woodrow retaining wall mitigated negative declaration dr

RECEIVEDOCT 1 0 2014 -

CITYOFSAUSAUTO;COMMUNITY DEVElliPMENT

Woodrow Retaining WallInitial Environmental Study/

Mitigated Negative DeclarationDR/VA 04-038

City of SausalitoCommunity Development Department

420 Litho StreetSausalito, California 94965

415/289-4129

Final - September 2014

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY1L PROJECT / APPLICANT INFORMATION4II.DETERMINATION6III.GENERAL BACKGROUND7IV.PROJECT DESCRIPTION7V.LIST OF MITIGATION MEASURES16VI.EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS171.AESTHETICS172.AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES223.AIR QUALITY244.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES285.CULTURAL RESOURCES316.GEOLOGY AND SOILS327.GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS388.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS409.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY4310.LAND USE AND PLANNING4711.MINERAL RESOURCES4812.NOISE4913.POPULATION AND HOUSING5214.PUBLIC SERVICES5315.TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC5516.WATER, SEWER, AND STORMWATER SYSTEMS5717.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE59

Vn. STAFF AND SOURCES61

APPENDICESI.ERRATA SHEETII.COMMENTS AND RESONSESIII.MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1, Regional Location Map8Exhibit 2, Project Location Map9Exhibit 3, Project Location Map Showing Parcels10Exhibit 4, Landscape Mitigation Plan12Exhibit 5, Patio Improvement Plan15Exhibit 6, Solar Shade Study - Before Retaining Wall20Exhibit 7, Solar Shade Study - After Retaining Wall21

IES/MND (DR/VA 04-038)Final - September 2014Woodrow Retaining WallPage iItem 5A - Attach 8

02-10-15 of 155

SUMMARY

Project Location

The project site is located at 9 Edwards Avenue in Sausalito, California (APN 065-302-74), withinthe City's Medium High Density Residential General Plan Land Use Designation and the Two-Family Residential (R-2-2.5) Zoning District. The parcel is occupied by an approximately 1,250square-foot single-family home. The parcel slopes downward west to east, with retaining wallsalong the east and south property lines. Pedestrian access to 9 Edwards Avenue from EdwardsAvenue is via an access easement through a portion of the property located at 25 Edwards Avenue(APN 065-302-68) shared with the property at 11 Edwards Avenue (APN 065-302-14)1.

Project Description

The subjects of this Initial Environmental Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IES/MND) arethe concrete retaining wall near the northeastern property line of the 9 Edwards residence, as wellas the associated concrete patio, which the retaining wall supports. Both structures were built in2004 after issuance of a City building permit. Initially, the Planning Division required a ZoningPermit for this project. However, while the City approved plans for an approximately 6-foot highretaining wall along the northeastern property line, the property owner constructed a 10-foot highwall (for more detailed background information see page 6 of this IES/MND). In 2005, followinga site inspection by the City, it was determined that an Administrative Design Review Permitwould be required. Further analysis and study, intensified by the fact that potential environmentalimpacts associated with a 10-foot high retaining wall were not previously considered, ultimatelyelevated review to a comprehensive Design Review Permit requiring action by the PlanningCommission.

Additional on-site improvements are proposed for the wall and its immediate vicinity, as follows:

Wall Finish Materials

The applicant proposes to finish the existing concrete wall with stucco. The color and texture ofthe stucco proposed are taupe with a smooth surface. The applicant also proposes to pave theexisting concrete patio with decorative flagstone. The same decorative flagstone would be usedfor trim at the top of the 10-foot high wall, above which would be located a 42-inch high guardrail.

Landscaping

The applicant proposes to plant a creeping fig vine (Ficus repans) along the face of the northeasternretaining wall. Over time, the vine would be expected to substantially screen the face of the wallfrom view.

Drainage Improvements

The project includes subsurface installation of a four-inch PVC drainage pipe along the

1 Record of Survey, Lot Line Adjustment, Filed June 1, 1995 in Book 33 of Surveys, Page 86.

IES/MND (DR/VA 04-038)Woodrow Retaining Wall

Final - September 2014Page 1Item 5A - Attach 8

02-10-15 of 155

northeastern boundary of the project site, from the base of the retaining wall north to EdwardsAvenue. The pipe will carry stormwater runoff from the concrete patio out through the existingopening in the curb along Edwards Avenue.

Retaining Wall Retrofit

The 10-foot high retaining wall will be retrofitted internally by excavating an underpinning pit toa sufficient distance into competent bedrock (a depth of approximately 15 feet below the top ofthe wall and a minimum of two (2) feet below the elevation of the walkway surface on the adjacentdownhill property), and installing an engineered steel reinforcing cage tied into the reinforcingsteel associated with the existing wall, and then, following passage of inspection by the engineerin responsible charge and the City, pouring Portland cement concrete to create a strengthening pier(a "counterfort"). Doing so will provide additional stability of the retaining wall, resolving anyambiguities as to the strength or constraint of the critical center pier section of the wall or itsresistance to movement.

Project Entitlements

The required entitlements for the project include the following:

1.Approval of a Design Review Permit to allow a ten-foot high stucco wall covered withhanging creeping fig (Ficus repans) vines, and capped with flagstone trim, above whichwould be a 42-inch high guard rail. The Permit would also allow installation of decorativeflagstone onto the existing concrete patio.

2.Approval of a Variance to allow a ten-foot high retaining wall within a side yard setback.3.Approval of a Variance to allow for an elevated patio to be located within a side yard

setback.4.Retroactive Tree Removal Permit for the removal of a California Bay Laurel (Umbellularia

californica), which is a protected tree per the City's ordinance.5.Reactivation of Building Permit No. A 10666 for completion of the wall retrofit and related

work.

Impacts

This IES/MND identifies the potential for potentially significant environmental impacts for thefollowing environmental areas:

• Geology and Soils

This IES/MND has determined that measures are available to mitigate the potential adverseimpacts to less-than-significant levels. As a result, this document serves as a Mitigated NegativeDeclaration pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21064.5 and 21080(c), and Article 6 ofthe California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

In accordance with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15071, this IES/MND describesthe proposed project; identifies, analyzes, and evaluates the potential significant environmentalimpacts that may result from the proposed project; and identifies measures to mitigate adverseenvironmental impacts. With the mitigation measures identified in this document, the project will



02-10-15 of 155

not have a significant impact on the environment.

Please note that all supporting documentation referenced in this IES/MND is available for reviewat the Sausalito Community Development Department.

IES/MND (DRA/A 04-038)Woodrow Retaining Wall


02-10-15 of 155

I. PROJECT / APPLICANT INFORMATION

1.Project Title:

2.Lead Agency Name and Address:

3.Contact Person and Phone Number:

4.Project Location:

5.Assessor Parcel Numbers:

6.Project Sponsor:

7.City Approvals Required:

Woodrow Retaining Wall

City of Sausalito420 Litho Street

Sausalito, CA 94965

Calvin ChanAssistant Planner

(415) 289-4129

9 Edwards AvenueCity of Sausalito

APN 065-302-74

Philip Woodrow9 Edwards Avenue

Sausalito, CA 94965

Design Review PermitVariances

Retroactive Tree Removal PermitReactivation of Building Permit No. A 10666

8.Existing General Plan Designation:Medium High Density Residential

9.Existing Zoning:Two-Family Residential (R-2-2.5) District

10.Project Description Summary:

The subjects of this IES/MND are the concrete retaining wall near the northeastern property lineof the 9 Edwards residence, as well as the associated concrete patio, which the retaining wallsupports. Both structures were built in 2004 after issuance of a City building permit. However,while the City approved plans for an approximately 6-foot high retaining wall along thenortheastern property line, the property owner constructed a 10-foot high wall (for more detailedbackground information see page 7 of this IES/MND). As a result, potential environmental impactsassociated with a 10-foot high retaining wall were not previously considered by the City. ThisIES/MND evaluates the potential that impacts could have resulted from the construction of thisretaining wall, as well as potential impacts resulting from the not-yet-constructed wall retrofit andexterior finish, landscaping, and drainage improvements associated with the retaining wall.

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project. Thefollowing Evaluation of Environmental Impacts identifies at least one impact that is a "PotentiallySignificant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated" for each of the checkedenvironmental factors.



02-10-15 of 155

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Air QualityBiological Resources Cultural Resources X Geology/Soils

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & HazardousMaterials

Hydrology and Water Quality

Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise

Population & Housing Public Services andRecreation

Transportation & Circulation

Water, Sewer, and Stormwatersystems

Mandatory Findings ofSignificance



02-10-15 of 155

II. DETERMINATION

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the Proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

* I find that although the proposed Project could potentially have a significant effect on theenvironment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the Project proponenthas made revisions in the Project and has agreed to the mitigation measures listed in"Section V. List of Mitigation Measures". I further find that the mitigation measures andthe information in this study constitute a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION inaccordance with Section 15071 of the State CEQA Guidelines.

I find that the Proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and anENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentiallysignificant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has beenadequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described onattached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it mustanalyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlierEIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant tothat earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon theproposed project, nothing further is required.

SignatureDate

Jeremy Graves, AICPCommunity Development Director



02-10-15 of 155

III. GENERAL BACKGROUND

This IES/MND provides an environmental analysis pursuant to CEQA for the Woodrow RetainingWall project. The applicant has submitted the respective project applications to the City ofSausalito. This IES/MND contains an the after-the-fact review of the construction of theapproximately 10-foot concrete retaining wall, located along the northeastern property line of the9 Edwards residence in the City of Sausalito as well as a review of the additionally proposed wallimprovements. This study relies upon the City of Sausalito General Plan, as well as site-specificstudies prepared for the project, in the determination of impacts.

IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Site LocationThe project site is located in the City of Sausalito, and is comprised of one 2,721 square foot (sf)parcel identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 065-302-74 (See Exhibit 1, Regional Location Map;and Exhibit 2, Project Location Map). The project site is located at 9 Edwards Avenue in Sausalito,CA, which is located in an area designated as Medium High Density Residential by the GeneralPlan and zoned Two-Family Residential (R-2-2.5) District. The 9 Edwards Avenue residence islocated on the northwestern side of a steep hill facing Richardson's Bay and San Francisco Bay.

Project BackgroundThe City of Sausalito issued Building Permit No. A 10666 on February 5,2004 for the constructionof on-site retaining walls on the northwest and northeast side of the property at 9 Edwards Avenue.The retaining walls were approved to replace an existing 6-foot failing wood retaining wall. Inaccordance with this permit, walls were constructed on the south and northeast sides of an existing350-square foot patio. The northeast retaining wall is approximately 25 feet long and is locatedapproximately 6 inches to 1-foot from the northeast property line shared with the adjacent 1Edwards property. This distance is approximately 12-18 inches closer to the property line than theoriginal retaining wall. During construction, the elevation of the patio was raised by approximately2 to 3 feet to establish a patio surface level with the rear door leading to the 9 Edwards home,which would allow for an easier second means of egress from the home in case of a fire or otheremergency. In addition, some steeply sloping soil was removed at the base of the east retainingwall. These changes resulted in the height of the retaining wall along the east side (downhill side)of the patio being increased from an originally approved design height of approximately 6 feet toa maximum of approximately 10 feet. Retaining walls on the remaining three sides of the patiowere either reduced in height or remained approximately the same and are not a subject of thisenvironmental review.

