That's it. Great.
All right. Okay, well, maybe I I guess I'll I'll call to order and start the
meeting. Um first order is roll call and I'll start
and then we can go around. John Tantum, I volunteered to be chair of this
committee, a Cove Road resident. Go ahead, Mr. Isaacson. Sitting in for
Larry Store. Keith Fagan, a
town resident. Uh Peter Mark, city council member. I'm going to excuse
myself and get a pen. This one doesn't work good.
Okay.
Julian Poolweiler with Stetson Engineers, uh design team for the Beach
Road stabilization project. Adrian Formaini, both with the city
project management team. Great.
Tony Boyd, public works director. Um
and uh the others I I can chime in that Robert's uh
excused himself from from being here. He wasn't able to make it, but he is
joining us on Zoom. So, yeah, that's city manager Robert Zadnik.
Robert, Robert, can you hear us? Are you on audio?
Uh yeah, hi everyone. Can you hear me? Yes.
Yeah, can you can you hear us okay, Robert?
Yes. Yeah, you're coming through loud and clear. Thanks.
Great.
And I'm Chris Berry, assistant engineer with the city of Belvedere in the public
works department.
Peter, were you out when when the
when the call came around to your your seat?
» You know I said it, Peter. Okay, thanks. Yeah, um
All right. Okay, well, the next item is the approval of the minutes from our
prior meeting on February 26th, uh which are in the packet here and were
distributed earlier. Are there any comments?
on those? Happy to make a motion to approve it.
I'll second that. In favor? I.
Uh the minutes were approved from the February 26th meeting.
Um next is the the the matter at hand to
talk about the Beach Road stabilization project and the bids and reviewing the
bids and uh
discussing those and hopefully come out come up with a recommendation for the
city council. Great. So, maybe Tony, I'll let you take
it take over. Yep, thank you. Yeah, and um thank you everybody for for being
here once again um in your time.
And um this uh this meeting is a follow-up from
our last meeting which really introduced you all to the to the plans for the
project and uh the context for it. Um this meeting is to uh present the
selection process um
uh to you all and uh basically um uh request a recommendation uh that the
city council approve uh the the contract uh for the for the project and award the
contract uh to a contractor. Um and so, what I'll be doing is I'll walk
you through the selection process um and we are uh I think it's fairly
informal. We can, you know, discuss and ask questions as we go. And um yeah,
happy to fill you in on on any of the of the details.
All right. So, um so, to start with I'd like to clarify in
my memo um >> [clears throat]
» uh that because I didn't point this out in the memo. Um this contract is for the
sheet pile installation portion of the project, which is the main uh the sort
of the meat of the project. Uh there is another um
segment which it which has to do with the the private properties on Beach
Road, number 16 uh to number 28 Beach Road, um where there are gangways and
utilities on on the properties there that will need to be removed for the
installation of the pre of the of the sheet piles.
And that's a project in itself. Um and so, that will be a a separate contract.
Um And there there's a little bit of
possible confusion with with uh with the numbers that that amount was included in
the engineer's estimates um uh
you know, and and that's not really I I didn't really um clarify that or point
that out in the memo. Um
and yeah, we we can we can look at it more closely uh but uh exhibit C, the
engineer's estimate will will show uh
that uh where that that line was included in the total cost of of the
estimate versus the cost of this proposal.
Um and
yeah, if need be um I could also it'll take me a few minutes, but at some
point I did uh pull up uh some of these documents
onto the screen if it's helpful. And Robert might find that
that useful. Um okay. Um so, the RFP was posted on
February 20th. There was a lot of interest um it seemed
to us with uh 58 downloads of uh of the RFP materials. Um
uh it gives some indication, I guess, of of uh all the contractors out there and
and who are kind of perusing the sites and
uh interested to see what what projects are
going on. Um
that was followed by a mandatory site meeting uh with with prospective
contractors. Um so, any contractor who wanted to
submit a bid would have to be at the at the site meeting.
Uh there were 14 companies represented there.
Um and the deadline for questions following that was March 9th. Um we
received four questions in writing and responded to in in in an addendum.
Um there were two adden- addenda issued. Uh the first addendum was um
a change to the insurance requirements in the contract.
Um so, that uh yeah, basically uh provided uh the details of that.
Um and then addendum two um uh provided details on the on the uh
pre-bid meeting, um the questions received, um the responses
to those questions, and also a clarification of of some of the uh
contractor's responsibilities uh during during the project um
related to workflow, their workflow, and coordination.
The deadline was March the 19th um and that was uh attended by four
different contractors' representatives uh as well as a union representative
representative. Um A union from local three. Operators. It's not
uncommon that they show up knowing about this type of projects. Yeah, thank you.
Thanks, I wouldn't have known that. Um
and then uh yeah, so and it was fairly
straightforward. Each uh each envelope each sealed envelope was opened and the
bids uh bid amount was was read out loud. Um
uh people people, you know, took notes and uh and then asked some questions. Um
most of the questions, I think all the questions were
» So, they they they opened up their bids amongst all the other competitors?
Yeah, so basically we received the bids um at a table we had a little table
stationed next to the door there. As they came in, uh they they uh handed in
their bid um and then um at the designated time
which was 11:30 on that day, um we declared that uh bids were now uh
closed and then uh and then we stood up at a at a table and opened each bid
individually, pulled out the the documents, and read out the number to
the to the uh the contractors. Is that is that a requirement? So, is that a
requirement? It is the It's a law. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to speak over you.
Yeah, that's right. Yeah, that was that is the procedure for
uh public opening. And it sort of takes away your ability to negotiate with
anybody. It does and the law it's it's it's uh
it's a legal requirement for for public agencies. Um
and and the the possibility to negotiate um
is actually extremely limited. I mean, the the the amount on the bid uh if the
city is to accept a bid, um
it has to justify not accepting the lowest bid, basically. Um if it's not
going to accept the the lowest bid, um there there needs to be a reason in, you
know, um uh that the city would would do that. I
mean, it's very seldom that that a city would want to not [clears throat] accept
the lowest bid. But but is there is there I'm sorry to meet you.
» No, no. Just just
couple questions. So, you went from 58 downloads, I guess, I know it's a it's a
gross number um to 14 visits and four
made meeting the deadline. Did anybody come in after the deadline? Um which I
know you you need to exclude, but I'm saying anybody come in just for
information. >> No, no, nobody came in after the
deadline. >> normal or why would you think you'd go
from 58 to 14? I I understand a 58 to 14, but 14 to four seems a larger jump
than I would expect. I'll go over the bats and then I'll and then I'll let
I'll let you Adrian chime in. He's definitely um
kind of written a few more of these rodeos than I have. Um but
um I think uh one of the main reasons was there was this a specific piece of
equipment that was um specified in the RFP and and uh and that was this uh
silent piler, this guy can machine. And there are very few uh if
if any, I think, in Northern California um
uh companies that that provide that. Um so,
you know, that was another thing is that all of them had the same subcontractor
uh to drive these piles in. Um
and I think yeah, some of the comments at the pre-bid meeting um
related to that. They they sort of said, well, I mean, if we're all going to have
the same prime I mean, if we're all going to have the same sub,
um what difference does it make to you
guys? And so, I think a lot of people felt that they wouldn't have a
competitive chance. So, you know, so didn't didn't want to waste their time.
