the two versions that property is going to help with moving forward in this meeting
you know Erwin you want to take a crack at it I think it was basically the completion of the drawings right from
the 50 CDs 100 CDs
I'd love to uh walk the committee through how I see the the Shoring being
installed with this 16 page document
and I'll leave it to John to see if that's okay with the procedure
procedurally yeah
um let's let me get through mine with the geology and then that'll fold into
the Geotech for Craig and the Shoring so why don't we do that first
so if no one needs to take a break I'll go ahead and start
um so in in my review of the geologic aspect of the geotechnical and geologic
report um essentially the scope of work was with
thorough and comprehensive including document review something that Josh didn't weigh in on
was the air photo analysis that they did site mapping their subsurface
test kits geophysics their seismic evaluation lab testing
analysis of my report so the general scope was comprehensive and and fairly
thorough and with the difficult Side Access the the main thing that that I
always look at and often have to request additional
information is subsurface exploration and most Consultants
uh shy away from doing enough of that and so it's something that's very common for
us to ask for in this case I think the test pit
data combined with the geophysics
is somebody running water in the background is anyone else hear that
I think it's Harvey's uh audio okay I don't think so I don't hear anything
here but let me highlight it every time let me mute myself
does that help that seemed to have helped
anyway um reviewing the data the one thing
um Josh your your site plan showed additional trenches in green that I haven't seen or
wasn't privy to so that's information that if you have any any logs on that please forward
those as well I just had the five that you did initially
um and again I agree with your findings um I don't see I don't have
um a major bone of contention with the subsurface interpretation
I've looked at aerial photographs similar years that you did
I don't see any evidence of instability even though they cut that slope in the what looks like the 30s
for Diamond Street there was no indication of instability so I don't I
don't have a high level of concern that especially when you guys sure and stabilize the cuts I have no qualms with
um what you're proposing and the slope stability evaluation that you've done
the conclusions of langan's report basically indicate that the typical
geologic hazards that are evaluated from the seismic standpoint slope
stability standpoint they indicate that they all have a low risk to the proposed
development and I agree their main constraints include soil
creep and surfacial raveling which they mentioned the Hard Rock excavation
temporary excavation instability surface and subsurface drainage control
and the general slope steepness and I agree with those constraints and
don't see any others that they have missed
the only thing I I am curious was curious their evaluation of the
landsliding to the north and and you guys have uh shed some light on that I
didn't have access to that report um but it makes sense the variation in
the geology and depth of surface materials down there was a significant reason for that failure I did see on
Aerials that to the south at Walter Haas Park and Billy Goat Hill what looked like an old quarried area it
looks like it it had some instability there as well but again different geology different facing aspect
um the geophysics um seems to match what you found in your subsurface with
the center part of the site being underlained by churn Church looks like there's a big mound in your
geophysics in the center that corresponds with that shirt as being a little bit harder than
the surrounding sandstone I am curious as to the contacts between
those units and I know you didn't find those in your test pits
um you'll have to be and one of my recommendations will be that you're out there during uh the explorator
excavation and document the
the geology as they're uncovering it the recommendations that Langan has
provided appear reasonable although I think they've changed and there's probably an update that I haven't seen
in their report they recommend um peers for certain parts of the unit
but I think those have been dropped down so that the peer recommendations are no longer
valid for any reason I am curious about the the micro pile
letter and maybe that's been updated with the the second supplemental
um because I obviously didn't see any micro piles on the plans and again I'm looking
at older plans um
the one thing regard uh the constraint that they documented with hard rock
conditions during the excavations and we can talk about this during the the Shoring is
um what's going to be what's going to happen out there from a monitoring standpoint and from a vibration
monitoring is it I didn't see anything on the Shoring plans that spelled that out but if the rock is
that hard certainly um vibration monitoring is going to be valuable
um and that's pretty much all I've got and I'll throw it into Craig's lap
um oh the last thing and again I think it's um the under drains that
Scott had mentioned um I didn't see those on any of the plans
and maybe they're on the more updated plans and so we'll definitely be looking for a
drainage plan that shows all the specifics of the wall back drains and
the under drains and and see that in plan and section View
with that I'll pass it off to Craig yeah from my perspective from the
geotechnical perspective you know with the buildings being completely in rock um there's
um the risk of things going wrong is is low um and and I thought that the
reports thorough has you know the recommendations are all reasonable I saw some minor inconsistent consistencies in
the recommendations but generally on the computer side and for instance some uh
one place passive is four thousand psf uniform and a couple others it's 2000 BSF but there those are all very minor
things I think you know geotechnically um one of the things that I bring up uh
because it happens to us is that those subsurptives drains that goes underneath the buildings it kind of Falls within no
scope and so just to catch you know that somebody
somebody has to put them on a drawing and figure out you know they often have to be go to uh some sort of you know box
uh and so forth so it's just it's a minor thing um
so really when I think of it I think more about uh construction how's this going to be built it's not necessarily I
think the parameters are okay you know the Bedrock becomes very hard with depth you know over eight thousand feet per
second in the from the um uh from the geophysical survey so that tells you
very hard rock and I guess you know Irwindale walk us through uh I'm wondering how you drill a soldier Pile
in it but I mean the soldier piles maybe aren't as deep that don't go into that really hard rock as much uh I'm
wondering about the permanent versus temporary soil nails that we can get into also
um that that's more about soaring so overall geotechnically I have very minor comments on the on the report no really
no issues with um the approach the the values in there um and uh you know thankfully the the
the bedding in the in the fracture fractures are are positive for this site
which you know shows up because there hasn't been stability issues in there so that you know beneficial from the from
the for the project hey Craig I'm sorry one question I I was going to throw it
in your lap anyway and I kind of forgot was the the strengths that were thrown out
um in order from the Geotech for the Shoring I think soil nail design
had um you know a soil strength and a rock strength and I wasn't sure where those
came from and maybe Scott could Enlighten Us and how those were derived
I think he had zero and 30 for the soil and 42 and 500 for the rock right right yeah you know
treating Rock like soil is always a gray area I mean in the for the retaining
design you know it looks like the re the values are conservative for rock obviously either
you know like a soil uh in the soil nails they talk about 30 foot of embedment um so uh not sure you know Tim
I don't know if that was for global stability or what that was but there was a a recommendation in there to have you
know use this skin friction as long as it's 30 feet into Bedrock um you know I kind of have to look at it
and see you know where where the soil Nails end up you know because obviously with this with rock like this you want
to tie enough for the rock together to to stand up quickly um you know in in global stability to be
okay but it you know I don't know maybe maybe Scott can say where Rock values came from for
for soil nails and like you described um I essentially took the idea that all
the rocket at various steps may be highly fractured but appears to be hard based on the velocities themselves uh
and those fractures are pretty tight so treated it like a friend or a frictional material we did give it an apparent cohesion
because even removing some of those blocks themselves um because of the orientation of the
bedding so that's where that apparent cohesion of 500 psf comes in so essentially from published literature
based on assuming it could be weak rock at any depth or fractured rocket any depth
okay yeah it's not different than we've recorded for DC you know is this is
pretty decent Rock compared to a lot of the rock that we've dealt with in other areas so um I didn't have any problem