The construction of the 10-foot high retaining wall also required the removal of one CaliforniaBay Laurel (Umbellularia californica) along the eastern property line. Prior to removal, the treehad no supporting roots on the northeast side and the stump had decay in the center, whichextended below grade.

As a result of the increase in height of the east wall, the City Building Official issued a stop workorder and the property owner was asked to apply for an Administrative Design Review Permit.



02-10-15 of 155

Exhibit 1Regional Location Map



02-10-15 of 155

&o21w

o-Ju<u

os-

a«

05^ T

OfeQ

--QS-ffiQ

.d

iCOcc.ciC

O

IIO O

)

s:i42

Q cc

9i

1°

8|

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

¦Si- O

oCMa>-QEQ

.Q

)COTO.ClC

0)

O)

CDQ

-

00

COoI

¦"froQQf0U

j

O)

.£.£-2OJcc£Io

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

An Administrative Design Review application for staff review and consideration of the increasedwall height was submitted by the applicant on May 5, 2004. After several meetings between theCity, applicant, and the 1 Edwards property owner, who provided verbal and written concernsregarding the increased wall height and its alleged effects on the 1 Edwards property, City staffreferred the project to the Planning Commission as a Design Review Pennit. The item wasscheduled before the Planning Commission on December 7, 2005.

On December 7, 2005, the Planning Commission reviewed the following project:

1.Design Review Permit to allow a 10-foot high stucco wall covered with hanging creepingfig (Ficus repans) vines, as well as a flagstone patio and an iron safety railing.

2.A Variance to allow a 10-foot high retaining wall to be located within a side yard setback.3.A Variance to allow for an elevated patio to be located within a side yard setback.4.Retroactive Tree Permit for the removal of a California bay laurel.

The Planning Commission received public testimony and continued the item to a date uncertain.Subsequently, the processing of the project slowed. In 2008, in response to questions raised aboutthe soils and the changes in the design basis of the wall, the applicant retained a new geotechnicalengineer, Lawrence B. Karp, who prepared an evaluation of the existing retaining wall.2 Karp'sevaluation determined that the as-built 10-foot high retaining wall should be retrofitted internally.The proposed means of doing so includes excavation of a pit to a depth of 15 feet below the top ofthe retaining wall, and subsequent installation of a strengthening pier.

The project was scheduled for a Planning Commission public hearing on March 18, 2009 with arequest for approval of the three above-listed entitlements, including conditions of approvalrequiring retrofit of the retaining wall per Karp's 2008 recommendations. Due to additionalinformation provided to staff by the 1 Edwards property owner prior to the March 18,2009 hearing,and ongoing controversy regarding purported off-site impacts resulting from the 10-foot highretaining wall, the Planning Commission continued the item to a date uncertain and required anindependent peer review of the project to date and Karp's 2008 retrofitrecommendations/solutions. Subsequently, staff also determined that the results of the independentpeer review should be incorporated into an Initial Environmental Study / Mitigated NegativeDeclaration prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Project Components

The 10-foot high concrete retaining wall, at the northeastern property line of the 9 Edwardsresidence, as well as the associated concrete patio, were constructed in 2004. Additional on-siteimprovements are proposed for the wall and its immediate vicinity, as follows:

Wall Finish Materials

As shown in Exhibit 4, Landscape Mitigation Plan, the applicant proposes to finish the existingconcrete wall with stucco. The color and texture of the stucco proposed are taupe color with asmooth surface.

2 Lawrence B. Karp, Woodrow Residence, 9 Edwards Avenue, APN 065-302-74, Patio Retaining Wall, June 5, 2008letter to Todd Teachout, City Engineer.


Final - September 2014Page 11

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

0OSao•¦dT

f C86JD

s §a irutnACS-

oCM<D-QE-2Q

.Q

)CO

CMr-Q)

Cn

cc.cu; Item 5A - Attach 8

02-10-15 of 155

The applicant also proposes to cover the existing concrete patio with decorative flagstone. Thesame decorative flagstone would be used for trim at the top of the 10-foot high wall, above whichwould be located a 42-inch high guard rail.

Retaining Wall Retrofit

As mentioned above, the determination was made that to resolve any ambiguity as to the strengthor constraint of the critical center pier section of the as-built 10-foot high retaining wall (or itsresistance to movement) it could be retrofitted internally by excavating a pit to a depth ofapproximately 15 feet below the top of the retaining wall, and subsequently installing astrengthening counterfort pier. According to Karp's 2008 geotechnical evaluation, and JoshuaKardon's (the applicant's structural engineer) April 15, 2010 Structural Engineering analysis3, theretrofit will resolve any ambiguities regarding the critical section of the wall, which is at the centerof the 24-foot-long section parallel to the property line. This retrofit has been reviewed by CityEngineer Jonathon Goldman, other City engineering staff, the City's contract building plan checkconsultant and other qualified professional engineers and on that basis has been approved by theCity Engineer. As indicated by Karp and Kardon, and confirmed by the City, the resultingconservatively calculated factor of safety of 1.5 complies with the 2007 California Building Codefor constraint of drilled piers as well as earth pressure and factor of safety and will confirm orimprove constraint anchorage for the critical center pier.

A 2-foot- by-5-foot-wide hole has been cut into the patio slab perpendicular to the wall withapproximately 6 inches of the hole extending past the pier. A hand dug pier (also known as anunderpinning pit) has been excavated into the underlying competent bedrock (Franciscanformation chert, a silica-rich sedimentary rock formed from the shells of marine plankton calledRadiolaria4). Its final depth will be at least 2 feet below the elevation of the walkway at the subjectproperty, about 15 feet from the top of the retaining wall. About 6 inches of existing concrete willbe chipped into the full height of the exposed wall and pier. After excavation and chipping, if thepiers meet specifications and the chert is competent, the pit will be reinforced with stirrups andverticals at 12 inches hooked to the pier and wall reinforcing and then concreted.

An advantage of the retrofit will be that index verifications will be obtained for the bedrock andpier construction, and corrections for any insufficient strength or other weakness may be made, ifdeemed necessary.

Landscaping

As shown in Exhibit 3, the applicant proposes to plant a creeping fig vine (Ficus repans) along theface of the northeastern retaining wall. Over time, the vine would be expected to substantiallyscreen the face of the wall from view.

3Joshua Kardon, April 15,2010 letter to Todd Teachout, City Engineer.

4http://www.nps.gov/goga/forteachers/chert-faq.litm. "Radiolarian chert is very hard, and often feels smooth.

Indigenous people made spear points from this glassy rock. The Army crushed chert to make roads,"http://sjsugeology.org/baesi/June2010_PT/Rocldnfocards.pdf. "Chert underlies about 50 percent of the MarinHeadlands and a small part of the Presidio. Because chert is resistant to weathering, it forms many of the ridge tops."William P. Elder, Geology of the Golden Gate Headlands, National Park Service, Golden Gate National RecreationArea, Calif, http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/b2188/b2188ch3.pdf

IES/MND (DR.VA 04-038)Woodrow Retaining Wall


Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

Drainage Improvements

The project includes subsurface installation of a 4-inch PVC drainage pipe along the northeasternboundary of the project site, from the base of the retaining wall north to Edwards Avenue. Thepipe would carry stormwater runoff from the concrete patio out through the existing opening inthe curb along Edwards Avenue (see Exhibit 5, Patio Improvement Plan).

Discretionary Actions

Approval of the Project includes the following discretionary actions by the City:

1.Approval of a Design Review Permit to allow a ten-foot high stucco wall covered withhanging creeping fig (Ficus repans) vines, as well as a flagstone patio and an iron 42-inchhigh guard rail.

2.Approval of a Variance to allow a ten-foot high retaining wall to be located within a sideyard setback.

3.Approval of a Variance to allow for an elevated patio to be located within a side yardsetback.

4.Retroactive Tree Removal Permit for the removal of a California Bay Laurel, which is aprotected tree per the City's ordinance.

5.Reactivation of Building Permit No. A 10666 for completion of the wall retrofit and relatedwork.

IES/MND (DR.VA 04-038)Woodrow Retaining Wall


Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

¦Sh

lO

OCMCD-QEaQ

.CD

COCD.Cll

CDO)

CO

a,

O O

)

- -S

Q ^

5 "fe^ 0

COty ^ Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

V. LIST OF MITIGATION MEASURES

Mitigation Measure 1.Applicant shall apply for reactivation of Building Permit No. A 10666 (with fees) for completionof the wall retrofit and related work. The plans shall include re-submittal of wet-sealed originalsof the following source documents: "Lawrence B. Karp, Consulting Geotechnical Engineer.Woodrow Residence, 9 Edwards Avenue, APN 065-302-74, Patio Retaining Wall, June 5, 2008"and "Joshua Kardon, April 15, 2010 Structural Engineering Analysis," (or an update by Karp orKardon). As described by Karp and Kardon, the proposed internal retrofit shall generally consistof the following: a 2-foot- by-5-foot-wide hole cut into the patio slab perpendicular to the wall,with approximately 6 inches of the hole extending past the pier. A hand dug pier (also known asan underpinning pit) excavated into the chert to a depth of at least two feet below the elevation ofthe walkway at the subject property, approximately 15 feet from the top of the retaining wall.Approximately six inches of the existing concrete will be chipped into the full height of the exposedwall and pier. After excavation and chipping, if the pier meets specifications and the chert iscompetent (including inspections by the applicant's geotechnical engineer and the City Engineer),the pit will be reinforced with stirrups and verticals at 12 inches, hooked to the pier and wallreinforcing, subject to a reinforcing steel inspection and then concreted. The final retrofit designshall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of the reactivatedbuilding permit.

Mitigation Measure 2.If Mitigation Measure 1 requires earthwork, then the application for reactivation of the buildingpermit shall include an erosion control plan for review by the City Public Works Director and CityEngineer; and the reactivation shall be conditioned on the satisfactory implementation ofstormwater pollution prevention Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented duringconstruction to ensure that exposed soils are not transported off-site by wind and/or water forces.



Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

VI. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1. AESTHETICS.

IssuesPotentiallySignificant

Impact

PotentiallySignificant

UnlessMitigated

Less-Than-

SignificantImpact

NoImpact

Would the project:a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Xb. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but

not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historicbuildings within a State scenic highway?

X

c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character orquality of the site and its surroundings?

Xd. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which

would adversely affect day or nighttime views in thearea?