Um but yeah, Adrian Yeah. So, uh you know, it was certainly a great turnout
at the pre-bid versus who pulled plans. And who pulled plans could be a host of
individuals that may actually not even have any
ultimate goal of bidding on the project. However, they are very interested
whether it be a vendor. Uh there are several
uh communication uh companies that will track projects
and then, you know, post items. Um so, you usually have a very broad spectrum
of individuals that will pull plans and and anyone's allowed to do it. So, then
you get down to the pre-bid meeting, which is certainly a more uh fine-tuned
group of individuals that still may consist of additional
individuals outside of who will be bidding on the project. Myself signed in
on the pre-bid sheet because I was an attendee.
Um my project manager Kyle, you know, Tony. So, there were
others at the pre-bid that necessarily weren't going to be bidding on the
project including subcontractors to potential primes.
So, one of the critical uh subcontractors and at that point we
weren't sure if there was a uh a prime or a subcontracting component
to the uh company that does retain several of these Dyken silent pilers.
And they were, you know, there with three individuals, you know, that are
all from Blue Iron. So, that's how your list kind of kind of kind of
that we ended up with? Is that a successful process or would we wish we'd
had more or what what how do we how do you evaluate that? Exactly. Yes. So,
good question. So, because of the uh selective equipment for installation,
these contractors all knew that Blue Iron was going to be
involved with this contract. You can only make the case Blue Iron's you know,
selected who they who they want to work with. Correct. So, we do know based on
the bid results that Blue Iron so provided numbers to several contractors
and that's great. And all of them were very close on that one particular bid
item when we analyzed the results. >> But they're not though. But they're not
though. I mean, unless it's embedded in these lines. I mean, there's there's
there's quite a big of variance in the, you know, uh line five, six, seven, and
eight. You would think you would think if it's
the same contractor between the same The contractor is this the opinion of cost
for the project? I'm just looking at the
line-by-line breakdown. Must be in the bid
Okay. Yeah, so that's a computer too. I'm sure it's in a more detailed
tabulation. But but you know, where you would where you would expect to see
So, I'm I'm my bad. I'm sorry. I didn't have a thought that was on the one Where
you would expect to see some consistency among them all
would be alignment A, alignment A, alignment B, alignment C, you know,
where this where where the the structural steel um sheet piles are
being driven. You know, basically line five, six, and seven.
Um and part of I guess
Yeah. I don't know what I'm seeing right now, but
To jump in, I'm I I I 100% see what you're saying and it is a bit of a head
head scratcher about why Valentine uh uh
have 2.3 million whereas the other contractors I think are more
closely um converged at, you know, between 1.6
and and 1.8 million. Quick question. Are uh are
are we we're in at this point we're not even discussing Valentine's numbers or
do you want to discuss their I mean, they're they're they're way high. No,
no, no, I know. I know. I know. I'm I'm I mean, well, just just with four on the
page and I you may want to just mention why you knocked out Corcus.
Yes. Yeah. Yeah, definitely. I was coming to that. Yeah.
Yeah, so they knocked out Corcus. They didn't
they didn't really follow the process. Yeah, we can we can look at the
administrative oversight by Corcus and they just forgot to sign something or
was it like a substantial they didn't
complete something important? Uh it was an it was I think
I if it was me, if it was my company, I'd be very frustrated uh because um
it is it's it's a very minor detail when you're filling out a form,
but in in an RFP um it's it's significant
um and uh it basically
um The frustration for us too is that um we
we were aware that Corcus had downloaded those those addenda
um and so when they when they filled in their
form um saying that they had not they they did not acknowledge uh the the
addenda basically. I mean, but but but in the city's defense and our in our
broader legal defense of this is also that when and if
they're they're not acknowledging those two addenda which we we we can't verify
that it's in their their their budget data and and they'll perform the work
according to the specs that you laid out. Exactly. What's your real change?
Which is why you have to sort of eliminate that.
There's no way to have them acknowledge the addenda after the fact. It was too
late at that point after the envelopes have been opened. Is that right? It you
know, it's It would have been basically, yeah. I
think that would have resulted in protest from from the other bidders um
basically that they didn't follow procedures and then were being given an
allowance for you know, to to correct items in their
in their bid. Um
Yeah. And you know, I mean, I think ultimately um
you know, the city attorney weighed in on it and and uh
yeah, it it was quite clear that uh this was the only option.
Yeah. Um Luckily for us the the next the next
bidder was was a very close in price and they, you know, for the total.
I mean, but on those my question was a lot of those install sheet pile. Yeah,
you go from even if you take out Valentine, you
know, there's a six there's a $300,000 swing on line five.
Between between between Thompson and and Gordon Gordon Mhm. And and Thompson
being the third. That's why they were in third place. No, no, no, but I'm saying
but if if if the same subcontractor is providing the service, maybe there's
more detail that that there that I'm not seeing. Because they are carrying costs
of unforeseen to for covering a sub. So, guaranteed Thompson is a more local
contractor from Nevada and they may or may not have worked with um um Blue Iron
as much, but I do know that both Corcus and Gordon Ball both
work with them quite often and that is probably that is a reflection in Gordon
Ball's number is that they have a very good understanding and operation for
their subcontractor which is carrying, you know, 75% of this this project
weight here. Um that is the way I see it.
What a really good question. Um what is the ultimate nature of our agreement
with this contractor? Is it a guaranteed max? What factors you you mentioned that
in your review of um uh
references that one of the one of the things you got back about Gordon Ball in
particular was that they were able to finish the project on time and on
budget.
What what are the opportunities or what are
the negative opportunities to be off budget for us? I mean,
if is this a guaranteed max? Is this a fixed price? What happens
um certainly I understand client driven change orders or or or material driven
change orders, but is that what can can can can drive this into an overage
situation? Yes. And and it's really and and Adrian definitely please do chime in
here, but um
my understanding is that uh they based their
their their estimates of of costs or their their price
on the If if other you know, if they get out to the sites
and and um you know, they start digging and there's something something else
down there than other than loose sand and rock, for example, um that causes
delays and you know, changes um then then costs can
change. Yeah.
Yeah. Most of them Yeah, and then some of the units are are are stated you have
you do a square foot for the sheet pile, but primarily they are either single
units or total and or, you know, lump sum. So, each the only the square
footage is on the the sheet pile, which is total.