with those values so that was really it geotechnically like I said to me it's more you know
how's this thing I built I agree vibrations you know if they get into Hard Rock and
you got a whole Ram going you know I don't think there'll be issues with structures but you're definitely going
to get complaints and stuff based on experience in San Francisco um doing some sort of vibration
monitoring is just more to make sure that you know people know that they're
you know the vibrations are low and not damaging their structures
so we'll see we specifically do talk about survey monitoring for be uh performance of the Shoring in the
geotechnical report don't uh recall if those have been fully captured in Irwin's drawings uh yet uh they
certainly can be uh mirror there or added uh and we don't we don't take
exception to or we vibration monitoring will be required because of the construction methodologies that will
need to be used which probably will include coring and some horams and things like that which will be you know
of potential for disturbance so that's all I got John I don't know if
you want to Benjamin wants to to discuss what you guys for showing
okay all right Ben
you're muted or something then a mute
Ben are you there okay
and you're still muted
yeah it's not muted but uh isn't we cut down here I don't know if he could hear us
now he's self-muted
he's not muted on your end Willy nope he got his green microphone on but
no input
okay Ben can you hear us okay wave your hand if you can hear us
don't scratch your head wave your ass um how about
um all in the audio or something is the volume on your computer can you
ramp that up
Benjamin we can see you we can hear you yeah maybe you can lock lock off and lock on
again uh Ben
while we have this interlude does it make sense Irwin do you want to pull up the drainage drawings
maybe show those and kind of talks through them it seems like that's
some interest in those you know what one one of the things that Craig and John have made in comments on
are the subsurface drainage but we've gone through a very extensive
uh discussions on how to drain this and there there are plans
for both the retaining walls and uh under slab drainage that uh you guys
should uh review um and I I believe Irwin has put those
drawings together I don't know why you guys don't have them hello
Ben can you hear us yeah can you hear me yeah okay good okay
I have a few questions on uh sorrington the general notes the first page and you
mentioned some underpinning I guess my maybe that's some typo in there on the general Knocks
number 10 you should mention some underpinning there on the cleaning system
I don't think we are wonderful name what I do here open
um no there's no underpinning yeah and maybe you're gonna need to clean up that Nooks a little bit and also you're on a
short trip you mentioned 2500 but the building code you've got stock
price of four thousand though right I mean you might want to check on that on the 1909.4 if I have a shot to it
354 000 PSI concrete yeah I I wanted to um
evaluate the 2500 PSI for for um moving on to the next lips
however I can happily change it back to 4000 because you we don't catch shot crease less than 8 000 typically in the
commercial Market I I just wanted to call it at 25 and move on to the next lift
but I guess at the building code says that unless you the building department say that's okay though
and also on the jio Kia installation procedure you say settlement up to one
inch may be observed but based on the project with the city they allow three eight of inches movement
and I don't know this is acceptable for the city
and also on the type installation looks I don't
know if this is just a price for the soldier team or they have rival for the block nail and uh
Soldier game as well you did mention anything from the rock rail
on the type installation procedure yeah yeah and you'll clarify that so that
they include a rock nail as well because of the testing or that other thing
and also on your drawing you mentioned
the oversized Soldier beam for the permanent Soldier beam I don't
know how you define the oversized so that we don't need like a coating for
the protection kind of thing and
for the permanent one
sure well my my understanding was that in areas that don't have concrete
we have a certain um degradation due to due to corrosion per
year and so that the cross-section member has been increase to account for that corrosion
so that these can be left in a rusted uncoated
scenario but then I don't know how you define your soldier being you decide for the
calc and the calculations just like whatever Soldier team you specify works but what you consider is oversized you
don't need coating protection for the permanent use and
I don't know what's the City requirement for all this or how you
define this uh whatever the size you come up with on your calculation then okay I increase to whatever size so that
you consider the oversized so that you don't need protection
you know yeah that's a great it's a good point and maybe I should elaborate it on
it a little bit better um you know the biggest bending moment on those beams that they're checked for
is where they we have full encapsulation in concrete and so corrosion
uh doesn't become the uh driving design
um so I I think I need to give you a supplemental information there to show uh the the rate of corrosion and then
um the the demand on the beam which would be greatest right at the base of
the um excavation okay um so the biggest bending moment is is
we have corrosion protection already because it's encasing Concrete in the
toe and then I guess where it steps on the dredge line or the dig line
um I need to give you an an updated calculation to show the demand there and
what the availability is I understand that your Tech calcification of the conflict that
you've got three inch covered and you'll be fine but that this exposed person above the wrong excavation the retaining
High portion then I don't know how you can you find that the oversized and
oversized then you don't need coating or Galvanize that kind of protection
um but I guess you you could well take a look at it or you give a or more
clarification or reference so that you say okay that's the pie something like
that and also I saw your uh Rock nail then
you just have one detail song there but on the plan or elevation
then you don't really number them and also call the elevation
and the type that load there then you draw some nine in there then by the time
when people are checking it I don't know how they will get this slide so chat one two three four five whatever
and I think probably should have some number and the elevation for your rock
booting or not now and so that when you do the testing or people looked at how many or
tutorial and all of the how many people installed then they can keep track of that so just uh
nobody can tell which one is done which one cannot turn in the field
okay that's a great point and also then you you didn't call out
the the elevation on the other Rock voting thing and then when you draw the line
some look like a 10 feet on Center or something so like a 5631 Center but
they're on the side report uh section 8.2 then they say want to cut
Lotto 65 feet and I don't know how that would match up with the recommendation
but actually that technical engineer for that
yeah um I saw your calculation so that like a 4.6 feet per layer then you have a eight
roll a type no levels like what five six no something even less then I don't know
how your calculation is to kind of coordinate
with uh your drawing
should I um can we talk through it one by one and I think a lot of this has been out um
evaluating the updated plan set um but I'm happy to answer that
so for instance with the uh six foot cut question
as to uh work around that by um
having shot crease uh staged so that we don't have any more than six feet of
rock exposed at any one time and I guess if you call your elevation
on the wrongful thing on the elevation then over the nose okay
it's five feet or six feet per feet whatever right so now that you didn't call anything that nobody knows exactly
plus a spacing between the bottom nail
yeah um
happy to elaborate on that typically when we record things we record them at the elevation and the location
um but for instance on on this elevation
here which is one of the principal elevations what we have is the uh
drainage panel shown there and then we have a you know these would
be installed for the notes at that elevation which is less than six feet
um but I wanted to to do with these was was
try and give a little bit of flexibility so we have a a call out here that that uh
that shows the maximum and minimum of course for this work here so let me just
uh like through these 16 pages and get it to you
so this was the the updates that that calls out to those uh maximum and
minimum uh you say this again is it on Santa
the water called The Mansion and we go down the second nail on the dot nail then you say eight foot
on Santa Maxes you know right
so for instance to speak specifically to the question about uh excavation and
exposures I I chose this three foot Max for the top so that typically these are installed
two feet below yeah so that would put us at a five foot exposure of dirt
uh and then once the once the nails go in if uh Shaw Creek can get uh brought down
more we can uh move on to the next elevation so we kind of intermediate uh Shaw Creek Four as a 1930.