X

a. Would the project have a substantial adverseeffect on a scenic vista?Less-Than-Significant

b. Would the project substantially damagescenic resources, including, but not limited to,trees, rock outcroppings, and historicbuildings within a State scenic highway?Less-Than-Significant

Discussion

The proposed project is within a developed neighborhood on a currently developedproperty with an existing residence and surrounded by other existing residences. Prior toinstallation of the 10-foot high retaining wall, an existing six-foot high wooden retainingwall and soil were located along the northeastern property line. Thus, the increase in heightof the retaining wall to 10 feet would not be considered to cause a substantial modificationto the previous views in the area. The applicant also proposes to install a 42-inch high guardrail atop the retaining wall. However, this guard rail would be partially transparent, as thethin rails would be spaced apart. The Sausalito General Plan recognizes the view ofRichardson's Bay as an important visual resource. Due to the steep slope of the project site,views from residences to the south and west of the site are not blocked by structures on-site. Accordingly, the 10-foot high retaining wall and patio do not block views of a scenicvista from surrounding residences. Similarly, the proposed wall improvements includingfinishing the surface of the retaining wall, installing a patio guard rail, and installing astorm drain pipe, would not block views of Richardson's Bay.

The project site is not located within a State scenic highway. As such, the proposed projectwould not damage any scenic resources within a State scenic highway. As the site waspreviously developed and does not contain rock outcroppings or historical buildings,implementation of the proposed project would not damage such resources. It should benoted that one 24-inch California bay laurel was removed during construction of theretaining wall. Although considered a Heritage/Protected tree, according to the TreeInspection Report prepared for the proposed project by a certified arborist, the removed



Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

California bay laurel was not a candidate for preservation due to the decay in the trunk andlack of supporting roots. Furthermore, the removed tree was not visible from any prominentviewpoints, and did not contribute substantially to the aesthetic environment of the site.The applicant is requesting retroactive approval of a Tree Removal Permit for removal ofthe one Heritage/Protected tree.

Because the retaining wall and proposed improvements would not have a substantial effecton a scenic vista or damage scenic resources within a State scenic highway, a less-than-

significant impact would occur.

Mitigation Measure(s)None required.

c. Would the project substantially degrade theexisting visual character or quality of the siteand its surroundings?Less-Than-Signiflcant

Discussion

Prior to the installation of the 10-foot high retaining wall, an existing six-foot high woodenretaining wall and soil were located along the northeastern property line. The wood wasbeginning to bow and rot in areas and was becoming a potential danger to both the on-siteresidence and the neighboring residence. As such, the proposed project was intended tocorrect the failing nature of the wooden retaining wall. Although the 10-foot high concreteretaining wall modified the visual character of the site and surroundings, the concreteretaining wall contributes to the stability of a hillside with known stability issues. Inaddition, the patio and retaining wall would be consistent with acceptable standards ofprivacy in a neighborhood characterized by homes on small lots in close proximity toneighboring structures. The height of the concrete retaining wall and patio makes the patioarea and home of the adjacent residence at 1 Edwards less visible from the project site;thus, providing more privacy for the neighboring residence.

The retaining wall and patio are taller and closer to the property line than what hadpreviously existed, and appear larger and more massive when viewed from 1 Edwards; thusthese features are more visible from the adjacent residence than what had occurred prior.However, the perceived bulk and mass of the wall would be reduced by the proposed stuccofinishing and hanging creeping vines that, when mature, would cover the wall surface. Theapplicant has proposed to finish the wall with smooth stucco, taupe in color. With theinclusion of the proposed improvements, the retaining wall could be considered anaesthetic enhancement over the previous failing six-foot wooden retaining walls.5

5 It should be noted that the City's Zoning Ordinance, Section 10.44.020.D.2, permits a four-foot fence atop a six-foot

retaining wall at a side property line. Thus, the Zoning Ordinance currently allows a 10-foot-tall solid wall (retainingwall plus solid fencing) to be built at the property line with design review. With approval of the requested DesignReview Permit, the 10-foot high retaining wall with the proposed stucco finishing, hanging vines, and iron railingwould not be expected to result in an unacceptable improvement at the project location.



Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

Therefore, overall, the retaining wall and proposed improvements would not be expectedto substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and surroundings,and a less-than-significant impact would result.


d. Would the project create a new source ofsubstantial light or glare which wouldadversely affect day or nighttime views in thearea?Less-Than-Significant

Discussion

New sources of light or glare were not introduced on-site when the 10-foot high retainingwall and raised patio were constructed. Similarly, proposed improvements would not createa new source of substantial light or glare in the area.

The 10-foot high wall and patio is consistent with acceptable standards of privacy in aneighborhood characterized by homes on small lots in close proximity to neighboringstructures. Because the height of the concrete retaining wall and patio makes the patio areaand home of the adjacent residence at 1 Edwards less visible from the project site, sourcesof light and glare from the subject property would be expected to be less visible from theneighboring residence.

The neighboring property owner at 1 Edwards has voiced a complaint regarding theobstruction of natural lighting at her property associated with the increase in wall height.As a result, the City required a solar shade study to evaluate the impacts of the retainingwall on the 1 Edwards property with respect to sunlight obstructions. Exhibit 6demonstrates the solar access within the project area before the 10-foot high retaining wallwas constructed, and Exhibit 7 demonstrates the solar access after the 10-foot highretaining wall was constructed. As shown in the exhibits, the study demonstrates that the10-foot high retaining wall does not result in any discernible changes to solar access or anyobstruction of light at the adjacent 1 Edwards property. In addition, it should be noted thatthe project area was and is heavily vegetated with oak trees and other vegetation, whichhave an effect on natural lighting at both the subject property and the adjacent property. Asmentioned above, one 24-inch California bay laurel was removed during construction ofthe retaining wall, which was located between the project site and the adjacent residence.Thus, removal of the large tree, and the shading associated with such, would have resultedin a slight increase in the natural lighting of the area. Therefore, the retaining wall andproposed improvements would not result in the creation of a new source of substantial lightor glare, and would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.




Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

v-

OCM

OC\JQ>D)

(0a

.

M)

.s.s

5 «2s «

-O w

aH 1

w ^'o3¦M!ZJa>13&A1/5•-C3"o

xn

f0yj Item 5A - Attach 8

02-10-15 of 155

aA

§X

wo

.9.9"Spat-<u

<I"Occa>

-o-=isocc

oCMi-.(b-Q6aC

LCD00

CMQ)

O)

(D.C

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

2. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES.


Impact


UnlessMitigated

Less-Than-

SignificantImpact

NoImpact

In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer tothe California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. ofConseiyation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impactsto forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to informationcompiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventoiy of forest land,including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbonmeasurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:

a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, orFarmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), asshown on the maps prepared pursuant to the FarmlandMapping Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use?

X

b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or aWilliamson Act contract? X

c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of,forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public ResourcesCode section 4526), or timberland zoned TimberlandProduction (as defined by Government Code section51104(g))?

X

d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forestland to non-forest use? X

e. Involve other changes in the existing environmentwhich, due to their location or nature, could individuallyor cumulatively result in loss of Farmland to non-agricultural use?

X

a.Would the project convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland, or Farmland of StatewideImportance (Farmland), as shown on themaps prepared pursuant to the FarmlandMapping Program of the CaliforniaResources Agency, to non-agricultural use?No Impact

b.Would the project conflict with existingzoning for agricultural use, or a WilliamsonAct contract?No Impact

c.Would the project conflict with existingzoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (asdefined in Public Resources Code section12220(g)), timberland (as defined by PublicResources Code section 4526), or timberlandzoned Timberland Production (as defined byGovernment Code section 51104(g))?No Impact

d.Would the project result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forest land to non-forest

use?No Impact

IES/MND (DR/VA 04-038)Final - September 2014Woodrow Retaining WallPage 22

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

e. Would the project involve other changes in theexisting environment which, due to theirlocation or nature, could individually orcumulatively result in loss of Farmland tonon-agricultural use?No Impact

Discussion

The proposed project is within a developed neighborhood on a currently developedproperty with an existing residence and surrounded by other existing residences. Thus, theproject site is not currently used for agricultural uses or forest land. Due to the steep slopesat the site, the site has not been used for farming in the past. According to the Marin CountyImportant Farmland 2010 map, the project site is within an area designated as Urban andBuilt-Up Land. Thus, the project is not designated as Prime or Unique Farmland orFarmland of Statewide Importance, and conversion of such Farmland to non-agriculturaluse would not occur as a result of the proposed project. In addition, the project site is withinthe City's Medium High Density Residential General Plan Land Use Designation and theTwo-Family Residential (R-2-2.5) Zoning District. As such, the site is not currently zonedfor agricultural use, designated as forest land, or under a Williamson Act contract. Overall,the retaining wall and proposed improvements would have no impact related to agriculturalresources.

Mitigation Measures(s)None required.



Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

3. AIR QUALITY.


Impact


UnlessMitigated

Less-Than-

SignificantImpact

NoImpact

Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution controldistrict may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:

a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of theapplicable air quality plan? X

b. Violate any air quality standard or contributesubstantially to an existing or projected air qualityviolation?

X

c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase ofany criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambientair quality standard?

X

d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutantconcentrations? X

e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantialnumber of people? X

a. Would the project conflict with or obstructimplementation of the applicable airquality plan?No Impact

Discussion

The City of Sausalito is within the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality ManagementDistrict (BAAQMD), which regulates air quality in the San Francisco Bay Area, andlocated in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB). The SFBAAB is currentlydesignated as a nonattainment area for State and federal ozone, State and federal particulatematter 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), and State particulate matter 10 microns in diameter(PM10) standards. The BAAQMD, in cooperation with the Metropolitan TransportationCommission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), prepared the2005 Ozone Strategy, which is a roadmap depicting how the Bay Area will achievecompliance with the State one-hour air quality standard for ozone as expeditiously aspracticable and how the region will reduce transport of ozone and ozone precursors toneighboring air basins. Although the California Clean Air Act does not require the regionto submit apian for achieving the State PM10 standard, the 2005 Ozone Strategy is expectedto also reduce PM10 emissions. In addition, to fulfill federal air quality planningrequirements, the BAAQMD adopted a PM2.5 emissions inventory for year 2010, whichwas submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) on January 14,2013for inclusion in the State Implementation Plan (SIP).

The current plan in place to achieve progress toward attainment of the federal ozonestandards is the Revised San Francisco Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan for the 1-HourNational Ozone Standard. The USEPA recently revoked the 1-hour federal ozone standard;however, the region is designated nonattainment for the new 8-hour standard that replacedthe older one-hour standard. Until the region either adopts an approved attainment plan orattains the standard and adopts a maintenance plan, the Revised San Francisco Bay AreaOzone Attainment Plan for the 1-Hour National Ozone Standard remains the currentlyapplicable federally approved plan.



Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

The aforementioned applicable air quality plans contain mobile source controls, stationarysource controls, and transportation control measures (TCMs) to be implemented in theregion to attain the State and federal ozone standards within the SFBAAB. The plans arebased on population and employment projections provided by local governments, usuallydeveloped as part of the General Plan update process. A project would be considered toconflict with, or obstruct implementation of, an applicable air quality plan if the projectwould be inconsistent with the Ozone Attainment Plan's growth assumptions, in terms ofpopulation, employment, or regional growth in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), which arebased on ABAG projections that are, in turn, based on the City's General Plan. Theretaining wall and proposed improvements do not involve any modifications to the existingland use or zoning designations and would not modify the land use, employment, orpopulation on the project site. As such, the project would be considered consistent withgrowth assumptions of the applicable air quality plans. In addition, as presented in thesections below, the project would not exceed the applicable thresholds of significance forany regulated pollutant and would not result in emissions that substantially contribute tothe nonattainment designations of PM and ozone for the area. Therefore, the proposedproject would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air qualityplans, and no impact would occur.


b.Would the project violate any air qualitystandard or contribute substantially to anexisting or projected air quality violation?