And then it's a furnish and install, so it's a completed system. I mean, Jason
repair that was completed a few years ago. Were there many change orders
associated with that project? Not one. And did it come in on budget? Uh well,
that one was a little There was there it was not the same development of that
project based on the situation because it was more of a observation that was
made with both and Miller Pacific during and Stetson during the H and H study in
2019 for the shoreline resiliency for both shoreline and
Santa Paula and Beach. Uh so, that was when it was prompted and
the wall was showing uh significant signs of failure. So, that was what
prompted that project. So, it certainly was in line with pricing
um and there was no additional inflated costs due to a
you know, expedited, you know, time frame. Blue Iron came in well under
because they had a unique perspective on the installation of sheet with uh
um just cutting edge tech
you know, so they were we were able to complete the
project faster than other companies. So And can you confirm my understanding
as well that it's it it would go both ways as well. So, if less materials are
used, for example, um than than anticipated calculated the
square footage, um then then uh that's what's that is what it's
built to the city as well as well invoiced. Yeah, I mean they're they're
you know, this is what they were expecting and they're going to they're
going to procure sheets like this is the first thing that has to happen. So
» Right. So as far as the sheets go those that would be a single kind of bulk
order I guess. >> Oh yeah, and they're going to jump on
that as soon as possible just because of the lead time and getting into a roll
because these sheets very well may not be on the brand yet. Okay. So it's yes
specific to sheets yeah. Okay. I just know that I mean you know with
paving for example if um you know for whatever reason it turns
out that it's a few tons less than than expected. Absolutely
and that's what's important just for keeping on track with you know that all
those all those things. But yeah we'll certainly do that. And the good thing
that we have going for us is the knowledge base of both Gordon and
Blue Iron is that they're straightforward contracting that very
they work well together. So the mere fact that they are a well-oiled machine
is going to have you know it's going to just you know
assist tremendously versus you know other subs that may or may not have that
well of a communication yeah you know so. And then also yeah just to just to
add if there is if there are complications
you know it's it's uh the city you know through its through
its engineer engineering team would have to
um um
uh basically approve any any changes like
that any changes to the to the scope. So cost would be a part of that
decision. So if you know if there's a if there's a huge change
it because of you know some some unforeseen circumstance that that
results in a big change in cost somewhere
that would be a decision that the city would weigh
for in terms of the project as a whole. What we do know is that we had very
little issues whatsoever with a significant section of Beach Road
several years ago. We saw very very bland questions from contractors.
The bids came in without carrying costs of which we had no idea how this is
going to go down. So that was those were all really good
signs of a well-designed bid package from both the technical side as well as
the opinion of cost. It was it was very it was right in line with what we you
know we were hoping to see. We're just very excited we didn't see this as a
huge The lowest the lowest bid it's Gordon Ball not Norman Ball right. I
think in your memo you Yeah right sorry I for some reason I kept So I think a
little bit of Herman Ball I don't know why it is wrong. See you the experience
they have but we have not worked with Gordon Ball before as a city. They are a
large contractor so there's a very good chance that they wouldn't have probably
been worked on any They are typically a huge large scale commercial contractor
doing anything else than that. But I I do know of that nature cuz they
they do a lot of municipal work. >> Okay. I don't know but I don't know the
company is that are public company or a privately held company we have I'm not
sure and or if it's a member owned we have to you know have to look into look
into that. One of them There was there was a level of analysis required for
for this review. But this is this is They they
are a large company that does many projects that's not name I've never
heard of. No yeah. um Yeah it's I have noted them either.
um I don't know if they're nationwide I
don't know if they're that >> No they're not. I do know that they do a
lot of work with PG&E. They do a lot of public utility work so they are they
understand the public process. And I do know again that they work with Blue Iron
quite a bit with projects. And a lot of times Gordon Ball is in prime for PG&E
projects where Blue Iron is their sub. Yeah their their references were um
uh were I thought I thought very good that the projects that they that they
highlighted were very similar to this.
They all involved installing sheet pile in in locations a lot of locations with
with water river banks and and boat launches and and these kind of
situations and and one of the one of the project managers that I spoke
to from I think it was the Santa Clara Santa Clara
water district said that they
um that they were also in very close
proximity to homes and that they uh you know they performed everything
that they needed to with you know vibration monitoring and and that kind
of equipment so they they're definitely familiar with with this this type of
work. They were they were nearby projects here in the area in Northern
California. >> Yes yes yeah.
Yeah. Right well so okay
where did I where was I? um >> [clears throat]
» Addenda yeah okay. So
The addenda were were required to be acknowledged and and one contractor
didn't as we know um
Is there and I understand that the strict nature
of the bid process
uh
We're not obligated to take anything just just thing you guys have to get
right? Correct. >> Right we can say cuz you're
you're above what our expected cost will be we're not obligated to take anything
on >> Yes. Yeah. Um it's still subject to city
approval but you I mean there's there's there's a
number of line items you know you know 10 12 and 15 for example where
they are higher than everybody else. Uh and I know that just the it's the
discrepancies that you guys have the uniqueness of that individual
contracting approach and their their sensitivity to that particular line item
I can imagine. But you can't go back to them and say you know we'd like to we'd
like these three items to be reconsidered or looked at is does does
this municipal process allow for that or not?
No um yeah unfortunately not because of the
because of the RFP process um you know everybody
uh everybody provide you know has the same uses the same parameters for their
for their costing and and the the final price
um can't be changed before the before the
contract is awarded. After the contract is awarded
then there can be some negotiation with with the contractor. The contractor is
awarded at that price but change orders can
be generated by the city that change the
scope of work. So that's often in negotiation.
» be I mean I'm just saying cuz we have to separate decision by the city as to
appropriate more money for this right. So that's not insignificant. um
uh ask so it would be against this process and perhaps municipal law I
don't know that you can't go to them and say you
were the low bidder after we excluded one you know full
transparency you're the low bidder but you're still above our budget we
can't award the contract unless you were to reconsider these three line items
which you're you're you're 10% above the competitors. Would you consider to do
so? That's not you can't do that? We do you Yes so
and and just so you know that we have discussed
that angle because in a public contract
that's kind of where you go next. You look to VE or value engineer some of
your items and where you do not take away or
we don't want to adjust and or go back to the design team to say we need to
change the how we go about getting you know this design completed. It is maybe
a reduction of overall footage and we can't you know there's a very good
chance that the contractor is going to be willing to negotiate cuz they want
this project that's for certain. But if you
by your process you award the contract at this price what reason do they have
to negotiate It's not as easy as looking why are you well you're $80,000 more
than the competitor so why can't you do it for their cost? Because there are so
many different moving mechanics we don't know what the other contractor may or
may not have had or if they underbid that.