well you still a though Asia you'll get two feet below your nail and then you shock it to the
whatever you excavate the two foot below the nail then your links there then you get another eight feet Max
correct intermediate uh makeup pores as necessary
but with that then call on your nail installation that kind
of thing that's why I don't know maybe you should add that to it so that
what the people doing it or inspector doing it and knowing that's
going to happen then absolutely
yeah also on your calculation on that page you show the input that is so selected you are
elevation or something only so like a 4.6 feet per each layer
but then I don't know how this would relate to your drawing of how you get that
bring back to your drawing saying this is a
HD on Center are you design that compared to what you design and the calculation that doesn't match reading
on your drawing showing because on your joint
objects like a two fifty six
or two fifteen either page it seems like you have a roller nail stereo layer is
4.6 feet difference in the spacing
Max and I don't know that loading everything
how you match your calculation
I have the the updated calculations here on this 259 page document
um and this is the spacing there at eight foot fix the horizontal
and we can uh go through this now or or later but it's it's
calculations match this elevation this page you saw like a one two three four
five nail in here right
yeah then you go to the next page on the see all your
250 six you go your page 250 street two foot with your page 256 a couple of
pages longer than you write those numbers there your first row is a four feet and second so four eight
3.6 like a four foot six and the third your other four six and so on so forth
okay you have a eight row of the nail in here seems like to me
but then how how you can say eight foot maximum no quite
understand how you get through that understood
um calculation or something cool yeah
match your iPhone
yep we can uh update that also on your 10 delivery Soldier game
piece all right only of PM 121 to 139 there
and you know kind of weird because of your bm121 to 125 you say the size high
is 16 feet 6 feet on Center you need the embedment 10 foot 10 and a half feet
but for the 139 134 your routine has 20 feet the same six feet on Center your
request an iPhone and Batman which is a less than 16 feet and also for 135 to 139 you have
a 27 feet 18 High 10 deliver Beam at six feet and Center you only need 15 and a
half feet and Batman and it seem really right on the geometry
because you're 26 feet high then you cut like a half of that entertainment for
the soldier then I get in my work double chat in
your calculations because like a 16th and 2050 you are in Batman would be
the worst not sure which location where we're
talking about here well that's awesome on your page 17 of your calculation or
your chart then your p121 through 129 you have a 16
feet retaining height and then you need 10 for 6 and Batman
121 to 125 yeah
right there yeah but then the 129 to 1
34 you need an iPhone payment which is a 20 foot retaining effect
okay Dad seems like that doesn't really make much sense
well thanks for yeah yeah and also put the one below to 135 to 137
139 you were 27 foot retain High you get 15 and a half feet and then
but it doesn't really seem right on the geometry for the 27 feet high that high
then you then pay my social but I guess you won't double check that because
normally you want to one to one there's something at least one to one or one point one to one point two and Batman
but uh soldiably but I can't deliver
yeah when I get back to you on that one yeah you want to double check on that
and also in your calculation of a soldier team because you're allowed for
three times diameter for the passive then your GOP are 2.2 feet
diameter then you use it three times but because you're only six feet on standard you buy you cannot use
three times and then the processary reduces to only six months
facing anyway
um because the person
or a major part of my common and I think you're probably need to
double check your calculation and then some
more work on the elevation so they show all the robot
number and uh layer at what the role elevation and so then the people knows
what need to do with that
right
I have a little comment here uh a band yeah also Urban uh regarding the
oversized uh Soldier files that is exposed to
exposed to a weathering isn't that recommendation should come from the uh
corrosivities of the soil of rocks uh be checked for and providing
that recommendations from from a true technical engineer
well I guess that makes sense but before we do all my our project and then if a
permanent then you need the coating unless you get three inch concrete cover but I don't know now make it a new code
exchange you don't require that or something I don't know because Disney spray on the calculation
on the trunks it is oversized it's a cover size but then I don't know
what's the definition for the oversized you don't need the coating or galvanized protection
protocol in terms of of corrosion on on other
projects that have foundation piles that are made of steel uh that we do you know retain occurs and
consultant is usually retained on the project and they can provide guidance on what kind of cover would be required
given for a given design life usually something like an eighth of an inch on any any given side
um for a 50-year life
well I guess you're a chemical engineer or some respect expert can make some
recommendation then so that's if you were accept whatever their recommendation here
because I'm based on my experience on the project I did that it would require nice or you
know epoxy coding something like that yeah what I've seen is just a corrosion
resistant paint on there not necessarily epoxy coating there are some harder protection coated right yeah I think you
know Scott points out it's kind of this whatever eighth of an inch it's for the low grade this case it's you know of
grade so it's a little a little gray there because you know obviously you could you can get more corrosion air
there's more oxygen going you know in that situation but my experience is some you know that they're painted basically
it's even um we can move on from there just
just for for the for the soil it looks like a lot of the soil Nails end up going off the property line so you have
there's agreement all these neighboring properties to have soil Nails beneath them I don't know how many there are but
it looks like there's a lot yeah the neighboring property uh they've they've reviewed and approved these
places okay they sold us to land too so they they're um including the city as well it'll be
under their roads right and that that's in for it's the private property owners the one that signed off the city uh
there's a minor encouragement permit that's been submitted okay for that radio
again that would only be from temporary structures like the soil Nails once the permanent walls in the soil nails are no
longer useful to the design and I I think that needs to specify some
plant explicitly that is a temporary uh saw nails that could be cut off uh
at the at the end of the job or in the Futures and that's for those that is
going into the roadway uh and all for those that going into adjacent property
that need to get spec out clearly on the plan and additional permits for
um getting soil over property lines to have
to obtain additional permits for the adjacent property as well
right um could I jump in there on that um as a procedural item
a lot of these plant sets um we've presented them all in one page
but they will need to be broken down into into specific DVI
land check uh numbers for each specific address so
um that's a bit of housekeeping we and we understand that we do want to keep these
in one plant set right now to to gather everything and then as they
get collated they may get broken down is a specific lot
ion I think that's that's beyond what what you're dealing
within us in the in the sac reveal but uh just for clarifying that as a sign up
here is is that if the loss has been subdivided then separate permits will be required