Less-Than-Significant

c.Would the project result in a cumulativelyconsiderable net increase of any criteriapollutant for which the project region isnon-attainment under an applicablefederal or state ambient air qualitystandard?Less-Than-Significant

d.Would the project expose sensitivereceptors to substantial pollutantconcentrations ?Less-Than-Significant

According to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, an air qualityimpact may be considered significant if the proposed project's implementation would resultin, or potentially result in, conditions, which violate any existing local, State or federal airquality regulations. In order to evaluate ozone and other criteria air pollutant emissions andsupport attainment goals for those pollutants designated as nonattainment in the area, theBAAQMD has established significance thresholds associated with development projectsfor emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxide (NOx), PMio, and PM2.5. Inaddition, the BAAQMD identifies screening criteria for development projects, whichprovide a conservative indication of whether a development could result in potentiallysignificant air quality impacts. If the screening criteria are met by a project, a detailed air



Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

quality assessment of that project's air pollutant emissions would not be required. Thescreening criteria for a single-family residential development are if the development is lessthan or equal to the following screening level sizes:

•325 dwelling units for operational criteria pollutants; and•114 dwelling units for construction criteria pollutants.

Accordingly, if a single-family development is less than or equal to the screening size foroperational and construction criteria pollutants, the development would not be expected toresult in potentially significant air quality impacts, and a detailed air quality assessmentwould not be required.

It should be noted that the BAAQMD was challenged in Superior Court, on the basis thatthe BAAQMD failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted its CEQA guidelines,including thresholds of significance. The BAAQMD was ordered to set aside the thresholdsand conduct CEQA review of the proposed thresholds. On August 13, 2013, the FirstDistrict Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's decision striking down BAAQMD'sCEQA thresholds of significance for GHG emissions. The Court of Appeal's held thatCEQA does not require BAAQMD to prepare an EIR before adopting thresholds ofsignificance to assist in the determination of whether air emissions of proposed projectsmight be deemed "significant." The Court of Appeal's decision provides the means bywhich BAAQMD may ultimately reinstate the GHG emissions thresholds, though thecourt's decision does not become immediately effective. Ultimately, the thresholds ofsignificance used to evaluate proposed developments are determined by the CEQA leadagency, which would be the City of Sausalito for the proposed project. Per CEQAGuidelines Section 15064.7, the City has elected to use the BAAQMD's thresholds andmethodology for this project, as they are based on substantial evidence and remain the mostup-to-date, scientifically-based method available to evaluate air quality impacts. Thus, theBAAQMD's thresholds of significance and screening criteria are utilized for this analysis.

The proposed improvements to the retaining wall include the following: finishing theexisting wall with stucco and a decorative flagstone trim; retrofitting the wall withadditional structural reinforcement; installing a 42-inch high guard rail; planting a creepingfig vine along the face of the wall, which would eventually screen the face of the wall fromview; and installing a four-inch PVC drainage pipe along the northeastern boundary of theproject site from the base of the retaining wall north to Edwards Avenue. Althoughimplementation of the proposed improvements would result in emissions of air pollutantsduring construction activities, the improvements are substantially less than the BAAQMDconstruction screening criteria utilized for determining whether a development could resultin a potentially significant impact to air quality. Thus, the proposed improvements wouldnot result in any air quality impacts, and a detailed air quality assessment is not required.Similarly, initial construction of the 10-foot high wall, and elevation of the patio, wouldhave generated emissions well under the District's threshold given the fact that the wallconstruction is a substantially smaller project than that which is identified by the screeningcriteria.

Because development of the retaining wall, as well as the proposed improvements, issubstantially less than the BAAQMD construction and operational screening criteriautilized for determining whether a development could result in a potentially significantimpact to air quality, the retaining wall and proposed improvements would not result in



Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

any air quality impacts, and a detailed air quality assessment is not required. Therefore, theproject would not violate any air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing orprojected air quality violation, result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of anycriteria pollutant, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, andimpacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Mcasurcs(s)None required.

e. Would the project create objectionable odorsaffecting a substantial number of people?Less-Than-Significant

Discussion

Typical sources of objectionable odor include industrial or intensive agricultural uses. Theproject site is within a developed neighborhood on a currently developed property with anexisting residence and surrounded by other existing residences. Residential land uses arenot typically associated with the creation of substantial objectionable odors. The proposedproject is an existing retaining wall and proposed improvements to the existing wall.Accordingly, the project does not involve nor is located near any uses that would beconsidered a source of objectionable odors. Diesel fumes from construction equipment areoften found to be objectionable; however, construction of the proposed project would betemporary and diesel emissions would be minimal and regulated. Accordingly, the projectwould not be expected to create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number ofpeople, resulting in a less-th an -sign ifie a n t impact.




Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.


Impact


UnlessMitigated

Less-Than-

SignificantImpact

NoImpact

Would the project:a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or

through habitat modifications, on any species identifiedas a candidate, sensitive, or special status species inlocal or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by theCalifornia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service?

X

b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitator other sensitive natural community identified in localor regional plans, policies, regulations or by theCalifornia Department of Fish and Game or US Fish andWildlife Service?

X

c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protectedwetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean WaterAct (including, but not limited to marshes or vernalpools) through direct removal, filling, hydrologicalinterruption, or other means?

X

d. Interfere substantially with the movement of anyresident or migratory fish or wildlife species or withestablished resident or migratory wildlife corridors, orimpede the use of wildlife nursery sites?

X

e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protectingbiological resources, including trees? X

f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitatconservation plan? X

a. Would the project have a substantial adverseeffect, either directly or through habitatmodifications, on any species identified as acandidate, sensitive, or special status speciesin local or regional plans, policies, orregulations, or by the California Departmentof Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and WildlifeService?Less-Than-Significant

Discussion

The project site is a developed site that contains an occupied single-family residence, patio,retaining walls, and associated landscaping in a Medium-High Density Residential areawith a Two-Family (R-2-2.5) Zoning designation. The northeastern retaining wall hasalready been developed and the proposed project consists of retrofitting the wall, finishingthe surface of the wall, and installing a 4-inch PVC storm drain pipe on-site to collectrunoff from the property. Because the site is currently developed, natural habitats that couldsupport special-status plant and animal species do not exist. Therefore, neither former wallconstruction, nor the additionally proposed wall improvements or storm drain installationwould result in impacts to special-status species. Therefore, a less-than-significant impactwould result to biological resources.



Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

b. Would the project have a substantial adverseeffect on any riparian habitat or othersensitive natural community identified in localor regional plans, policies, regulations, or bythe California Department of Fish andWildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?Less-Than-Significant

c. Would the project have a substantial adverseeffect on federally protected wetlands asdefined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including, but not limited to marshes orvernal pools) through direct removal, filling,hydrological interruption, or other means?Less-Than-Significant

Discussion

The proposed project site does not contain, nor would the project impact any federallyprotected wetlands or riparian areas due to it being a developed residential site. As a result,species dependent on riparian areas for habitat purposes would not exist on site, and furtherdevelopment of the site would not have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitatareas. Therefore, a less-than -sign if lean t impact would occur.

Mitigation Measurefs)None required.

d. Would the project interfere substantiallywith the movement of any resident ormigratory fish or wildlife species or withestabhshed resident or migratory wildlifecorridors, or impede the use of wildlifenursery sites?Less-Than-Significant

Discussion

The proposed project site is currently developed with an existing single-family residentialunit, patio, and retaining walls. In addition, the area surrounding the project site is alsodeveloped residential. The project site, in its current condition, is not considered a wildlifecorridor and the proposed wall improvements would therefore not interfere substantiallywith the movement of any migratory or wildlife species. Therefore, the project would resultin a less-th an -sign ifican t impact to wildlife corridors.

e. Would the project conflict with any localpolicies or ordinances protecting biologicalresources, including trees?Less-Than-Significant

Discussion

Pursuant to the Sausalito Municipal Code, a tree removal/alteration permit must beobtained from the City prior to the removal or alteration of any tree that is consideredHeritage/Protected. Prior to the construction of the retaining wall in 2004, a protected


Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

California bay laurel tree was removed without first obtaining a tree removal permit fromthe City. Therefore, the removal of this protected tree requires Planning Commissionapproval of a retroactive Tree Permit. The Planning Commission may approve the removalof a protected tree to: 1.) protect public safety; 2.) allow for reasonable use of the property;3.) open views; or 4.) to pursue professional practices of forestry or landscape design. Thearborist report noted that this California bay laurel tree had limited supporting roots andstump decay, and therefore was "not a candidate for preservation due to the decay in thetrunk and lack of supporting roots on the northeast side."6

In addition to the removed California bay laurel tree, a 12-inch oak tree is located on thesoutheastern comer of the property. This tree, however, would not need to be removed to

accommodate the remaining proposed retaining wall and associated drainageimprovements. Therefore, the development of the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact with regard to conflicting with local policies and ordinances, andprotecting biological resources, including trees, once the retroactive Tree Permit isapproved.


f. Would the project conflict with the provisionsof an adopted habitat conservation plan?No Impact

Discussion

The City of Sausalito is not included in any adopted habitat conservation plans. Therefore,the project would not conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan and no impactwould occur.


6 Laura E. Alber, Urban Forestry. Tree Protection Inspection. February 2004.

IES/MND (DRNA 04-038)Wood row Retaining Wall


Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES.


Impact


UnlessMitigated

Less-Than-

SignificantImpact

NoImpact

Would the project:a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance

of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?X

b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significanceof a unique archaeological resource pursuant to Section15064.5?

X

c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologicalresource on site or unique geologic features?

Xd. Disturb any human remains, including those interred

outside of formal cemeteries.X

a.Would the project cause a substantial adversechange in the significance of a historicalresource as defined in Section 15064.5?Less-Than-Significant

b.Would the project cause a substantial adversechange in the significance of a uniquearchaeological resource pursuant to Section15064.5?Less-Than-Significant

c.Would the project directly or indirectlydestroy a unique paleontological resource onsite or unique geologic features?Less-Than-Significant

d.Would the project disturb any humanremains, including those interred outside offormal cemeteriesLess-Than-Significant

Discussion

Due to the proximity to the San Francisco Bay, the area surrounding the project site washistorically inhabited by Native American tribes. Therefore, the potential forarchaeological resources to occur in the Sausalito area exists. With respect to the projectsite, the site has been formerly disturbed for purposes of constructing the residence and theretaining walls. The construction of the retaining wall in 2004 did not unearth anyarchaeological resources. Given this and the fact that the remaining proposedimprovements would be limited to wall retrofitting, stucco, landscaping, and drain pipeinstallation, very limited potential exists for any resources to be found. Installation of the4-inch drain pipe and wall retrofit would require minimal disturbance of previouslydisturbed topsoil. Therefore, the proposed project would cause a less-than -sign ifican timpact with respect to causing a substantial adverse change in the significance of a uniquecultural resource.