But at this point with them we don't care.
Realistically we don't care. I mean if if if if we're if we're now one to one
with these folks and we want to award it then we don't do
it. I I get where you're going with this. I
I'm just I'm just saying that. We haven't added obstacle here that
we've got to get this money from this from the city and ultimately from our
residents. And that's not a
you know something the city council is going to
love to be vote on and be comfortable with and the the way you propose to do
it is to put up other projects. You know other lanes other maintenance
projects other other capital improvements
or finding it in the this this this broader budget whether it's contingency
or things like this which probably possible but
depending on what you find out there. Yeah
yeah no for sure. 300,000 for Belvedere's is is a big
» Well let's let's let's shelve that aspect over for now cuz if and when we
go there there's other things to talk about certainly. Um
I would just say that it's a it's a competitive public bidding process and
so you've provided all the parameters in the contract documents and these
contractors have put their best foot forward so to speak. This is this is
what they're proposing to do and I would say you're not really one to one with
anybody until the contract is awarded. But they also know your estimate going
in. I mean it's it's it's not it's not a
it's a coming from the private you know construction world that's just lunacy
lunacy to me. But
Well I get it. If you if you if you're attempting to negotiate with one
contractor before awarding a contract, all the other ones say, "Well, how come
you didn't come to us? We We could We could do it, too." And it just, you
know, it could sort of unravel the whole process. I get it. I get it.
Yeah, and I I mean, to your point, you lose all your leverage if if you've
already signed a contract with them. Um but I think I mean, in my in my
experience, and and maybe you you guys can chime in on this, um
you know, contractors are generally uh willing to talk. You know, they they're
um that
if you say, you know, "By the way, you know, we We've got everything signed,
but um
this is this uh you know, finances are very tight for us, and we would like to
find ways to to reduce the costs. Um we we may want to reduce the scope
somewhere. Um but we did notice in your in your uh bid
that you know, these were much higher than than other people's, and Okay. are
you able to, you know, you know, share with us what the you Cuz we can always
say to them, "So, we're not going to either uh
Ball, you reduce by this amount. And and we'll award it to you, otherwise we will
award it to nobody, and we will we will we won't go forward, and we'll do
another RFP, and we'll just we'll rebid the whole thing, and let let
them it's a little bit of a Put that on the table then. If they say
they won't, then we just put the RFP out again, and start the process again. I
don't think you can Well, well, I don't think you can do that. Well, why not?
Why Why What What Well, look, it's public I mean, I'm not a I'm not a I'm
not a contractor. It changes the scope. It changes the scope. I mean, obviously,
or the timing. No, no, because because basically, if if if if if we choose not
to do this now, realistically at this point in time, even with the same scope
in a rebid process, or modify this slightly, we missed the '26 window.
Right. If you miss the '26 window, it's not going to get any less expensive
knowing, you know, that >> that, for sure. And the re so the the
re-solicitation process, what we've done is certainly has a a cost that isn't
going to necessarily, you know, be able to be recouped as well in a lot of the
public, you know, process has, you know, there's has to be, you know, completed
again. But but if we don't have the money Yeah, no, I I they might say,
"Okay, well, we'll we'll help you with that." So, I mean
they might say, "Okay." And that's why I know that, you know,
again, internally within you know, with James, I'll try to remember who else was
on that call, but Stetson, we talked about at least areas identified that we
can discuss, um and it was confident We don't have specifics, you know, but
there were certainly some areas uh to look at that we started to discuss. You
know, one of them would be, you know, just uh
essentially I I think again, though in accordance
with the public contracting, you you can't begin these negotiations until
after a contract is awarded to to one of these. And so, I think that's probably
what the city is looking at. You You either have to make the decision to
award a contract Could we go to all of them and say, "This is This is our
budget. Would you like to Uh I think that that that sort of involves
reopening up the bidding process. I don't I can't I think once it's closed,
you can't reopen it. You would be looking at a rebid.
The issue with the timing is that there's an in-water work window, June
through October. And so, to start the process over means
we wouldn't have enough time to issue a rebid, open it all up, and receive bids
in order to construct this year. So, re-bidding the project does mean you're
you're you're looking at next year, 2027.
Let's be realistic. Um
how confident are we that with the ability to start this project?
First question. Second question is um what I would be afraid would happen
is that there would be a delay, there would be a uh uh
a backlog of this particular equipment or something like that, and the
contractor gets started under this price, and says we have to finish it
next year, and here's the here's the cost to do so.
Well, I think they would be under contract to um
uh you know, to to complete it by October uh 15th, I think is what the
contract says. But just like but just like finding a a a you know, Right.
immovable boulder under the ground, there's a there's a there's a delay with
Blue Hill Stetson. I apologize. Blue Iron. Blue Iron. That That can't deliver
it. It's out of their control, and they're they're they're delayed a month,
and they and they That's I don't for I mean, anything's possible, but I'm um
they're they're they have agreed to perform this project by a certain date,
and if not, there are liquidated damages daily that occur if they are not
complete by that time frame. Do we Do we think we'll get this done in
this time frame? I mean, can it be They need to go, yeah.
Permit I mean, we're you know, there's Um there are there are a few factors um
that that are outstanding. Um Yeah. What Like what? So, first of all,
uh permitting. Uh we're waiting for a BCDC permit. Um
and they are in a review sort of stage. Um they have a commission meeting where
it needs to be approved. Um and which I believe it is April 29th, I think, 19th
or 29th, so it can only be after that. Um
uh PG&E need to complete some uh some work in on Beach Road to modify their uh
their lines, their um utility lines, main lines through there.
» Before we get going. Yes. Yeah. Given what we've heard from
PG&E, is that is that likely? Uh they uh we we ask them We We meet
with them about every 2 weeks uh to get progress and and update uh
updates from them. Um they
assure us that um that that it's that it's
doable to do before before June. Um but we have no control over that or or
over their their work. So, if these dependencies um if if Gordon and
Company, Gordon Ball, can't get started to comfortably make the window
this contract's void then, right? We're not, you know, cuz obviously, the prices
probably wouldn't be held for the next year.