if the lot is one property then you do not need to subdivide and separate uh
permits so that is the important piece of that yeah I thought the sharian excavation
and I don't know if that Tony is is Tony Sanchez Korea but at my
recollection was it was going to be one Shoring an excavation permit for the whole site because because it hasn't
been divided up yet that's correct but that is so one set of plans but they
might have yes but then you're if you're correct the the neighbors we have to
separate out the the tie backs that go into the neighbors Pro across the property line we have to put a separate
title block and an address for that neighbor's property and request a permit
for that neighbor's property DPW we just get a MSE a minor sidewalk
encroachment and we've applied for that and submitted our project documents
um as shown the tie backs that go into the public right away
and are there cross-sections Irwin that you've generated that show the angle of
the tie backs that extend under the roadways so that you we can do or
DPW can determine you know if there's going to be any conflicts with utilities and whatnot
yes they are part of the DPW set
there is no conflict there everything is five feet away
so Erwin um I looked um it looked like you have some tie backs going into a Diamond Heights Street
and um it looks like you're being Crossing the sewer line in the center of the road
have you looked at that in terms of a cross-section like mapping out that sewer and seeing if in your tie backs
will be hitting that because it from your image on sh20a it looks like on Diamond Heights
your tie backs are going across that sewer line
that's correct they're going across it but they're not conflicting with us
so you've you've mapped it out and looked at it that's right yeah
you might like to include that in the cross sections on your plan so
there's some things that you know you have look at that one here because that is important item uh
uh on that lines of thoughts uh I have a couple questions number one
here is regarding the the angle of the
soil nails are going in different directions how that is affected by the
uh Rock joins uh uh deep directions eventually there is any
correlations regarding it capacity and length uh versus The Rock joint
directions as as the currently the the informations
was was uh you know the investigations were only superficial pits uh which does
not go to the depth that it is uh the the soil nail is going to go into
so that's the first question I have from the second questions I have is regarding that irvins was having some uh early ons
have some presentations regarding the soil pressures uh going into the the
retaining walls and apparently when you have a stepping retaining wall uh you
you start the lateral pressure from zero uh at this levels which has uh which was
uh not at the service of that slope so uh is so I have the questions regarding
if actually those are appropriate letter low values that to apply to the retaining wall that is cascading
the first one let me start there in terms of the rock jointing
um you know we haven't seen any indication at depth especially where we're going to be having these elements that we have
any open joints or with gouge or anything within them and so the the
diameter of whether it's a soil nail or a tie back will span across you know if
it happens to align perfectly with a joint it would align across multiple
blocks above and below it so we don't expect a reduction per se in the skin
friction if it happens to align perfectly with the joints we also the likelihood uh is with the length of
tiebacks and elements we have that it would be continuous along this entire length I think is
um incredibly small so it's not not a specific word we have
i i i as more Layman's questions on that uh that's the Deep of deep angles of
your rock joint is supposed to be uh uh higher or lower than the angles of
your soil nail directions to be favorable
I don't know that I understand the question well I think he's getting at the
um Josh showed the test pit with the the rock strata dipping
what might be at the same angle as your rock bolts or soil Nails I think that
was where Willy's going with that is a good question so
so a couple things is one is we we do see variable dips in the rock that we
encountered all of it was into the slope so it's not that we have one set that's always exactly at one planar length
um and then the follow-up on the engineering aspects of you know pulling out a tie back that's in those blocks is
we would be in multiple blocks just because the diameter of any of those units I'm sorry any of those structures that
we'd be putting in
so I I I think the root of my question is that what would be considered a
favorable uh deep angles for that retaining wall once you're you know when
you are putting tie backs in you know the rock nails to tie the blocks together
any orientation that wasn't perfectly uh parallel
would be favorable if it was dipping a little bit shallower or a little bit deeper uh would not affect as long as
you you can engage multiple blocks you you don't have a mechanism for
um unfavorable dip in that or in that structural orientation and Josh I don't
know if you want to weigh in the geology side
well I think I think the proof is in the pudding when you you know when you test them
um if I I assume you're going to be testing some before you drill all of them and so
absolutely you would find out early on if you had to change your angle a little
bit so um a testing program in place currently
yeah I don't know if it's been documented in the in the plans themselves we've suggested they be tested in accordance with
um I forget which mechanism it is a standard procedure for putting in soil
nails as detailed in our report yeah I think Irwin has it
because perfect there's a lot of information now you
don't know what day or testing on the soaring Journal because only the
one detail shows that I think that's details uh
Erin I had a question for you I see I do see your drainage you have the sub drains
included on your drainage plans for the walls there um what is what is uh uh between the slab
and the rock it looks like you have hydro duct honor
it basically that's right yeah yeah is that Scott Richard is that okay I mean is
that a vapor retarder is that what goes no Hydro duct is a prefabricated
drainage panel conventional uh panel in lieu of rock considering the
volume of rock of water we expect so we've allowed to use panels continuous
panels on the underneath the slab sections there's just a basically a
these are they sloping down toward the trench the sub drain the subgrade uh
no there there just sorry sorry I got you and then what goes on top of
the hydro duct then between the slab and the hydro duct would just be waterproofing
waterproofing okay yeah the whole idea is to avoid Excavating
yeah I mean we normally I mean you'd like to have a little bit of gradient I mean obviously the water is gonna it
comes up and pushes against the slab it'll eventually get over to that trench so but yeah
I think all these need sand traps right isn't that right Willie all those subgrains yeah those uh need to go for sand trap
before going into a City store okay
one one of the questions we have Willie is do we need sand traps for every unit
or can we um get all together all together and you
use you know a limited number uh the sand trap has before you go into
City so it need to go for Centra no but do we need one for every unit
or can we have uh you know one for a combined number of
units I've run into this exactly what I said is that if your drainage is going through only one Outlet into the city
sewer that's where it is uh uh that's where this connection is if you connect directly to City sewers and whatever
their direct connections need to get us
except for maybe one at the end there where they can connect up
on this on this on the North side uh but the other ones are kind of space far
apart to connect her to connect them before you go to the submarine
hey this is Christine gerske with bkf Engineers um we have another utility plan too and
we've coordinated um these kind of drainage lines and we have inlets
um at those kind of solid combined uh pipes that incorporate sand traps so