IES/MND (DR/VA 04-038)Wood row Retaining Wall


Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.


Impact


UnlessMitigated

Less-Than-

SignificantImpact

NoImpact

Would the project:a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial

adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, ordeath involving:i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as

delineated on the most recent Alquist - PrioloEarthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by theState Geologist for the area based on othersubstantial evidence of a known fault?

X

ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? Xiii. Seismic-related ground failure, including

liquefaction? Xiv. Landslides? X

b. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, orthat would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateralspreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

X

c. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Xd. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in the Uniform

Building Code? Xe. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use

of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposalsystems where sewers are not available for the disposalof waste water?

X

a-i. Would the project expose people or structuresto potential substantial adverse effects,including the risk of loss, injury, or deathinvolving rupture of a known earthquakefault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issuedby the State Geologist for the area based onother substantial evidence of a known fault?Potentially Significant

Unless Mitigated

a-ii. Would the project expose people or structuresto potential substantial adverse effects,including the risk of loss, injury, or deathinvolving strong seismic ground shaking?Potentially Significant

Unless Mitigated


Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

iv. Would the project expose people or structuresto potential substantial adverse effects,including the risk of loss, injury, or deathinvolving landslides?Potentially Significant

Unless Mitigatedb. Would the project be located on a geologic

unit or soil that is unstable, or that wouldbecome unstable as a result of the project, andpotentially result in on- or off-site landslide,lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction orcollapse?Potentially Significant

Unless Mitigatedd. Would the project be located on expansive

soil, as defined in the Uniform Building Code?Potentially Significant

Unless Mitigated

Discussion

The site is located in a seismically active region dominated by major faults of the SanAndreas System. The specific hazards associated with the active faults can be confined toground shaking and ground failure due to earthquakes. Although the project site is notwithin an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone (SSZ), based on history, the site could besubjected to strong shaking from earthquakes generated along the San Andreas (locatedabout 6.75 miles to the southwest) and Hayward (approximately 12 miles to the northeast)faults. Ground shaking is complex and the intensity depends on a number of interrelatedvariables, including earthquake magnitude, distance from the causative fault, focal depth,fault geometry, site geology, and topography. Damage related to ground shaking is usuallygreatest in areas underlain by compressible, water saturated, fine-grained alluvium, anddamage is typically less severe in areas underlain by hard, dry bedrock.

During construction of the 10-foot northeasterly retaining wall, it was reported thatweathered chert7 bedrock was encountered within typical depths of 5 feet and that the piersfor the retaining wall were drilled to typical depths of 11 feet.8 According to the applicant'sProfessional Geotechnical Engineer, Robert H. Settgast, all relevant factors show that thefoundation piers for the wall penetrate to sufficient depths and meet normally acceptedstandards for similar projects in comparable settings.9 However, according to theindependent review of the applicant's Consulting Geotechnical Engineer, Lawrence Karp,at the critical section of the 10-foot high retaining wall (i.e., the center of the 24-foot wall),using a purely technical evaluation, the calculations indicate that the piers in that criticalsection will not support the "as-built" wall, nor have the capacity to support the loaddemand.10 If the piers were actually constrained at their connection with the wall they

7Radiolarian chert is a fine-grained rock composed almost entirely of chalcedony or opal, and it is the ultimate resultof the consolidation of accumulations of the siliceous shells of radiolarians or diatoms.8Robert H. Settgast, GEOENGINEERING, INC. Geotechnical Monitoring Sendees, Foundation Drilling, PatioImprovement, 9 Edwards Avenue, Sausalito, California. March 8, 2004.9Settgast, Geotechnical Monitoring Services, March 8, 2004.10Lawrence B. Karp, Consulting Geotechnical Engineer. Woodrow Residence, 9 Edwards Avenue, APN 065-302-74,

Patio Retaining Wall, June 5,2008, p. 4.



Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

would be adequate, but as they are technically unconstrained, the piers are not adequate.The "as-built" wall provides a factor of safety of 1.3, whereas a factor of safety of 1.5 isrequired per the California Building Code (see Section 1807.2.3, Safety Factor). As aresult, Karp identified a method of internally retrofitting the retaining wall at its criticalsection to provide a calculated safety factor of 1.5; and the applicant's Structural Engineer,Joshua Kardon subsequently confirmed the adequacy of Karp's internal retrofit design11.

The proposed internal retrofit consists of the following. A 2-foot- by-5-foot-wide hole hasbeen cut into the patio slab perpendicular to the wall with approximately 6 inches of thehole extending past the pier. A hand dug pier (also known as an underpinning pit) has beenexcavated and will be completed into the chert to a depth of at least two feet below theelevation of the walkway at the downhill property, approximately 15 feet from the top ofthe retaining wall. Approximately six inches will be chipped into the full height of theexposed wall and pier. After excavation and chipping, if the piers meet specifications andthe chert is competent, the pit would be reinforced with stirrups and verticals at 12 inches,hooked to the pier and wall reinforcing, and then concreted.

As discussed in the Proj ect Description section of this IES/MND, the proj ect was scheduledbefore the Planning Commission on March 18, 2009 with a request for approval of thedesign review permit and variance entitlements, which are the subject of this IES/MNDanalysis, including conditions of approval requiring retrofit of the retaining wall per Karp's2008 recommendations. Due to additional information provided to staff by the 1 Edwardsproperty owner prior to the March 18, 2009 hearing, and ongoing controversy regardingpurported off-site impacts resulting from the 10-foot high retaining wall, the PlanningCommission continued the hearing to a date uncertain and required an independent peerreview of the project to date and Karp's 2008 retrofit recommendations/solutions.Subsequently, staff also determined that the results of the independent peer review shouldbe incorporated into an Initial Environmental Study / Mitigated Negative Declarationprepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

As a result, Raney Planning & Management, Inc. was retained by the City to conduct aCEQA IES/MND for the project. As part of this analysis, Kleinfelder was retained toconduct the independent review of the retaining wall and Karp's 2008 recommendations.To conduct the review, Kleinfelder performed a brief site visit, discussed the project withthe applicant and his geotechnical engineer Lawrence Karp, and reviewed the extensivegeotechnical documentation prepared for the project. Kleinfelder concluded that Karp'sretrofit calculations assume that the wall is fully restrained at the top of bedrock.12 Giventhe importance of this assumption, the applicant agreed to retain a contractor to excavate apit near the center of the 10-foot high retaining wall, so that subsurface conditions couldbe observed by Kleinfelder. In July 2011, a test pit, up to 16 feet deep, was dug near thecenter of the wall; however, the upper 8.5 to 9 feet was fully shored and Kleinfelder wasunable to observe soil conditions in this area. The soils that Kleinfelder observed from adepth of approximately 9 feet to the bottom of the test pit consisted of dark red, very stiffto hard, sandy, silty clay. According to Kleinfelder, this material appeared to be colluvium,which is a deposit comprised of soil and (potentially) rock fragments that have accumulatedon the face and at the toe of slopes through the mass wasting process (i.e. weathering, sheet

11Joshua Kardon, April 15, 2010 letter to Todd Teachout, City Engineer.12Terry Craven, Principal Geotechnical Engineer, Kleinfelder. Geotechnical Review, Existing Retaining Wall, 9Edwards Avenue, Sausalito, Avenue. March 30, 2010.



Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

flow, erosion and deposition, soil creep).13 Colluvial deposits are subject to creep (gradualdown slope movement under the influence of gravity and moisture changes) and can beprone to failure (landsliding), particularly on steep slopes when saturated.

Karp indicated that the colluvium observed by Kleinfelder is underlain by Radiolarianchert, a prominent rock of the Franciscan formation.14 The City of Sausalito Public WorksDirector and City Engineer concurs with Karp's finding that chert bedrock is locatedbeneath the retaining wall; and, as a result, implementation of Karp's proposed retrofitsolution will satisfy the requirements of the California Building Code and adequatelyensure that the retaining wall will not result in adverse on- or off-site impacts. Therefore,without implementation of the proposed internal wall retrofit, the potential for a potentiallysignificant impact from the project may exist with respect to exposing people or structuresto substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death. The ambiguityregarding that potential will be satisfactorily resolved with implementation of themitigation measure(s).

Mitigation Measure(s)Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above impact to aless-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure 1.Applicant shall apply for reactivation of Building Permit No. A 10666 (with fees) forcompletion of the wall retrofit and related work. The plans shall include re-submittalof wet-sealed originals of the following source documents: "Lawrence B. Karp,Consulting Geotechnical Engineer. Woodrow Residence, 9 Edwards Avenue, APN 065-302-74, Patio Retaining Wall, June 5, 2008" and "Joshua Kardon, April 15, 2010Structural Engineering Analysis," (or an update by Karp or Kardon). As described byKarp and. Kardon, the proposed internal retrofit shall generally consist of thefollowing: a 2-foot- by-5-foot-wide hole cut into the patio slab perpendicular to thewall, with approximately 6 inches of the hole extending past the pier. A hand dug pier(also known as an underpinning pit) excavated into the chert to a depth of at least twofeet below the elevation of the walkway at the subject property, approximately 15 feetfrom the top of the retaining wall. Approximately six inches of the existing concretewill be chipped into the full height of the exposed wall and pier. After excavation andchipping, if the pier meets specifications and the chert is competent (includinginspections by the applicant's geotechnical engineer and the City Engineer), the pitwill be reinforced with stirrups and verticals at 12 inches, hooked to the pier and wallreinforcing, subject to a reinforcing steel inspection and then concreted. The finalretrofit design shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to theissuance of the reactivated building permit.

Mitigation Measure 2.If Mitigation Measure 1 requires earthwork, then the application for reactivation ofthe building permit shall include an erosion control plan for review by the City Public

13Terry Craven, Principal Geotechnical Engineer, Kleinfelder. 9 Edwards Inspection. Email correspondence, dated

August 24, 2011.14Peter A. Kleinbrodt, Freitas McCarthy MacMahon & Keating, LLP. Letter entitled DR/VA/TRP 04-038, WoodrowResidence, 9 Edwards Avenue, Sausalito, CA, APN 065-302-74, Patio Retaining Wall. October 6, 2011.



Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

Works Director and City Engineer; and the reactivation shall be conditioned on thesatisfactory implementation of stormwater pollution prevention Best ManagementPractices (BMPs) to be implemented during construction to ensure that exposed soilsare not transported off-site by wind and/or water forces.

aiii. Would the project expose people or structuresto potential substantial adverse effects,including the risk of loss, injury, or deathinvolving seismic-related ground failure,liquefaction? Less-Than-Signiflcant

Discussion

Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated cohesionless soils aresubject to a temporary, but essentially total loss of strength because of pore pressure build¬up under the reversing cyclic shear stresses associated with earthquakes. According to site-specific geotechnical investigations, liquefaction would not occur on-site.15 As a result, theproject would have a less-th an -sign ifican t impact with respect to exposing people orstructures to potential adverse effects related to liquefaction.