Well, I think there's probably room to negotiate, and and if they would like to
keep the contract for next year um you know, they may they may be some uh some
way to um you know, to
to keep them on board um with some kind of uh
you know, adjustment in price, you know, related to inflation or something. There
There is some flexibility built into the way this is structured. There's a
There's a The in-water work window is a 5-month period, June through October,
but the actual construction period is only 65 days. And so, even if they don't
necessarily have to start on June 1st, I mean, that can slide backwards, and
there would there would still be room for them to complete this project. And
in theory, the the out-of-water work can continue outside that window. That's
correct. It is. Yeah. Yeah. Um
And so, you know, that's that's the reason we did try to put this
out to bid early, to get the bids early, to have a contractor under contract
early so that these these scheduling and um
the the coordination between the city, Hadley, PG&E, this can all kind of be
worked out over the next several months until June, and when when the
construction would actually occur. Mhm. >> [clears throat]
» Yeah. Um The other The other factor is uh
easements with uh temporary construction easements with the property owners on on
Beach Road, because uh the work that would need to take place
on their property um for this project to to go ahead. I mean, the seawall
actually enters their property at uh you know,
at at their property lines. Um so, it's a couple of feet in from the
property line, so the the work and the structures would would all be on their
on their land. Um
and we've met we've met with them um a few times, uh described the project,
and we've sent over the uh the easement agreements. Um
So, at this point, we're waiting for them to
um review those. Uh
And we're we're ready to go for the for the April meeting for them uh to to have
those easements um approved by City Council. Um
And yeah, but but we do have to wait for their their signatures, basically, on
their side. How many property owners are we talking
about again? Uh three property owners. Um Yeah. Um
And one of them has indicated that um he's is absolutely willing. Um he's just
out of the country right now. Um so, he's uh seems seems like he's ready to
sign as soon as he gets back. Uh the other two
uh are new uh new owners of of the property. And um
I think it seems like they're wanting to review the the language more carefully,
and um Was it a It's three properties, but two owners,
right? Cuz there's Yeah. Yes.
» Hadley owns one building, and the Spruce Group owns the other two. Yes, yeah. And
those other two are are owned, I think, on paper by two different LLCs, but it's
the same people. Okay, so that's okay. Yeah.
So, from a financial perspective, I'm
looking at this overall project budget relative to
appropriations funding at the top. Um we're looking at that 3.475
line of which includes two $280,000 or so,
that's going to a separate contractor to do the utility work.
Right? So, that's where we get the 300 So, that the the we have a $315,000
variance on that line if we take this this this bid from Gordon and Ball,
right? Uh yeah, it's it's
uh without knowing it, we don't have the exact number for the contracts uh of the
other amounts. I would assume the 279 that the way you got your 315 was the
279 um plus the 35 over
this number. Correct, yeah. With a with a little bit of Yeah, yeah. flexibility
to in case that 279 is over. >> So, I'm just writing 315 in parentheses
next to the 3475, which means Right. on this page we're 315 over budget on that
particular line. And you've discussed this with Helga and her and
your recommendations with Robert as well is to handle this either within this
$4.6 million total project expenditures
budget, finding it somewhere, whether it's coming out of your hide
I mean from a project manager perspective or somewhere along this line
of our mass remediation, somewhere somewhere through here you think you
might be able to find some money. That that's option one, right?
Just confirming that's what that means. >> Yeah. And option two is in the broader
public works budget. Um capital improvement projects, whether
it's paving or whether it's a retaining wall or whether it's a lane improvement
or something like that, finding that money in that over the next couple
years. Yeah, and and and there are two components to that,
too. So, there are existing CIP funds that
that that overlap with
with with some of the work in this project. So, paving for example, there's
a we have a we have a CIP fund for paving.
And that that could cover the cost of the the paving restoration
in instead of using this this account for that for for those
costs. >> Use that account.
» Yeah, exactly. I get it. Um
Yeah, exactly. And the sidewalk, yeah, exactly.
And and we have it in we have not embedded the contingency on this budget.
Um Well, with that
so so with that over
I'm just saying on paper on paper right now we're talking about that one line
item having a a negative variance.
But that 383 arguably still exists if we if we know we have 4.6 in our in our in
our fund at this point. >> Yes, right. Yes. So, so yeah,
sorry I I I took me a minute there, but yeah,
basically that would restore that that contingency amount.
» Yeah, yeah, absolutely. So,
however we decide, you may want to work with Helga. I would
suggest if this is to be recommended to the city council, I wouldn't go in with
this to $315,000 over tier. I would I would I would front it by
saying exactly what you've talked about before, that we're going to approach
this if we award this contract with diligent approach to value engineer to
to line item look at things to to recognize this is over budget and see
where we can get some some some potential savings out of this contract.
May yield nothing, but but that's an approach and we certainly should do
that. I would also try to identify specifically where you think this money
can come from. Meaning if you if you if you have known expenditures that you
think are going to be less than what you have up here anyway,
for example, if you know that you know, the
the environmental mitigation costs are not
$100,000, but they're going to be $80,000 much like we had with the repair
over there on Beach Road. You know, you that came in less than we thought we
were going to commit. So, I'm not saying we take that money, but I'm saying if
you know already where we are, I identify it. You could you could
probably say of that we know we've got $35,000 in
city planning paving sorry, sidewalks for the next 2026 2027 we have
$45,000 in in road paving for the 2026 and 2027 budget that we can apply to
this. And our assessment is that that won't
damage our overall value of our infrastructure around the
city. So, we can apply that those small amounts of those larger budgets. We can
also apply $200,000 of contingency to that and
that's where we think we can make up this money and still and still retain
the 4.630. Right.
» Yeah, exactly. You need to present it in a fashion like that. Right. Yeah, and
that's that's that is definitely what's what we had planned was you know, be
able to be specific about you know, about how you know, how this is
possible. And and there would be council approval
for for some of those changes as well. Well, they'll have
comments and they'll and they'll probably stress you know, we really want
you to push the value engineering and and really you know, sharpen your pencil
on the scope, you know, once you have the contract selected to keep within the
the appropriate public bidding process so that we can make sure we we make this
project as as tight and and not only timely, but also it does our our our
base minimum needs for the for the for the for the money we're spending so we
get as much value as we possibly can. Right. Yeah. Yeah.
Yeah, I yeah, I I hear you and I think um
I we all feel that way. We definitely I know I I you know, and and and I
definitely know Robert does and everybody does.
Yeah, I mean it's it's um it's we we all want a want a project that's
delivered on time and under budget. You know, some of this this
law that we have to comply with
is is a little cumbersome and frustrating,
but you know, from from the time that we start meeting with the with the
contractor, there will definitely be you know, a lot
of emphasis on on um keeping costs you know, within budget.
Um and if I mean you know, I I to be fair, I think I think the
contractors probably get that from from everybody that they all the cities that
they work with. Um But yeah, and I mean you know, some of the costs, you know,
and I can I can point to some in on here that's um
we anticipate not not having to pay for example,
environmental mitigation costs. BCDC
uh may ask us to you know, mitigate for
much more than than we are already. Um but it seems like they're not
um in in our discussions with them so far,
they haven't said that they that they will that they will and they've accepted
our submission with with the mitigation that
we've proposed. Um So, uh you know, for example there, there's
potential for that full 100,000 to be available to be to be moved into another
sort of road. Um Yeah. Um
Yeah, and then you know, land surveying and mapping for
example, that's another item that's we haven't we haven't had to Yeah, I you
know, I I I Yeah. You understand me. Just as you prepare it, sharpen your
pencil in because you you know, come in solution oriented to the council.