anywhere there's a lateral to the street we would provide a sand trap via a drain
Inlet just City standard detail Style
and the subtrain ought to have uh in key locations uh reasonable link to have
cleanouts but it is a retaining board is uh pretty pretty tall
so just I think that the second questions I had was regarding if the
little pressure diagrams as we've shown seeing Irvin's drawing that was in his demonstrations for the cross sections
with those cascading walls is uh it's uh adequately that you know address the
real pressure on them because there was some color color
exhibits that that was brought into during the his presentation
so that's on this on the structural drawings there yeah um and what we're talking about is
having a retained cantilever wall That's set back from the wall
yeah cascading actually not this one here but the those that has a step there
you go skating Board of the Wind on the left hand side there was one showing
the one subject inside there was a demonstrations that shows a
two triangular blocks one for the top one for the bottom this one does not use yeah
going back one yeah I think it's probably further back possibly yeah there we go
I think it's the one with the garage you just missed it go go forward one
yeah there we go yeah so here what we have is that we've
got the one one wall system that's taken up by the structure uh and the Lo the
lateral load is dissipated within the footprint of the garage structure there
and then the vertical loads on the other side of you know all the columns coming down on the other side of the garage are carried right into that wall so we don't
have surcharge pressures from the foundation itself that are pushing down
uh and so we we do get to start over uh with a new you know pressures there that
take that into account I think Willie are you talking about the soldier piles that are is it is this the
cantilever Soldier pile wall behind here the one in the upper part actually it's the lower part
the lower parts that that that is a certain low that's going through the garage slap that is going to go into
that that uh that the lower wall
so all the loads on the that are close by that wall are carried into the wall itself
so the structural loads come down into the combined wall it becomes the lower retaining wall
now oh the the green wall and the green slab right there uh
yeah that's that's the part there that sled through those coming in
from the lateral walls on the left pushing into that slab into the lower
wall wouldn't it be well yeah I think our well what we did is we checked the
sliding so the upper the upper box to the upper left um the sliding resistance at the bottom
of the green slab takes out the lateral resistance before that load makes it
over to the other side and and thus that friction is is being
resisted by the soil below right below is has to exert that low into
something
so I mean the um yeah we can provide a response to that
question but because it's it's rock and we're able to take it out before it gets to the other side uh doesn't seem to be
a mechanism to really apply a lateral load on that uh secondary you know the
lower wall system we have to be careful here one's friction one's
a surcharge and the friction load can be taken out in the rock is is
sliding resistant versus a surcharge that's going to be imposed on the wall below
so I mean I don't want to confuse the two but uh you know as Scott said we can we we we
can respond to that but there's a friction which is
girly in the in at the Rock uh slab interface and surcharge that basically a
vertical load that gets translated into a horizontal load or imposed on the wall
and they're really two different things well that's that's the heart of the
questions here is that the law got to go somewhere if you think that the rock is able to sustain itself then you don't
even really have the second triangle on the bottom right because you have a piece of solid rock standing it can
stand straight up as a cliff I I just want to be clearer it's not necessarily
A load on on on on the lower retaining wall
when when he saw it and when his rockets that would be different uh the rock can
stand on cliffs if it is uh of that you know of that uh
Integrity so to speak so I think we have fractured a rock
there so which is a different story isn't it
yeah certainly can yeah provide a response there point taken if this was soil we would uh be taking a look at
where that load was shed and whether or not it would uh translate over how it
would dissipate um and so you know I don't wanna
take the the conservative approach that we've done with you know designing all these for uh essentially as a as a
intact soil uh and do double penalty I mean yes we
wouldn't need that we don't have a lower triangle if it's one big block of rock but that's not actually what we're saying either so we can provide a
response to that great thank you and early on I think uh Ben had to
questions regarding uh irvins calling out 2500 PSI uh short Creek and if it is
going to be supporting any building with three story at about then indeed to at
least 3000 PSI for any of those concrete material
that's the code requirement okay thanks for that clarification
okay we haven't gone to uh uh no I just want to remind us to chair
that we haven't gone to a hobby for architecture right
was that an was that an invitation to go to Harvey yes
good okay we we have discussed at some length the
um disposition of groundwater and how it gets out to the street through the
laterals but no one has discussed uh how roof Waters
roof water is dealt with could you cover that
anyway is that you are you are you would you be on the roof water as the architect Christine do you want to take
that question yeah I can help out with that question um a portion
Feria is collected and um sent to a cistern for reuse on site
um and then the remaining area that's on the upper side of the site
um the cistern will reside in in the building that has the garage Puzzler
um the lower sites since those roofs are lower we'll be going out to the combined sewer system
um our our piping on site will grab the downspouts coming from those buildings
or the storm drain connections and then sending it to the to the combined sewer system in the street the cistern is
going to be used for irrigation on site and there is an
overflow pipe that is connected up to the Diamond Heights Boulevard Street combined sewer system
thank you
uh you got any photos uh
questionings uh or comments uh Avi no I do not
okay let me ask the questions yes I see the uh there is a fly of stairs that's kind of
waking around you know downhill uh in the middle of the site
and apparently it is being you know having the architectural laid out maybe
that's not really structural laid out that was early on in presentation uh
that uses some levels of uh uh as I see on the plans some uh
elevated structures on Pierce uh and and I'm just wondering if if
those actually needs to get specified as uh surcharging any part of the retaining
structure
I would direct that to iMac um
I know we have elevated structures on Piers below at the bottom side of the
retaining structure well are you talking about something up at the top uh A syndrome middle of it there's a
flight of stairs that's wickling around uh in the I think it's crossing the site
we have two stairwells one that kind of wraps around one's more of a straight shot and then
one kind of winds its way down one's on the North End of the site and one's on the south end which which
one are you uh what this is the ones that is between building one a and one b
yeah that's that's the um that's the North End yeah between duplex uh four five six and
then seven eight nine does that help show yeah so that that
stairs that's a kind of a zigzag stair um it
so I think we made there's a retaining wall a permanent wall structure that that ties in between duplex uh in
between duplex six and duplex duplex seven and then that's a that's a sheer cut
right there right and then the stairs are then supported off of Piers but they're at the bottom of that cut