Mitigation Measure(s)None required,

c. Would the project result in substantial soilerosion or the loss of topsoil? Less-Than-Significant

Discussion

Construction of the retrofit work and installation of the 4-inch PVC drainage pipe wouldinvolve the limited disturbance of soils, which could render earth surfaces susceptible toerosion from wind and water. Any eroded soils could be transported onto the adjacent 1Edwards property, thereby creating adverse effects to existing downstream drainagefacilities and private property. However, Mitigation Measure 2 of this IES/MND requiresthe applicant to submit an erosion control plan, which will identify BMPs to ensure thatexposed soils are not transported off-site by wind and/or water forces. Implementation ofthe erosion control plan would ensure that the project would have a less-than-significantimpact with respect to creating substantial soil erosion.


e. Would the project have soils incapable ofadequately supporting the use of septic tanksor alternative wastewater disposal systemswhere sewers are not available for the disposalof waste water?No Impact

15 Lawrence Karp, Woodrow Residence, 9 Edwards Avenue, APN 065-302-74, Patio Retaining Wall, p. 2.



Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

Discussion

The proposed retaining wall improvements do not require wastewater disposal; therefore,no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measurcfs)None required.

IES/MND (DR/VA 04-038)Wood row Retaining Wall


Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.


Impact


UnlessMitigated

Less-Than-

SignificantImpact

NoImpact

Would the project:a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or

indirectly, that may have a significant impact on theenvironment?

X

b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulationadopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions ofgreenhouse gases?

X

a.Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either

directly or indirectly, that may have asignificant impact on the environment?Less-Than-Significant

b.Conflict with an applicable plan, policy orregulation adopted for the purpose ofreducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?Less-Than-Significant

Discussion

Emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) attributable to future development are primarilyassociated with increases of carbon dioxide (CO2) and, to a lesser extent, other GHGpollutants, such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). Sources of GHG emissionsinclude area sources, mobile sources or vehicles, utilities (electricity and natural gas), waterusage, wastewater generation, and the generation of solid waste. The common unit of

measurement for GHG is expressed in terms of annual metric tons of CO2 equivalents(MTCCWyr).

The BAAQMD threshold of significance for project-level operational GHG emissions is1,100 MTCCbe/yr. In addition, the BAAQMD identifies screening criteria for developmentprojects, which provide a conservative indication of whether a development could result inpotentially significant impacts associated with GHG emissions. If the operational GHGemission screening criteria are met by a project, a detailed assessment of that project'sGHG emissions would not be required. The operational GHG screening criteria for asingle-family residential development is if the development is less than or equal to 56dwelling units. Accordingly, if a single-family development is less than or equal to thescreening size for operational GHG emissions, the development would not be expected toresult in potentially significant impacts, and a detailed GHG assessment would not berequired. Construction GHG emissions are a one-time release and are, therefore, not

typically expected to generate a significant contribution to global climate change.BAAQMD has not established a threshold of significance for construction-related GHGemissions and does not require quantification. The City of Sausalito has determined that



Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

the BAAQMD thresholds of significance and screening criteria are the best availableoption and are used in this analysis.16

It should be noted that implementation of the retaining wall and the proposedimprovements would result in GHG emissions during construction only, as long-termoperational GHG emissions would not occur. It should be further noted that the retainingwall and patio are already constructed and only improvements to the existing wall areproposed as part of the proposed project. Previous development of the 10-foot highretaining wall, as well as the currently proposed additional wall improvements, issubstantially less than the BAAQMD operational GHG screening criteria utilized fordetermining whether a development could result in a potentially significant GHG impact.Thus, impacts related to GHG emissions are not expected to occur, and a detailed GHGassessment is not required. In addition, construction-related GHG emissions are a one-time

release that would not substantially contribute to global climate change and are not requiredby BAAQMD to be quantified. Therefore, the retaining wall and proposed improvementswould not generate GHG emissions that would have a significant impact on theenvironment or conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation related to thereduction of GHG emissions, and the impact would be less than significant.


16 As explained previously, the BAAQMD was challenged in Superior Court, on the basis that the BAAQMD failedto comply with CEQA when it adopted its CEQA guidelines. The BAAQMD was ordered to set aside the proposedthresholds and conduct CEQA review of the thresholds. On August 13, 2013, the First District Court of Appealreversed the trial court's decision. The Court of Appeal's held that CEQA does not require BAAQMD to prepare anEIR before adopting thresholds of significance to assist in determining whether air emissions of proposed projectsmight be deemed "significant." The Court of Appeal's decision provides the means by which BAAQMD mayultimately reinstate the GHG emissions thresholds, though the court's decision does not become immediatelyeffective.



Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.


Impact


UnlessMitigated

Less-Than-

SignificantImpact

NoImpact

Would the project:a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the

environment through the routine transport, use, ordisposal of hazardous materials?

X

b. Create a significant hazard to the public or theenvironment through reasonably foreseeable upset andaccident conditions involving the likely release ofhazardous materials into the environment?

X

c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous oracutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste withinone-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

X

d. Be located on a site which is included on a list ofhazardous materials sites compiled pursuant toGovernment Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,would it create a significant hazard to the public or theenvironment?

X

e. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with anadopted emergency response plan or emergencyevacuation plan?

X

f. Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury ordeath involving wildland fires, including wherewildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or whereresidences are intermixed with wildlands?

X

a.Would the project create a significant hazardto the public or the environment through theroutine transport, use, or disposal ofhazardous materials?Less-Than-Significant

b.Would the project create a significant hazardto the public or the environment throughreasonably foreseeable upset and accidentconditions involving the likely release ofhazardous materials into the environment? Less-Than-Significant

Discussion

The project site currently supports a single-family residential unit, patio, and retainingwalls. Transportation, use, and disposal of hazardous materials would not occur on site.Construction of the 10-foot high wall required limited on-site construction activities, noneof which resulted in the release of hazardous materials creating significant hazards to thepublic. Similarly, the additionally proposed improvements would only require minorconstruction operations and would be limited to hand-tool equipment. Proper use of hand-tool equipment would not result in creation of significant hazards to the public throughaccidental release of hazardous materials. Therefore, a less-th an -sign if lean t impact wouldoccur.



Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155


c. Would the project emit hazardous emissionsor handle hazardous or acutely hazardousmaterials, substances, or waste within one-

quarter mile of an existing or proposedschool? No Impact

d. Would the project be located on a site which isincluded on a list of hazardous materials sitescompiled pursuant to G.C. Section 65962.5and, as a result, would it create a significanthazard to the public or the environment? No Impact

Discussion

The proposed project is located approximately 0.36 miles from the nearest school(Sausalito Nursery School). In addition, the proposed project would not emit hazardousemissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or wastes. The

site is also not located on the list of hazardous materials sites provided by Geotracker(http://geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov/map/), nor is the site listed on the California EPA'sDepartment of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) list compiled pursuant to GovernmentCode Section 65962.5. For these reasons, and the fact that the proposed project would notemit hazardous emissions and/or handle hazardous materials within a one-quarter of a mileof an existing school, no impact would result.


e. Would the project impair implementation ofor physically interfere with an adoptedemergency response plan or emergencyevacuation plan?Less-Than-Significant

The City of Sausalito has adopted a Disaster Preparedness/Emergency OperationsProgram. The proposed project would not interfere with emergency exit routes, and wouldnot hinder access to roads used by emergency vehicles. In accordance with City ofSausalito standards, a Construction Management Plan would be prepared for the projectand reviewed by the City Engineer, which would ensure that limited constructionoperations would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergencyevacuation plan. Potential construction-related traffic impacts would be temporary, lastingonly as long as the construction phase.

Overall, development of the proposed project would result in a less-th an -sign ifican timpact in regard to the impairment of an adopted emergency evacuation plan.

Discussion



Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

Mitigation Measure(s)None required,

f. Would the project expose people or structuresto the risk of loss, injury or death involvingwildland fires, including where wildlands areadjacent to urbanized areas or whereresidences are intermixed with wildlands?Less-Than-Significant

Discussion

The General Plan (Health and Safety Element p. 7-22) states that the City is exposed towildland fires primarily in underdeveloped areas of the upper slopes, canyons, and ridges.The General Plan states that response times from the City's fire station (located at thecomer of Caledonia Street and Johnson Street) are very good because virtually any part ofthe City may be reached within five minutes. Since the proposed project is located on analready developed site, the proposed improvements would be considered fire-resistant andfire station response times are sufficient, wildland fires would have a less-than-significantimpact on the proposed project.




Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.


Impact


UnlessMitigated

Less-Than-

SignificantImpact

NoImpact

Would the profect:a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge

requirements?X

b. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Xc. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere

substantially with groundwater recharge such that therewould be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a loweringof the local groundwater table level (i.e., the productionrate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a levelwhich would not support existing land uses or planneduses for which permits have been granted)?

X

d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of thesite or area, including alteration of the course of astream, in a manner which would result in substantialerosion or siltation on- or off-site?

X

e. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of thesite or area, including alteration of the course of astream, or substantially increase the rate or amount ofsurface ranoff in a manner which would result inflooding on- or off-site?

X

f. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceedthe capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainagesystems or provide substantial additional sources ofpolluted runoff?

X

g. Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mappedon a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood InsuranceRate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

X

h. Place within a 100-year floodplain structures whichwould impede or redirect flood flows?

Xi. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,

injury or death involving flooding, including floodingas a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

X

j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X

a. Would the project violate any water qualitystandards or waste discharge requirements?Less-Than-Signiilcant

b. Would the project otherwise substantiallydegrade water quality?Less-Than-Significant

Discussion

Limited potential exists for the project to impact downstream water quality. This is limitedto the construction period, when tools and equipment would be utilized. Under the NationalPollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), obtaining a General Permit is requiredif the project would disturb one or more acres. Because the project would not disturb oneor more acres, the project is not subject to NPDES requirements and a General Permit isnot needed.



Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

However, Sausalito Municipal Code Section 11.17.050(3) requires any constructioncontractor performing work in the City to implement appropriate best managementpractices (BMPs) for new developments and redevelopments to prevent the discharge ofconstruction wastes or contaminants from construction materials, tools, and equipment

from entering the storm drain system. The Code also states that all construction plans andapplications for building permits shall consider the potential for erosion and sedimentationat the construction site, and shall include appropriate erosion and sedimentation controls.Appropriate controls shall be determined in accordance with the guidance provided in the"standards for Erosion and Sedimentation Control" and the "Erosion and SedimentationControl Handbook" published by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAC), andmay include site planning considerations, construction staging and timing, and installationof temporary detention ponds or other treatment facilities. Therefore, the project wouldhave a less-th an -sign if lean t impact in regards to degrading water quality or violating waterquality standards.


c.Would the project substantially depletegroundwater supplies or interferesubstantially with groundwater recharge suchthat there would be a net deficit in aquifervolume or a lowering of the local groundwatertable level (i.e., the production rate of pre¬existing nearby wells would drop to a levelwhich would not support existing land uses orplanned uses for which permits have beengranted)?Less-Than-Significant

Discussion

The Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) provides domestic water service within theCity of Sausalito. As the primary source of water for MMWD, reservoirs provide 75percent of the water consumed by MMWD customers annually. The remaining 25 percentof MMWD's water supply is transported from the Russian River in Sonoma County undera contract with the Sonoma County Water Agency. Groundwater is not used as a primarysource of water supply for City residences and businesses. In addition, the project site iscurrently developed with a single-family residence and retaining wall. Improvementsassociated with the proposed project would only result in a slight increase in impervioussurfaces, which would not substantially affect groundwater recharge. Furthermore, theproposed project would not use groundwater. Therefore, the project would have a less-th an-significant impact to groundwater resource supply and/or recharge.