» Right. Right. Yeah. Yeah, okay. Yeah, appreciate that.
Are you guys probably I mean you've sat down with them. You've you've
you've you've met with them. Are you comfortable with them being a partner in
in if not that it it doesn't sound like it's a big job for them, but it's a big
job for us. >> Yeah, no, we haven't actually met with
them. Yeah, we we wanted to but you know, I
actually I I spoke to Gordon Ball yesterday on the phone. Um
And um but we had wanted to have this
meeting before we you know, provided any kind of official
communication to especially well, to the other contractors. Um and it's obviously
not going to be an easy phone call with Marcus, but um
yeah, that's So, Peter, I mean so if we make a recommendation, we're
making a recommendation knowing it's higher than the budget, although with
your mitigating recommendations, it may be lower, but it
sounds like it's it's worth discussing among the city council anyway. I mean
it's it's not so far out there. >> Absolutely. It's
it's achievable potentially. Well, I mean
I mean I'm sure maybe Glenn you less so than us, but we're
we're just all reacting to that like public process is you know, I wouldn't
bid my house with that process. You know,
and it's just a it's just a just a it's sort of frustrating, but um
I think you need to present it that you know, this is the process and and it's
not it's not unusual to have our estimate be be a little bit short of the
of of the in fact, the dynamic of the of the process to to to almost have that be
the the norm. But there is an opportunity
and I and I do believe it's worth the time because because we have a lot to do
between BCDC, PG&E and the easements um which would at the end of the day if
those if those don't come through, you know, this project's not going to go
ahead anyway. So, work aggressively with with the selected contractor to and it's
not like we have much of a choice. We have to choose
the non-eliminated low low bid, right? Right. Yeah, and and I think
if if we're choosing if we're choosing any, yeah.
Right, yeah, exactly. And and I I think that you know, if if if there was
another close bid for example, and and you know, there was a way to parse
through the qualifications, um then then we might be having a different
conversation, but I think you know, we have one apparently bidder. The the next
one is you know, 500,000. I mean you know, higher. I
touched on this last meeting, too, and I know this will come up in the city
council is and it's hard it's hard to weigh this
against known risk failure there, but is this is this something that you know, in
a year or two might be might be better pricing?
I'm not saying non-inflationary pricing, but just better pricing relative to the
war, the supply chain issues, steel prices, gas petroleum prices. Good good
question. And currently so far, we actually
do a lot of supply chain analysis for our projects nationwide.
So, right now I do know that most of the sheet pile is coming from US. So, no
tariffs. So, that has not been impacted. Currently, the price of oil has not
impacted the sheet pile pricing. And that was something that, you know, once
we started to see what was happening in around and that's typically one of the
first triggers is the price of oil will just start to impact everything for
production and specifically sheet pile. So, at this
point we don't foresee any changes and we're that close that it
would be not a major escalation. We may have more impacts if we push the project
and you know, without
you know, we're talking, you know, two years down the road we're probably Even
these folks these folks gave these bids, you know, these orders are good. The
price associations have been two or three weeks, right? Two three and a half
weeks. Um
would it could or would they come back and say there's a 10% premium based on
recent events? They I do know that there there is a
level of like they are entitled to that, but I don't know the specifics
personally to what that is. >> They could do that. They could come back
with a I'm not sure to the specifics. So, it all depends on I think on the
specifics of the contract. I'm just not fully aware they are, you know, entitled
to that. >> [clears throat]
» All the good scenario I mean as far as whether the contract
Yeah, yeah, two or three two or three as as as they go lower their price they
can ask us to raise the price. No, this is what the contract would be. Yeah.
And that's yeah, they're they're hanging their hat on that and knowing that okay,
well, you know, we have to we get a word once, you know, supposed
to that we you know, move specifically on the sheets that would be the big
thing. So, I mean if it's if it's if it's
legitimately now a cost of theirs big it's
choose not to take the contract, right? Or the or are they obligated to take
this contract? Well, they're I think yeah, they have
you Julian can speak to this as well. Again, are they obligated or that's
where they're yeah, that's where we have a bond. Mhm. A bid bond.
Yeah. >> [clears throat]
» Well, so this committee we were going to make a recommendation. It sounds like
the staff's recommendation is to to recommend city council to accept the bid
of Gordon Ball.
Um are we ready to decide on that with the committee? I don't know how we what
do we further questions or discussion? I would I would
edit that a bit in the sense that it's not this committee's decision to go
ahead with the project. Right? From a from a broader risk
perspective from a broader financing perspective and from a broader um
operations perspective. But in in the event the council is clearly said to us
at a retreat hence the formation of this committee is um
we want this project to go forward. It should it go forward we want you to do
the proper due diligence and proper transparency to make sure that it's done
in a fair equitable manner and that you're getting as much value for the
process as possible. I think we should that's what we should
say is that given the process and given the understanding of the project and the
scope, this is the best contract for the job
and given the conditions that we talked about a second ago that you're going to
post awarding of the contract value engineer and look for look look for
potential values in the scope itself and um
here are ways we can potentially mitigate the cost in the existing
budgets or other budgets. Um that's the recommendation to choose Gordon Ball.
What is it the >> Yeah, I think it should be yeah. We're
not saying the project should go ahead with this. Ultimately,
you know, five people up there with public comment are going to decide
whether this is this this, you know, $4.6 million is something the city sees
a priority for the next, you know, year and a half to
to mitigate this risk. Yeah. Yeah. Um so it sounds like it it's um
on the understanding that there will be you know, aggressive um
uh what
I don't want to say reduction in cost I mean, you know, you know the people up
there myself and and what I mean they're going to say, you know, find a
place, you know, figure out the 315, right? You know, we'd rather not have
that. We'd rather we'd rather you, you know, get it out of the get it out of
the project one way or the other, you know, either sharpen your pencil from a
scope perspective, value engineer it or if you have to do exactly what what what
you guys talked about is is, you know, take a portion that that's responsible
of a paving and a sidewalk budget or other public works budgets and apply it
to this recognizing that you're you're you're you're stealing from Peter to pay
Paul, but but be confident that you're you're doing that in a in a in a in a
balanced way that you're not jeopardizing Paul in that scenario.
They're going to want to see that information. Right. Yeah. Yeah.
And and just just be confident that you thought about it so that if you're not
able to lower the price that we're not we don't have a, you
know, day one $315,000 hit to this budget. You don't want to go
through a project day one with that kind of, you know, budget deficit.