so they don't they don't surgeries because they're at the bottom I don't um we have an architectural section of
those stairs it might help show what's going on but that that wall is a full
cut from the full that retains that full full face right
there so the the supporting structure is at the bottom of that wall
okay I soda said that is a stairs that's kind
of wrap around the the top side on the on the high side of the building
I think it's 1B right
that's a fly upstairs that's right around the top of the retaining
structure at the top of one B there that's just a
walkway of for the center d7b8b9b
yeah this is right above there that's just a walkway so you're it's actually a Stairway that you can get off the
stairway and go there no that's that that stairway is on the
on the low side of the of the cut right it's not on top of the cup
yeah the the stairway as as it comes up from the the south then it it zigzags
and that's an elevated it's an elevated structure that's built up with a pier and it's supported the
foundation of that is supported at the bottom of the cut and then as it's an elevated section as
it goes up it crosses a line um trying to figure out how I can draw
here but it crosses the line yeah right there if you draw yeah exactly so as it crosses there then it turns into a slab
on grade essentially it's just on on the surface profile above that retaining
wall but everything to the south of that pink line is um is founded at the base
of the cut okay instead of cascading retaining wall here for landscaping So Below the stair
foreign they see a couple of lines in here right
below the red you have a couple more walls in there
okay I think it's a little confusing there but currently there's no landscape in there
yeah typically we would use two peers to avoid discharging or retaining wall if
there's uh a condition that you you question pointed out to us and we'll take a look
at it but uh yeah typically addition to retaining walls we we use Piers to take
the lows down below his own influence so that we don't have a surcharge if
there's something that you're concerned with is pointed out to us and we'll take a look at it
yeah I'm just seeing these figures that that is a couple looks like there's uh some cascading retaining walls here yeah
well again the peers are usually in employed to get below the zone of uh
influence of the retaining walls so that we don't increase the loads on the retaining wall but uh there's something
that is of concern please just point it out we'll take a look at it yeah
yeah you know Pastor those retaining ones those two things
these are I think it's only for the landscape um purpose and Irwin if we can share
like the drawing you have again
so I think it's only the lower part that has some landscape elements but it's not
retaining a local soil behind it
so those uh landscaping retaining walls that come after the initial type that was
right or actually those are Soldier powers
and those are social power wall right the permanent sodium
foreign
Philip is uh going to take a look at those uh during plant check then as
those are post-installed retaining Wars yeah no problem
I'll plug it
okay uh
chair wallets um we have agendas and I think we have one
part is going back to the agenda let's see
can I just ask you know I'm a total layperson here like did everyone
you know I don't know if it's Irwin or eway or who who needed to follow all those things that you're
asked for it sounded like Ben and Erwin had a thing going on where Ben was suggesting things that everyone was getting are we clear on what we're
what the next steps are for the design team in terms of respecting the things and clarifying
things yeah at the end of the discussion I I always wrap up the action items and
make sure that both all parties are clear on what's being asked for
um and in this case we always try and end the meeting with a uh discussion on whether or not we need
another full Sac review to go back over the items the action items and
my and we should have a discussion amongst the sac members about that and
Willie and Philip um especially with the the plans that
weren't we all didn't review the same revision dates
um what I'm seeing is is not a lot of fatal flaws as far as large
technical issues that could throw a big wrench into things and correct me if I'm
wrong Ben or Craig um so where to where to steer this
um I think we should be clear on that and then we can go through the the action items and make
sure everyone's clear on those is this something where we can
now we have the latest revisions the sac members can review those and
the project team can submit the remainder of the action items and can
those be reviewed by the individual Sac members and respond to DBI
with a letter or do we need to discuss in another SAC meeting
these action items because it sounds like a lot of them there are some Ben
and Erwin have you know a list and I'm I'm writing these down too and I want to go over them and make sure we cross
reference with the project team but
um maybe I I could get some feedback from Craig and Ben and Willie and Philip
on the need for another SAC meeting
yeah it's Craig I don't think we need another stock media I mean typically what I for these reviews
the the comments from each reviewer are you know provided and get responded to
um I mean we could have a meeting internally after we get a chance to dig through these I look through these the
Irwin's drawings the showering drawings and um it you know the sequence drawings are
very helpful and how it's going to be constructed so I think that uh um you know I think that's that's pretty
clear that we won't have to dig into those a lot more but it seems like the biggest comments are from sort of the
details of the calculations of the Shoring which I seems like those need to be addressed you know I don't know if
Ben needs to prepare a memo with all those or how that is I mean normally you want them in writing rather than trying
to to get it in a meeting like a summary whatever submit to either submit or the
city or DBI or video on Philip and then speaker so that they can disappear to
the design team does that work that way or yeah
I have minor I have minor ones I could provide you know get everything review
these and get it to the exact I mean the to DBI by you know within a week and I
don't know what Ben's time is but it seems like yeah because I already wrote
down something but then I can submit the for summary
whatever the item is to the DVI and so that they bring how they want to
distributed decide team to follow up I can do that yeah
this is William and I just want to remind Steve members uh I think the the
important thing here is that the the items that is on our gender basically uh
basically have been satisfied then the the others uh uh you know small details
uh regarding the uh the the the project documents uh that one's uh Philip can
actually follow up on and have those things button up and actually with the
latest design uh drawings if we provide that
particulars I think all the information has been discussed on this and uh
provided the the the applicants actually have a revision that basically satisfies
the you know the the comments to resolve the comments I think we might be good
but this important piece here is actually let's go through the items to see if what you see so far with the
design are in general in compliance uh with you know the the particular items
that that has been listed here so uh you know just a reminder on that one here
say if the say the Integrity or proposed design constructions is good and in fact
that's the grading construction activities that have been proposed that would have any safety and slop stability
issues during the construction sequence provided and also after the construction
and uh and if there's an internment that interim measures uh
that is going to mitigate a potential sliding erosion of the site if that has
been addressed it and also the important thing is a validity and appropriates of the geotechnical geotanical uh and
structural design concept and criteria and that has been put forward is adequate and adequacies of this
investigations are geotechnical and geological investigation and a study of
