Structural Advisory Committee (SAC) meeting

Wednesday, February 22, 2023

In this page:


    SAC review for Permit Application Number
    202205124153 1900 Diamond St. 4-story Single Family Dwelling
    202205124157 1902 Diamond St. 4-story Single Family Dwelling
    202205124111 1950 Diamond St. 4-story a 20-unit Residential Building
    202205124175 1980 Diamond St. 4-story Single Family Dwelling
    202205124119 1990 Diamond St. 4-story Single Family Dwelling


    1. Background of project in review

      Under the conditions of The Slope and Seismic Hazard Zone Protection Act (SFBC 106A.4.1.4), the proposed project is subject to mandatory submittals and heightened review of reports by a Structural Advisory Committee as defined by SFBC 105A.6.


      106A.4.1.4 The Slope and Seismic Hazard Zone Protection Act. This Section of the San Francisco Building Code shall be known as the Slope and Seismic Hazard Zone Protection Act.

      106A. Creation. The Slope and Seismic Hazard Zone Protection Act shall apply to all property within San Francisco that exceeds an average slope of 4 horizontal to 1 vertical grade or falls within certain mapped areas of the City, except those properties already subject to the Edgehill Mountain Slope Protection Area or the Northwest Mt. Sutro Slope Protection Area. For purposes of this Section “property” shall mean a legal lot of record. Heightened review of certain permit applications, as provided in this section, shall be given to all property subject to this Act.

      106A. Purpose. Because landslides, earth movement, ground shaking, drainage issues, and subsidence are likely to occur on or near steeply sloped properties and within other defined areas causing severe damage and destruction to public and private improvements, the Board of Supervisors finds that the public health, safety, and welfare is best protected if the Building Official causes permit applications for the construction of new buildings or structures and certain other construction work on property subject to the Slope and Seismic Hazard Zone Protection Act to undergo additional review for structural integrity and effect on hillside or slope stability. The requirements for projects subject to the Slope and Seismic Hazard Zone Protection Act are in addition to all other applicable laws and regulations, including any and all requirements for environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act; compliance with the requirements contained herein does not excuse a project sponsor from compliance with any other applicable laws and regulations.

      106A. Scope. (a) Properties are subject to these requirements where: (1) any portion of the property lies within the areas of “Earthquake-Induced Landslide” in the Seismic Hazard Zone Map, released by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, dated November 17, 2000, or amendments thereto or (2) the property exceeds an average slope of 4 horizontal to 1 vertical slope. (b) Proposed construction work that is subject to these requirements includes the construction of new buildings or structures having over 1,000 square feet of new projected roof area and horizontal or vertical additions having over 500 square feet of new projected roof area. In addition, these requirements shall apply to the following activity or activities: shoring, underpinning, excavation, or retaining wall work; grading, including excavation or fill, of over 50 cubic yards of earth materials; or any other construction activity that, in the opinion of the Building Official, may have a substantial impact on the slope stability of any property.


      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 the hillside, and are subject to the requirement of review by Structural Advisory Committee. The Structural Advisory Committee (SAC) will convene to review and provide expert professional opinions concerning items as stipulated in SFBC Section 105A.6.3 and 106A.4.1.4. (attached herein).


      The subject permit application is under the jurisdiction of the 2019 edition of the San Francisco Building Code, being the version prevailing at time of permit application.

    2. Call to order and roll call
    3. Chairperson selection

      The SAC will select a Chairperson to conduct this SAC review meeting.

    4. General public comment

      The SAC will take public comment on items not on this agenda.

    5. Scope of review

      Per SFBC Sections 105A.6.3 and 106A.4.1.4, SAC will perform the design review to provide the Director of Building Inspection with a written report concerning the following review considerations, as applicable:

      • the safety and integrity of the proposed design and construction;
      • the effect that grading construction activity related to the proposed project will have on the safety and slope stability of the area during the construction sequence, and after the construction at subsequent development stages, and interim measures to mitigate any potential sliding and erosion of the site;
      • the validity and appropriateness of the geotechnical/structural design concepts and criteria;
      • the adequacy of the geotechnical and geological investigation and study and the appropriateness of the recommended design parameters;
      • the evaluation of the grading design in preparation of the planned future building/structure development, to determine the appropriateness of its capability to perform satisfactorily without failure; any perpetual limitation of the site to be imposed regarding the level of future development, such as the future excavations, and/or vertical and horizontal additions from the original plan.
      • the constructability of proposed structural details and construction sequencing and methods;
      • the sufficiency of the proposed inspection, testing and monitoring to be provided prior to, during, and after construction.
      • items to be reviews will include but not limited to geotechnical and geological investigation and study, designs, details, drainage, erosion during and after construction, construction/erection methods, appropriateness and adequacy of the proposed shoring design, quality control and special inspection specified.
      • Site monitoring plan during and after improvement and installation are constructed;
      • Necessity of follow-up review by the SAC for the additional site findings by the Geotechnical Engineer and Certified Engineering Geologist of Record’s during grading, excavation, and construction are the assumed and recommended geotechnical/geological design parameters.