» for sure. Um
Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I I >> help you with the staff report too. I
mean, like I'm don't stress about that. Between Robert, you and me and Helga we
can figure out how to Yeah. write that up. Yeah, that that
I really appreciate that. Um Yeah, and and I think I think part of
the um
you know, one of the questions that that we'd have for you is is uh whether you
think, you know, where would be a more appropriate um place to to look for um
savings uh and yeah, so you know, see our existing CIP funds
versus scope of the projects and um yeah, these kind of Well, that's kind of
a contract. I mean, I mean, yes the the city can start with, you know,
what what what what um parks and lanes what what what broader
public works infrastructure are you doing that one you don't think you're
going to get to. Every year we don't get to projects, right? That happens all the
time. So so so so figure out which are the ones we don't
think we're going to get to and roll that into '27 '28 or '26 '27 or
even '26 '27 '27 '28 and that's that's a that's appropriate that potentially
could be used um for this recognizing you're just kicking a can down the road.
It's not a savings, but but it's a new public works budget next
year. Right. Yeah, exactly. And and if through your personal or a professional
assessment that
project can be deferred for that amount of time. I mean, that's got to be part
of it as well. Yes, exactly. And I think I actually
didn't get to that part of when I was talking about the CIPs and the and the
paving um yeah, the It's got to be based on some assessment
Well, exactly. Yeah, I mean, because there are as you say
projects that roll over every year and there are also, you know, sort of
forecast funds for for for different projects that you
know, won't be used for one reason or another and and can be pushed off to the
following year. Yeah. And we'll just see if there are any I
see Patrick has joined. If there are comments from Patrick or any I don't
know if there are any other Robert or Rob or Glenn or anyone else who might
not have a chance to speak about this and
Robert, Patrick, Glenn, any
Hey, >> [clears throat]
» I can go ahead and comment. I've just been listening to this
well, to the whole conversation, but on this last part we we did actually meet
Tony, myself and Helga and take a look at our 20 our current budget in terms of
rollover and then what we're looking at for next year in terms of projects that
have funds assigned, but not necessarily a project earmarked for those funds. So,
I think there um you know, to Peter and and Tony to your point there is enough
flexibility in the next, you know, this current year and next year
we need to we we can find a way to pay for this 315. Um but but the broader
point is let's let's work really hard and try and bring the cost down, which
is of course what we'll present to city council.
Yeah, and so and this is just Robbie, you've
just reminded me of another thing that's um
we would like to emphasize is that we have no plans to request more funds from
from reserves uh from general fund or critical
infrastructure reserves. Um the you know, all the all the cost
savings would come from existing and forecast funds and from the projects
itself. Yeah.
That's a bit that's that's sort of splitting hairs because it's
Well, it's just going to be it really comes
from the city >> all all the same funds. So, it's a
matter of Right. >> whether it's
in an existing appropriation or not. Right. Yeah, yeah, no, absolutely. We
can't print money. So, it's it's at the end of the day it's coming from
something or we're not doing something. Oh, yeah, exactly. We're putting
deferring something or yeah. But I I I think Robert said it exactly right and
Yeah. we can we can endeavor to to make that presentation and I'll and I'll
certainly be part of that and help explain it to
the council as we go forward. Yeah, well, thank you. Yeah.
Okay, well, there's no further discussion. It seems like we should try
and bring our our committee's recommendation to our to a vote and
I think the movement is that the sub committee
will vote to um
I guess that the vote along with the the staff
has made the proper recommendation to the city council subject to the
adjustments and sort of financing and payment. Um
and I I I guess we're not quite endorsing that the the committee should
do this, but the committee supports the staff's recommendation. I think you said
it exactly right that that that we we support the recommendation of the of the
city staff that Gordon Ball is the is is the contractor
to select and that um
uh we encourage the the staff in the presentation to city council to to focus
on you know, value engineering and and and
scope considerations and then identify where the
surplus $315,000 can come from within existing budgets.
I was um [clears throat] may I move into the vote on that?
Uh second that. I can second that. And all all in favor,
I I think it's just the three of us
Well, thank you. Yeah, and hopefully the the speaker caught all of the
caught all of the language in there. It's much better than the last one, I
know that. Um so, the microphone of the speaker,
yeah. And so, this may be the final time we'll
have to meet, I guess maybe subject to Yeah, I don't know.
Robert, remind me, do we think it makes sense to because because there's still
as you mentioned between BCDC, Genie, and the
easements and the ultimate, you know, issues of permits and getting going. Uh
and and after all, this committee is designed to be the eyes and ears of
the community just just just just to understand and, you know, either
anecdotally or or publicly make a comment that, you know, we've been aware
of what's going on. I'd suggest another in, you know,
if not one or two month at monthly intervals, just to check in where you
are in this process um so that the next month you presumably
would have received city council approval, you presumably would have
engaged in a contract with Gordon Ball, and have those initial discussions, and
have a tentative timeline for the project. That would be So, in about a
month's time from now That's what I think unless you think that's that's too
soon. Um
No, I think I think there would be uh quite a few there'd be a few updates in
a month's time. Um and we can possibly, you know, change the date if
if we need to if we're waiting on for some, you know, some
um decision or something. Robert, that's not surpassing the the the um
charter or design of this subcommittee? No, the the subcommittee is ad hoc. We
can't exist forever. Um but if we have a clear ending point which may align
you know, with the duration of the project and maybe at the close out uh
we'll have a final report that goes back to council. I think that's still the
scope. Yeah, I would agree. I think it'd be good to meet in another month.
And actually maybe throughout the until the project is completed I absolutely We
discussed even having maybe one committee member available for whether
it be every construction meeting, but at least it's certainly up to speed whether
it's even also a follow-up after our construction meeting with the
contractor. I'm under the impression we'll be doing those weekly. Could be a
bi-weekly check-in or something of that nature, but I think that it's very
important to keep you guys in the loop throughout the process, too. You know,
we'll also have the have the contract happening,
it sounds like. So, you'll you'll bring this to council in April?
Yes. Yeah, that is the plan. Okay. Yeah. Um
Yeah, so April 13th um and
yeah, unfortunately, I'm going to be out of town for a couple of weeks here, but
I have the the draft staff report and um you know, uh I think the finance the
fiscal impact section is is the part we need to um
drill down into. Yeah. But uh
yeah, that and hopefully the construction easements
and maybe even a contract for the other portion of the work if that can all
happen in in in April, uh that would be There's no bid
requirement for that? Is that the bid threshold or something? They would
typically be, yes, but there is in this case
what's called a sole source justification
for for this for this contract because they have specialized
knowledge of that company. >> installed it.
Yes, exactly. Yeah. Yeah.