the to reach the recommended design parameters are those adequate and also
the evaluations of the grading design in this particular and the planning future
structures and developments and if that is going to be any
uh you know determine the program is of a capacitor perform satisfactory without failure and any Perpetual limitations on
the site to impose uh regarding the level of future development such as future excavations and a vertical
horizontal editions from the original plan now this part here we have not discussed but that's some things that
the uh sex should address uh their findings on uh constructibilities of the
proposed structural detail and construction methods and looks like that has been discussed and presented and also the
sufficiency or proposed inspection testing monitoring to be provided prior to during and after construction uh
there are some monitorings of the vibrations discussed and uh other than
that I do not see any other discussions on this regarding the testing we did
talk about some testing on the on the soil nail but that that
documents has to be provided now items to be reveals in cruel and unlimited
geotechnical geological investigation study design detailed drainage erosion
during after Construction Construction erection matters appropriately the adequacies of proportioning design
quality control and special inspection specify now those things that I did not
hear any comments on however that is part of the consideration the value part of those you consider the missing in the
revised drawings that we we may determines you know if that could that
is been done how it has not been done and you might have a considerations of
hinging some of that if that is not satisfactory provided uh in the in the you know after
looking at the revised Point um you know we might have an additional
discussions on but uh that determination has to come afterwards
in essence we and always have the capacity to ask the design team to come
back for another meeting if those happens to be you know not in line with
what what has been uh proposed a promise in a sense and site monitoring plan
during after uh improvements installations are constructed so those
has I think is still going to be a monitoring plan that need to get details but if there is no big concern and this
random new type of monitoring plan I think we we can go without a second meetings I mean that's what I see but
not necessarily in the view of the SEC member okay and also uh the last one is
necessary follow-up of the SEC for additional site finding by
geologists regarding any additional uh
investigation that to needs to provide the assumed geotechnical geological
design parameter that's a that's a big piece of that uh hinging on if actually
that could be done without a second meeting and what that actually is necessary uh or by and large uh on the
other hand is by and large that's other big concerns uh being satisfied okay so
I I think you know in conclusion of this thing here that's what the you know one
easy check on this agenda to to have that and then after the public meeting I
comments the the second two final kind of discussion on what to do and if all
those items are satisfied thank you so really this Richard
we are committed to perform the monitoring and inspections that are
required by code that's a given and and I think Emerald
fund understands that including the geological the geotechnical and so on
inspections and monitoring that's required for shoring and Foundation if
there's anything in addition to that that the sac committee is going to
require I think it behooves you to point that out to our
client Emerald fund Mark Babson and others what that might be but according
to the monitor training and the requirements by code we we are committed
and and and I'm sure Emerald fund will engage us to do that
but if there's anything in addition to that that either uh well let's just say
the sac committee requires let's have that up front please uh I I uh we are not trying to cut
Corners here we're not trying to do anything that to circumvent the code
but right now that's what we're committed to is the inspections that are
required by code so please let us know if there's anything in addition to that
that you you as the sac committee will require
I think we've already mentioned you know the vibration monitoring and that's not a code requirement that I'm aware of but
it certainly behooves you and is in your best interest um to do that to save a lot of Heartache
down the road okay well if there's anything in addition do that please uh let our our
team know so that we can prepare for that and respond accordingly
sure John
yeah Harvey I I just want to support what Willie said and take it a step
further the uh the one item on the agenda that was not discussed at all
relating to the potential future development of the site seems inherently moot because
this project pretty much fills up the site and definitively develops it it
seems to me based on my experience with past Sac reviews
that the goal of a Sac review is to
identify questions of concern because of the
unique and difficult characteristics of a site but not to
delve into the level of detail that is properly a part of DBI plan review and
it's certainly my opinion that nothing of that kind of deep concern has come up
in this discussion today and I would seriously question the need for another
meeting yeah again as I mentioned earlier I
agree with you
do we need to I mean I mean essentially what you know some of the stuff that Ben
was doing it's it's basically designed you know uh issues that I don't know that you know
if that's is that dbi's uh responsibility to go through those calculations or is that something the
sac should be commenting on I mean it's not the big picture stuff it's details
I do want to make sure that Ben and I are on the same page and
um any comments have been issues the showing will be addressed because it is the expert and there is uh typically
you know very sensible comments on some housekeeping so it's good to get those so I would like to see those done anyway
you know the only concern I have regarding the
embedment uh for those Soldier piles to see to see their uh the the assumptions
and the portrait wait yeah I I took a look at that and
it's it's I'll be bringing this up with Ben but the way I presented it was actually
um I need some clarification uh because there's some severe adverse
slope actually um those figures we're we're talking about
an initial staged Construction so um those Figures were the the cut
numbers are larger than the embedment is down at the bottom of the slope where there's um
where the top of the existing would be cut off so I made a today
the housekeeping thing that needs to be fixed there um to show that the actual finished
condition and the finished embedment jive a bit more clearly that's um
that's on the to tidy up um but thank you Ben for showing that so
yeah there won't be any there's no fundamental issue essentially a cantilever has to be more or less the
same embedment of the Silver's holding yeah those couple of them they are
much less than uh detaining height if I kind of doesn't seem right on that
geometry yeah but then it's also you do a double check your calculation the three times
the time you thought because you're six feet on Center you're probably not can use three three times the time because
for the calculation as well maybe you can look into that
yep
I think there's some share responsibility between the two technical engineer who will be reviewing the
assumptions of assuring and design calculation so uh it I think in the past
you know uh I think a lot of geotechnical Engineers give the soaring
engineer a free pass of approval without really going through particular details
and I find a lot of hosts of of showing calculations that is not according to
the geotechnical reports recommendation and got a free pass so hopefully this is
not the case here because we are we are doing a heightened design review and and
it it needs to be everything needs to drive well thank you
agree with you there we'll be reviewing the aspects of the shoring design that