      The review shall include the evaluation of the stability of the project site with regard to the proposed subsequent development and the effect of its development on the stability of adjacent Areas. Review will consider factors including but not limited to design criteria and performance objectives, soil and site conditions, geological factors, historic site stability, the anticipated foundation system designs, soil and site improvement systems design, shoring/earth retaining system design, structural systems design, on and off site drainage impacts, and other proposed improvement designs for compliance with design criteria and performance objectives.

    6. Public comment

      The SAC will take public comment on this project.

    7. SAC panel discussion
    8. SAC recommendations

      Motion of recommendations to the Director of Building Inspection, and for incorporation into project design, if any.

    9. Adjournment

    Date & Time

    Wednesday, February 22, 2023
    1:30 pm


    Watch and participate live using the WebEx application. If you want to remain anonymous, you can put "Public" in the fields.
    Join the meeting on WebEx


    Public Comment call-in number

    Access Code: 2489 103 4997, then press #

    To raise your hand for public comment on an agenda item, press * 3 when prompted by the meeting moderator.

    Structural Advisory Committee Recording 2-22-23

    In this video

    Structural Advisory Committee Review 1900 Block of Diamond


    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 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


    what are you apologizing for proms oh come on


    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


    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


    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


    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


    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


    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


    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


    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


    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


    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 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 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


    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

    View transcript


    Structural Advisory Committee Meeting 2-22-23

    Submit a public comment

    Submit a public comment

    Pursuant to Section 67.7-1(c) of the San Francisco Administrative Code, members of the public who are unable to attend the public meeting or hearing may submit written comments regarding a calendared item to Technical Services Division, Department of Building Inspection at 49 South Van Ness Avenue, Suite 590, San Francisco, CA 94103 or at the place of the scheduled meeting. These written comments shall be made a part of the official public record.

    Call in and make a public comment during the meeting

    Call in and make a public comment during the meeting

    Each member of the public may address the committee once for up to two minutes on any agenda item.

    Follow these steps to call in

    • Call 415-655-0001 and enter the meeting ID 2489 103 4997
    • Press #
    • Press # again to be connected to the meeting (you will hear a beep)

    Make a public comment 

    • After you've joined the call, listen to the meeting and wait until it's time for public comment
    • When the clerk announces it's time for public comment, dial *3 to get added to the speaker line
    • You will hear “You have raised your hand to ask a question. Please wait to speak until the host calls on you"
    • When you hear "Your line has been unmuted," you can make your public comment

    When you call

    • Make sure you're in a quiet place
    • Speak slowly and clearly
    • Turn off any TVs or radios

    Sunshine Ordinance

    Sunshine Ordinance

    Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City exist to conduct the people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and that City operations are open to the people's review.

    For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance or to report a violation of the ordinance, contact the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force:

    • By mail at 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244, San Francisco, CA 94102-4689
    • By phone at 415-554-7854
    • By email at

    Cell phones, pagers and similar sound-producing electronic devices

    Cell phones, pagers and similar sound-producing electronic devices

    The ringing of and use of cell phones, pagers and similar sound-producing electronic devices are prohibited at this meeting. Please be advised that the Chair or the Interim Chair may order the removal from the meeting of anyone responsible for the ringing or use of a cell phone, pager, or other similar sound-producing electronic devices.

    Language access

    Language access

    To request an interpreter for a specific item during the meeting, please contact the Technical Services Division at 628-652-3727, at least 72 hours in advance of the hearing.

    For questions about the Language Access Ordinance, please contact OCEIA at 415-581-2360 and ask for the Executive Director or Language Access Compliance Officer.

    Lobbying activity

    Lobbying activity

    Individuals and entities that influence or attempt to influence local legislative or administrative action may be required by the San Francisco Lobbyist Ordinance to register and report lobbying activity.

    For more information about the Lobbyist Ordinance, contact the Ethics Commission:

    • Mail: 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 220, San Francisco, CA 94102
    • Telephone: 415-252-3100
    • Fax 415-252- 3112
    • Website:

    Political contributions

    Political contributions

    SF Campaign & Governmental Conduct Code section 1.127 prohibits any person with a financial interest in certain land use matters from making a political contribution to any committee controlled by an individual currently holding, or seeking election to, the office of Mayor, Supervisor, or City Attorney.
    Solicitation or acceptance of such a contribution is also prohibited.

    Be aware that certain matters pending before or acted upon by the Building Inspection Commission may constitute land use matters under section 1.127.

    Please visit to learn more about whether your involvement in such matters affects your ability to make political contributions, or contact the Ethics Commission at or 415-252-3100.

    Last updated March 1, 2023