Yeah, and but that's, you know, these are all
updates that can can come at the next meeting for sure. Yeah. Okay, so we'll
plan on having a meeting probably late April after the city council meeting and
after progress has been made. Um and then we'll see
periodically after after that. Um would you like to pencil in a date now that we
can uh
or or uh Would you Yeah. prefer to to wait and
have a a poll maybe further down the line? If we if we sort of have a a
target date that we are, you know, can then confirm, I think um
All right, for me that always seems to work work better.
So, maybe the week of the 27th? Okay.
I'm gone that whole week. Are you there the week of the 20th? I'm
there the 20th.
I I'm here the week of the 20th. When does city council act? Uh you said
it was the 13th. 13th, yeah. So, that's great.
So, that's a week after the city council meeting. But you might not have made
much progress with the contract. Yeah, it might be a little soon. Might shoot
for beginning of May, like the week of the 4th. Early May might be better. I'm
away the week of the 4th, so I can do the Monday or Tuesday.
And there's always, you know, we can there's no reason this for emailing
communication Personally, I could I could join a Zoom call.
» Or even a remote call if that's Yeah. Yeah, I know it works for you. I guess
it would do we if we're not voting on things necessarily, we don't have to all
be present, correct? And I don't know what the or can we not have
a meeting? It's not a Brown Act, I don't believe. Right, Robert?
That is correct. I don't believe this is a Brown Act. I don't believe
So, I mean If this same group is meeting Sorry, sorry. If this same group is
meeting meeting the you know, the the core group that we
have here today, then it is a Brown Act meeting. If it's just one person
assigned to meet with staff and what's not
Well, I I guess our question, Robert, is if
we couldn't do this as a complete remote meeting.
Right, we need to have a quorum. Then then the majority a majority of the
members have to be in person. It worked out today because only one
person member of that sub of the subcommittee
was was connected remotely. Do we want to shoot for say Wednesday
the 6th and if John can't I did do it remotely, but
I'm happy to do that remotely. Yeah, sure. Let's do that. Okay. Let's May the
6th.
2 2 p.m. Or sorry, 1 p.m. Yeah, if that time works for everyone.
Keep it consistent, I guess.
Okay. All right, I just need to raise one
point. Yes, a design point. Yeah, uh go ahead.
Yeah, that's okay. So, this is addressed to Stetson.
Uh has to do with the height of the sheet piling.
Larry's question to you apparently was misunderstood.
He's asking why not maintain the level the
» [clears throat] >> same as the existing sheet piling.
Oh, the 2019 sheet piling, the top of it.
Um >> Maintaining that height. It was It was
primarily to save cost to to not have a higher sheets and more concrete backfill
and any any fill you put along the wall um requires a mitigation from the
jurisdiction. So, the wall where existing sheet piling
is the new sheet piling. It's It's approximately a foot lower.
You're cutting it off. You're cutting off longer pieces anyway.
Maybe. I mean, it depends where they where they drive it to. Well,
I could drive it in and drive it in those. These aren't being driven.
These aren't being driven. Yeah, they're being pressed. There's no driving.
There there will be a It's that We did We did We did design it so there's a
It's a It's a It'll be a gradual transition, so it's not going to be a an
abrupt, you know, 90° change. It's There is going to be a
transition over over a period of a horizontal
distance, so >> And and the 2019
repair has one as well. There's a a little slope down to two different
elevations. Um but to add
Julian to the reason for keep reasons to keep it keep it down, one is the
permitting because permitting agencies um
were happy to see that if that's the the all
the pile would be kept below the the height of
where the sea sea lettuce reaches because that would be colonized much
more quickly by sea lettuce and barnacles and so on. So, the lower the
better for them as far as habitat goes.
Um then also aesthetics. Um right now from from the the homes along there or
from from the water um
it's it's less visible the the lower down it is.
Um so, that along with the embedding the
uh the gravel into the top of the concrete along there um
you know, sort of the the permitting and and somewhat for aesthetics. So, we're
talking about a foot. About a foot, yes. Yeah. Yeah.
Yeah, so I mean, and if you look at the the 2019 piles, there's a point on the
piles where the barnacles stop. And then above that is just the the metal, you
know. So, the idea here was that the this would be completely below that
that level of you know, habitat. Is Is there Is there
inherently a you know, for the people viewing it from
the water side or from the homes out there? Obviously,
um I mean, there is every every aesthetic
appeal to having it consistent as as much as consistent as as possible. Um
but you're saying there's there's there's no structural need for it cuz
that the note we got today clearly said that the the the structural requirements
are really down below as opposed to above. No structural need for it. My my
biggest concern is is it would add additional mitigation measures and
potentially hold up the BCDC permitting process. Um you guys need to sort of
give us a thumbs up and thumbs down this. I mean I see Larry's point that it
might look better if it was less It was all the same. jig jaggy.
But not enough to delay or or the project or to have a cost consideration
or have you know, permitting issues with you
know, the lead agency there. Right. Yeah. Or even if we can do it from an
environmental perspective whether whether ours are are
review covered that scope. But then again, we did we're we're we're we're
we're we're we're we're I'm leaning on the broader
review, right? So that matter that should matter. The environmental review
should matter, right? No, so that it wouldn't I don't think
impact the EIR if it was you know, if if what you're talking about is is the 2019
sheet piles cuz I think that's probably what was kind of envisioned as
the sort of a comparable Yeah, exactly. Yeah, I don't know if Julian if you have
any thoughts on that. Well, it would require going back to all the agencies.
It would be it would be more fill in the jurisdictional waters. So we'd have to
restart or you know, renegotiate with all the agencies and there would be a
cost increase. Yeah.
Any answer? >> If I could chime in here too, from from
what we've talked about on this project from the beginning we we always
envisioned I think this aesthetic improvement that we're talking about
whether that be a cap or riprap or some other kind of concealment method
for hiding that you know, the steel sheet piles and the concrete. That would
always be coming as kind of a phase two. And it's just a matter of when we can
get that done in terms of you know, perhaps the larger project or when funds
are available. But you know, the structural [clears throat] component
holding up the wall and you know, keeping the cost down low was always our
primary target at least in the short term.
Okay, I'll tell Larry. Thank you. Yeah, he raised it last month also. And
I think Yeah. You should I don't know if Larry
got that note you sent around today. Um Um I I think he uh
with with the response from the state and I think he must have because I think
that's what what you might be referring to then for the
as far as the the misunderstanding. I think that's maybe what what he was
referring He brought it up last week too last month too. So he he may or may not
have it well. >> Right. Yeah, and I I mean I I
misunderstood it too actually cuz I thought he was talking about having a
higher up you know,
to support the wall. I think he just wanted it to match what was there. Yeah,
I understand. And yes. And so
Okay, I think we can adjourn unless there's any further comments. Thank you
so much. So many thanks. Thanks. Yeah, thank you all. Thank you all so much.
Thanks Robert. >> Thanks Robert.
What