pertain to the geotechnical aspects for sure so so Willie does it make sense
um I think maybe Craig threw it out earlier to or Ben for each of us to
summarize more of our action items in a letter distribute those to the team
they update their plans as needed for a resubmittal
and and then we issue a recommendation to DBI based upon our review of that
revised set yeah
yeah well I think let's let's finish with the public comments piece here from
for formality um so we are entertaining you know uh it
is your flaw but uh may I suggest that it is the you know the take the public
comments then you can formulate some level of uh you know panel discussions
for motions uh you know for further actions and down the Rope to finish up
this review session sure okay so I think uh we we're gonna call
for public comments if uh that is any public comments you can when you call in
the phones you can put asterisk number three to raise a hand here and I'm going to
give it a half a minute to see if there's any interested parties want to make comments
this is the least interested The public's ever been in this project congratulations everybody
knows
oh we did not get any uh public comments and so uh I think that the reminder I
already have the reminders there if the major items that is you know that that
is concerning the safety uh of you know and the technical uh completeness of the
of the job and the adequacy of recommendations of this project uh
then you can formally some action item you know the second for me some action
items that uh without without us you know second meeting is according to you
know you you focus recommendations
so Craig or Ben do you have any other suggestions other than the one
that I've thrown out or Harvey
I think we will submit uh whatever the question we have and to I don't know if
we uh DBI or something so that you can form your other action item and send it to
the project team to follow school and then we get
then we can decide do you need a second meeting that doesn't seem like a we need
one you can 13 credit submitted John to take care of
the excellent item I think I agree I think that's it that's the way
I would recommend going to I think we should probably compile all of them and have DBI send them out formally to the to the design team or to
the project sponsor and then they distribute however
so I I think the you know in this particular set
in order to do that I mean I suggest some kind of Motions like um
the formations of the heightened revealed by a uh by this set
of basically been satisfied with the review items that is uh on
on the agenda um according to
section 1068.4.1.4
uh with the exceptions of some detail calculations and plan
items uh that's the department of building
inspection we follow through uh
under the list of items that will be provided by this set
to follow through if and and a point
the submissions of the vision plan for DBI
and the second MIDI or a final check
um they would determine if additional
Sac reveal meetings needs to be held uh
for these Prem applications
RV
muted your milk
are you a meal I'll be here we go based on uh somewhat on what Willie just
said I would like to move that
the that the um
notes of this meeting be issued to the project team those
notes containing a description of all action items that
have been mentioned the project team will then
respond to those notes as required including with updated
drawings and calculations those responses will be distributed
to the members of the sac who will then if everything is
satisfactory issue a recommendation to the DBI that
final plan check proceed in accordance with the relevant sections
of the code
do we have a second for that I'll second that
yeah I I think we should proceed with that motion and I I'm in agreement
Harvey foreign
all in favor of Harvey's motion say aye aye
that motion anonymously okay
so John Wallace approves
Okay so uh I think we finished with item number eight uh
so uh the last items on the agenda is adjustment
to clarify this is all great thank you all for this expeditious solving this
um really the beginning you asked for the architect to take notes but it sounds like what's going to come out of this actually are individual notes from
Individual members and so to try to save e-way time to try to assemble that is
that okay if if that becomes the notes the individual members sending their
items to you and then you send it to us yeah no I think you should combine them
all together but I'm going to send you once the recording is available I'm
going to send it to you so you can distribute to your team great we'll have the recording and then
we'll have the the collected uh to do you collect it and merge them together because uh you may have some deviations
on understanding because uh the each party's got your party's got different
different understandings of you know discussions but but
it's a good point mark um yeah so you guys generate the meeting
minutes like we had discussed but each individual Sac member is going to
submit to DBI a letter with our individual action
items excuse me I don't think I don't think
that's the way it should go I think that's what I thought you said
I think and any individual member of the
sac who has action items that they wish to detail should convey them to the
architect but the architect definitely needs to produce a single document that lists all
of the action items in one place that document should then be distributed to
the sac members so everyone can check off and say yep that's what we agreed on
and then the team produces the responses
yeah I agree with Harvey on that okay because this is a public meeting and
everything's got to be open uh and and that in that case will be all open
so just to be 30 minutes a million minutes is to be posted up in
our website yeah so from my understanding is that I
will get the list of the items that you guys want to include for us to respond in into the meeting
minutes and then distribute back to you guys
I think you should come through DPI I think the SEC members give a you know
the list of items for dpis you know plan review purpose as well and we'll we'll
provide that information as a as an assistant to prepare the meeting minutes
as as we discuss in details on you know on all those items already
so it is a repeat of what has been discussed so all four Sac members will send Willie
a email with their items Willie will send me an email I will send that to UA
who will combine that with his take on the meeting minutes and then I'll send
that back to to Willie who will then distribute it to the sac members that's done right
yeah that's right so the thing here is that the the process here is to be open
so what we are dealing with is just a summary of what has been discussed that has not been satisfied
that means that what I see here is that the general ideas of section
106.4.1.4 has been satisfied with the caviars that there is uh details here
and there's that need to get corrected on the on the permit plan and and in
essence uh those got to be response back to uh satisfactory to the department as
well as for the set members to to make a a recommendation for approval
the idea here in general the intents of the sect reveal under the public forums
under Section 106.4.1.4 has been satisfied that's the important piece that we're
looking at it sounds like you're gonna create a project comment log right a Sac project
log comment log and then there will be a response to each one of those comments
to that nature yes
Okay so I think that the process is clear at this point as usual there's uh only a
few projects obtained one sec review meeting so that's
you know that's a good piece of that the preparations of order cooperations of other members of the sac
as well as the design team
thank you okay so I think uh uh chair Wallace then
you have you have to sell it say for motion for a German
a motion for an adjournment of the meeting
second I'm gonna take a vote
uh
what was that Willie oh yeah
solicitor vote for a German of the meeting I
I okay um a vote that unanimously thank you very
much meeting the joint thanks everybody thank you
I feel like you can stop the beat uh
English (auto-generated)
AllListenableRecently uploaded