Mitigation MeasureCs)None required.

d.Would the project substantially alter theexisting drainage pattern of the site or area,including alteration of the course of a stream,in a manner which would result in substantial



Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Less-Than-Significant

e.Would the project substantially alter theexisting drainage pattern of the site or area,including alteration of the course of a stream,or substantially increase the rate or amount ofsurface runoff in a manner which would resultin flooding on- or off-site?Less-Than-Signiflcant

f.Would the project create or contribute runoffwater which would exceed the capacity ofexisting or planned stormwater drainagesystems or provide substantial additionalsources of polluted runoff?Less-Than-Significant

Discussion

Impervious surface currently makes up 66 percent of the project site. Implementing theproposed project would increase impervious surface area to 69 percent. This amount ofimpervious surface area is consistent with the maximum allowable impervious surface areaof 75% for the R-2-2.5 zoning district. The City Engineer concluded that despite the slightincrease in impervious surface, the proposed means of collecting and dischargingstormwater runoff would reduce rainfall runoff to neighboring properties and would nothave a significant negative impact.17 The proposed project includes construction of a 4-inch PVC storm drain pipe to carry water from the patio to the street in front of theresidence. J.L. Engineering determined that the 4-inch PVC pipe would be more thanadequate to handle peak flows from a 100-year storm event, assuming an on-site tributaryarea of 0.03 acres.18 The existing City stormwater drainage system, to which the proposedproject would connect, would have sufficient capacity to receive additional runoff from theproposed project. Therefore, a less-th an -sign ifican t impact would occur.


g.Would the project place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal FloodHazard Boundary or Flood Insurance RateMap or other flood hazard delineation map?Less-Than-Significant

h.Would the project place within a 100-yearfloodplain structures which would impede orredirect flood flows? Less-Than-Significant

i. Would the project expose people or structuresto a significant risk of loss, injury or deathinvolving flooding, including flooding as a

17Todd Teachout, City Engineer. Memorandum, 9 Edwards Retaining Wall and Site Improvements. November 30,

2005.18Jay L. Hallberg, J.L. Engineering. Additional Information DR/VA 04-038, Hydrology/Hydraulic Analysis, Lands ofWoodrow, 9 Edwards Ave. October 5,2006.



Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

result of the failure of a levee or dam? Less-Than-Significant

Discussion

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Study areaidentifies the project site as an area with a Zone X (unshaded) flood designation. A ZoneX (unshaded) designation is defined as an area subject to minimal flood hazard, usuallydepicted as above the 500-year flood level.

The project site currently developed in an established community and is not located nearany reservoirs or protected by any levee systems. As the project site is located outside ofthe 100-year floodplain, and is not located near any reservoirs or levees, the proposedproject would not expose people or structures to flood events; therefore, a less-than-significant impact would result.


j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?Less-Than-Significant

Discussion

The proposed project is located approximately 0.15 miles west of Richardson's Bay, whichis approximately three nautical miles from the Golden Gate Bridge. A tsunami having awave height of 20-feet may arrive at the Golden Gate once every 200 years. The proposedproject is located at approximately 160-195 feet above mean sea level. Therefore, thepossibility of a tsunami that could affect the project site does not exist; and, therefore thisphenomenon would result in a less-than-significant impact.




Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

10. LAND USE AND PLANNING.


Impact


UnlessMitigated

Less-Tlian-

SignificantImpact

NoImpact

Would the project:a. Physically divide an established community? Xb. Conflict with any applicable land use plans, policies, or

regulations of an agency with jurisdiction over theproject (including, but not limited to the general plan,specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for thepurpose of avoiding or mitigating on environmentaleffect?

X

a. Would the project physically divide anestablished community? No Impact

Discussion

The project site consists of one developed lot with a single-family residence, patio, andretaining walls. The proposed project would include additional improvements to the wall,none of which would divide an established community. Therefore, no impact would occur.


b. Would the project conflict with any applicableland use plans, policies, or regulations of anagency with jurisdiction over the project(including, but not limited to the general plan,specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adoptedfor the purpose of avoiding or mitigating onenvironmental effect? Less-Than-Signiflcant

Discussion

The project site consists of one lot currently developed with a single-family residence,patio, and retaining walls. The existing setting is consistent with the current General Planland use designation of Medium-High Density Residential and would not be altered by theproposed project. However, currently, the 10-foot high retaining wall and patio conflictwith Zoning Ordinance requirements because they were constructed without first obtaininga Design Review Permit or variances to allow the wall and patio to encroach into the side-yard setback. Therefore, the current entitlements include requests for a Design ReviewPermit and variances. Approval of the requested Design Review Permit and varianceswould eliminate the current inconsistencies, resulting in a less-than-significant impactwith regard to conflicts with applicable land use plans and regulations.




Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

11. MINERAL RESOURCES.


Impact


UnlessMitigated

Less-Than-

SignificantImpact

NoImpact

Would the project:a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral

resource that would be of value to the region and theresidents of the state?

X

b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-importantmineral resource recovery site delineated on a localgeneral plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

X

a.Would the project result in the loss ofavailability of a known mineral resource thatwould be of value to the region and theresidents of the state?No Impact

b.Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery sitedelineated on a local general plan, specificplan or other land use plan? No Impact

Discussion

The Marin Countywide Plan Map 3-5, Location of Mineral Resource Preservation Sites,clearly indicates the proposed project site is not located within the vicinity of State orCounty designated mineral resource sites. The nearest State-designated mineral resourcesite is Ring Mountain, in Tiburon, California, which is located approximately 4.52 milesfrom the proposed project site.

Since the proposed project site is not within the immediate vicinity of the Ring Mountain,the proposed project would not interfere with existing operations; therefore, the proposedproject would result in no impact to mineral resources.




Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

12. NOISE.


Impact


UnlessMitigated

Less-Than-

SignificantImpact

NoImpact

Would the project result in:a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in

excess of standards established in the local general planor noise ordinance, or applicable standards of otheragencies?

X

b. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noiselevels in the project vicinity above levels existingwithout the project?

X

c. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessivegroundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

X

d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambientnoise levels in the project vicinity above levels existingwithout the project?

X

e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted, within twomiles of a public airport, would the project exposepeople residing or worldng in the project area toexcessive noise levels?

X

f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project expose people residing or working inthe project area to excessive noise levels?

X

a.Would the project result in exposure ofpersons to or generation of noise levels inexcess of standards established in the localgeneral plan or noise ordinance, or applicablestandards of other agencies?Less-Than-Significant

b.Would the project result in a substantialpermanent increase in ambient noise levels inthe project vicinity above levels existingwithout the project?Less-Than-Significant

c.Would the project result in exposure ofpersons to or generation of excessive

groundborne vibration or groundborne noiselevels? Less-Than-Significant

d.A substantial temporary or periodic increasein ambient noise levels in the project vicinityabove levels existing without the project? Less-Than-Significant

IES/MND (DRA/A 04-038)Final - September 2014Wood row Retaining WallPage 49

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

Discussion

The proposed project includes retrofitting the existing 10-foot high wall, finishing thesurface of the already constructed retaining wall and patio, constructing a guard rail for thepatio, and the installation of a 4-inch PVC storm drain pipe.

Construction of the proposed project would result in a minimal increase of noise levelsfrom construction activities on the project site. Such noise would be generated by toolsutilized to retrofit the retaining wall, as well as mechanical equipment used to install thepatio guard rail and the 4-inch storm drain pipe. Construction activities would occur onlyduring allotted hours, as defined in the City's noise regulations. Construction noise is shortterm and would only occur between 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday;between 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM on Saturday; and between 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM on holidays(not including Sundays), as stipulated by the City's noise regulations.

In terms of operational noise, the proposed project includes retrofitting the current 10-foothigh retaining wall, wall improvements, and installation of a 4-inch storm drain. Oncecompleted, noise would not be generated by the finished product.

Conclusion

Overall, since conditions regarding noise would remain unchanged once the wallimprovements are completed, and due to the fact that construction noise is exempt duringspecified hours, a less-than -sign if leant periodic or permanent impact would occur.


e. For a project located within an airport landuse plan or, where such a plan has not beenadopted, within two miles of a public airport,would the project expose people residing orworking in the project area to excessive noiselevels? No Impact

Discussion

The project is not located within an airport land use plan, nor is it within two miles of anypublic airport as the nearest is the San Francisco International Airport, locatedapproximately 17 miles away. Therefore, the project would have no impact with respect toexposing people residing or working in the project area to excessive airport-related noiselevels.




Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

f. For a project within the vicinity of a privateairstrip, would the project expose peopleresiding or working in the project area toexcessive noise levels? Less-Than-Significant

Discussion

The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. One knownprivate float plane occasionally flies in and out of Richardson's Bay, located approximately0.20 miles from the site. The float plane does not constitute regular airport/airstripoperations. Therefore, a less-than-sign if lean t impact would occur with respect to exposingpeople residing or working in the project area to excessive airport-related noise levels.




Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

13. POPULATION AND HOUSING.


Impact


UnlessMitigated

Less-Than-

SignificantImpact

NoImpact

Would the project:a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either

directly (for example, by proposing new homes andbusinesses) or indirectly (e.g., through projects in anundeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)?

X

b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,necessitating the construction of replacement housingelsewhere?

X

c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitatingthe construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X

Would the project induce substantialpopulation growth in an area, either directly(for example, by proposing new homes andbusinesses) or indirectly (e.g., throughprojects in an undeveloped area or extensionof major infrastructure)? No Impact

Would the project displace substantialnumbers of existing housing, necessitating theconstruction of replacement housingelsewhere?No Impact

Would the project displace substantialnumbers of people, necessitating theconstruction of replacement housingelsewhere?No Impact

Discussion

An impact to population and housing is considered significant if the proposed project wouldinduce substantial population growth in an area either directly or indirectly. The proposedproject involves the retrofitting and surface finishing of a previously constructed retainingwall and patio, installation of patio guard rails, and the construction of a 4-inch storm drainpipe. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would neither displace substantialexisting housing nor necessitate the construction of replacement housing. Therefore, noimpact would occur in regard to the proposed project inducing substantial populationgrowth in the area.




Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

14. PUBLIC SERVICES.


Impact


UnlessMitigated

Less-Than-

SignificantImpact

NoImpact

Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically alteredgovernmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could causesignificant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable seiyice ratios, response times or other performanceobjectives for any of the public sendees:

a. Fire protection? Xb. Police protection? Xc. Schools? Xd. Parks and recreation? Xe. Solid waste? Xf. Other public facilities and services? X

a. Would the project result in substantialadverse physical impacts associated with theprovision of new or physically alteredgovernmental facilities, need for new orphysically altered governmental facilities, theconstruction of which could cause significantenvironmental impacts, in order to maintainacceptable service ratios, response times or

other performance objectives for fireprotection?

b. Police protection?

c. Schools?

d. Parks and recreation?

Discussion

The project area is serviced by the Southern Marin Fire Protection District and SausalitoPolice Department. The proposed project involves retrofitting and surface finishing of the10-foot high retaining wall and installing a 4-inch storm drain pipe on an already developedsingle-family residential lot. Therefore, police and fire services would not be increased asa result of the proposed wall improvements. Similarly, given the nature of the project, thedemand for schools and parks would not increase. Therefore, implementing the proposedproject would have no impact on government facilities or service ratios.




Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

e. Solid waste? Less-Than-Significant

Discussion

The City contracts with Bay Cities Refuse to collect and dispose of the City's refuse andrecycling. The recycling, compostable waste and other solid waste generated in the City istransferred at the Golden Bear transfer station located in Richmond and disposed of orrecycled.

The proposed project includes the retrofitting and surface finishing of a previouslyconstructed retaining wall, installation of a patio guard rail, and the construction of a 4-inch PVC storm drain pipe. The proposed project, once finished, would not contribute toan increase in solid waste generation. However, construction of the proposed wallimprovements would generate construction waste. Construction waste would be recycled

in accordance with Section 8.54 of the City's Municipal Code. As a result, the proposedproject would have a less-than-significant impact in regard to solid waste facilities.


f. Other public facilities and services?No Impact

Discussion

The proposed project includes the retrofitting and surface finishing of a previouslyconstructed retaining wall, installation of a patio guard rail, and the construction of a 4-inch PVC storm drain pipe. Implementing the project would not introduce additionalresidents that would increase demands for other general governmental services, includinglibraries and/or general City maintenance services. Therefore, no impact would occur.




Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC.


Impact


UnlessMitigated

Less-Tlian-

SignificantImpact

NoImpact

Would the project:a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in

relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of thestreet system (i.e., result in a substantial increase ineither the number of vehicle trips, the volume tocapacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?

X

b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level ofservice standard established by the county congestionmanagement agency for designated roads or highways?

X

c. Substantially increase hazards due to a design features(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) orincompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

X

d. Result in inadequate emergency access? Xe. Result in inadequate parking capacity? Xf. Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative

transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?X

a. Would the project cause an increase in trafficwhich is substantial in relation to the existingtraffic load and capacity of the street system(i.e., result in a substantial increase in eitherthe number of vehicle trips, the volume tocapacity ratio on roads, or congestion atintersections)?No Impact

b.Would the project exceed, either individuallyor cumulatively, a level of service standardestablished by the county congestionmanagement agency for designated roads orhighways?No Impact

c.Would the project substantially increasehazards due to a design feature (e.g.,sharpcurves or dangerous intersections) orincompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact

e.Would the project result in inadequateparking capacity?No Impact

f.Would the project conflict with adoptedpolicies supporting alternative transportation(e.g., buss turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact


Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

Discussion

The proposed project includes the retrofitting and surface finishing of a previouslyconstructed retaining wall, installation of a patio guard rail, and the constraction of a 4-inch PYC storm drain pipe, on a previously developed single-family lot in an establishedneighborhood community. Because the project would not induce population growth,parking spaces would not need to be provided, nor would additional traffic be generated inthe project site vicinity. Additionally, the proposed project does not involve altering roadconditions that could affect intersections, emergency access, or alternative transportation.Therefore, no impact would occur as a result of implementing the proposed project.


d. Would the project result in inadequateemergency access?Less-Than-Significant

The City of Sausalito has adopted a Disaster Preparedness/Emergency OperationsProgram. In accordance with City standards, a Construction Management Plan would beprepared for the project and reviewed by the City Engineer, which would ensure thatlimited construction operations would not interfere with an adopted emergency responseplan. Temporary construction-related traffic impacts would only last as long as theconstruction phase. Therefore, construction would have a less-th an -sign if lean t impact onemergency access.




Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

16. WATER, SEWER, AND STORMWATER SYSTEMS.


Impact


UnlessMitigated

Less-Than-

SignificantImpact

NoImpact

Would the project:a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the

applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?X

b. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatmentprovider which serves or may serve the project that ithas adequate capacity to serve the project's projecteddemand in addition to the provider's existingcommitments?

X

c. Require or result in the construction of new water orwastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existingfacilities, the construction of which could causesignificant environmental effects?

X

d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve theproject from existing entitlements and resources, or arenew or expanded entitlements needed?

X

e. Require or result in the construction of new storm waterdrainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, theconstruction of which could cause significantenvironmental effects?

X

a.Would the project exceed wastewatertreatment requirements of the applicableRegional Water Quality Control Board?No Impact

b.Would the project result in a determination bythe wastewater treatment provider whichserves or may serve the project that it hasadequate capacity to serve the project'sprojected demand in addition to theprovider's existing commitments?No Impact

Discussion

The proposed project includes retrofitting and surface finishing the retaining wall andinstalling a 4-inch PVC storm drain pipe on a site that is currently served by the City ofSausalito for wastewater collection and the Sausalito Marin City Sanitary District(SMCSD) for wastewater treatment. The project improvements will not generate anywastewater; therefore the demand for sewer treatment services would not increase as a

result of the project and no impact would occur.


c.Would the project require or result in theconstruction of new water or wastewater

treatment facilities or expansion of existing



Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

facilities, the construction of which couldcause significant environmental effects?? No Impact

d.Would the project have sufficient watersupplies available to serve the project fromexisting entitlements and resources, or are

new or expanded entitlements needed?No Impact

Discussion

The proposed project would retrofit and improve the surface of the existing retaining wall,as well as install a 4-inch PVC storm drain pipe to carry water from the patio to the streetin front of the residence. The single-family residence on-site is currently supplied withwater and the proposed improvements would not increase the need for water on-site.

Therefore, implementing the proposed project would have no impact regardingconstruction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities and existing waterentitlements.


e.Would the project require or result in theconstruction of new storm water drainagefacilities or expansion of existing facilities, theconstruction of which could cause significantenvironmental effects?Less-Than-Significant

Discussion

The project includes retrofitting and surface finishing of the existing retaining wall andinstalling a 4-inch PVC storm drain along the base of the retaining wall to collect anddischarge storm flows. The City Engineer has determined the project would not generateadditional storm water flows when compared with the pre-project condition. Therefore, theproject will not require the construction of new, or the expansion of existing, stormwaterdrainage facilities. Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant impact withrespect to causing significant environmental effects.




Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.


Impact


UnlessMitigated

Less-Than-

SignificantImpact

NoImpact

a. Does the proj ect have the potential to degrade the qualityof the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of afish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlifepopulation to drop below self-sustaining levels, threatento eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce thenumber or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plantor animal or eliminate important examples of the majorperiods of California history or prehistory?

X

b. Does the project have the potential to achieveshort-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,environmental goals?

X

c. Does the project have impacts that are individuallylimited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulativelyconsiderable" means that the incremental effects of aproject are considerable when viewed in connectionwith the effects of past projects, the effects of othercurrent projects, and the effects of probable future

proiects)?

X

d. Does the project have environmental effects which willcause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly?

X

a. Does the project have the potential to degradethe quality of the environment, substantiallyreduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to dropbelow self-sustaining levels, threaten toeliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of arare or endangered plant or animal oreliminate important examples of the majorperiods of California history or prehistory? Less-Than-Significant

Discussion

The proposed project site does not contain suitable habitat to support special-status plantspecies or special-status animal species known to be located within the vicinity of theproject site. Because the project site is already developed and disturbed, the chance ofcultural or historical resources or examples of California's history or prehistory beingdiscovered during the limited on-site surface excavation is minimal. Therefore,implementing the proposed project would have a less-th an -sign ifican t impact to special-status species, sensitive natural communities, and/or California's history.




Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

b. Does the project have the potential to achieveshort-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,

environmental goals? No Impact

Discussion

The retaining wall is already constructed, and implementing the proposed wallimprovements which are limited to a retrofit and surface finishing, as well as installing a4-inch drain pipe, would not have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantageof long-term, environmental goals. Therefore, there would be no impact on long-termenvironmental goals.


c.Does the project have impacts that areindividually limited, but cumulativelyconsiderable?Less-Than-Significant

d.Does the project have environmental effectswhich will cause substantial adverse effects onhuman beings, either directly or indirectly? Less-Than-Significant

Discussion

Cumulative impacts may be identified in the categories of use of resources, demand forservices, and physical changes to the natural environment. Due to the land being alreadydeveloped with a residential unit and retaining wall, the proposed project would not haveany impacts on the use of resources, demand for services, or physical changes to the naturalenvironment. As stated in the Geology and Soils section of this IES, mitigation measureshave been included in this IES/MND to ensure that the 10-foot high retaining wall wouldnot result in adverse effects on human beings. Therefore, a less-than-significant wouldresult from the development of the proposed project.




Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

VII. STAFF AND SOURCES

Raney Planning & Management, Inc.Cindy Gnos, Senior Vice PresidentNick Pappani, Vice PresidentRod Stinson, Division Manager & Air Quality SpecialistAngela Stinson, Senior Associate

City of SausalitoCalvin Chan, Assistant PlannerJeremy Graves, AICP Community Development DirectorJonathon Goldman, Public Works Director and City Engineer

The following documents are referenced information sources utilized for this analysis:

1.Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Air Quality Plans. Available at:http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/Plans.aspx. Accessed October2013.

2.Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status.Available at: http://hank.baaqmd.gov/pln/air_quality/ambient_air_quality.htm. AccessedOctober 2013.

3.Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Quality Act AirQuality Guidelines. May 2011.

4.California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, FarmlandMapping and Monitoring Program. Marin County Important Farmland 2010. May 2011.

5.City of Sausalito. City of Sausalito General Plan. 1995.6.City of Sausalito. City of Sausalito Municipal Code, Chapter 11. September 2002.7.City of Sausalito. City of Sausalito Zoning Ordinance. July 2003.8.ENVIRON International Corporation and the California Air Districts. California

Emissions Estimator Model User's Guide Version 2013.2. July 2013.9.FEMA. Flood Rate Insurance Map (FIRM), City of Sausalito, Marin County, California,

Map Number 06041C0526D. Effective May 4, 2009.10.Geotracker. http://geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov/map/. Accessed October 2013.

11.Jay L. Hallberg, J.L. Engineering. Additional Information DR/VA 04-038,Hydrology/Hydraulic Analysis, Lands ofWoodrow, 9 Edwards Ave. October 5, 2006.

12.Laura E. Alber, Urban Forestry. Tree Protection Inspection. February 2004.13.Lawrence B. Karp, Consulting Geotechnical Engineer. Technical Memorandum:

"Woodrow Residence 9 Edwards Avenue APN 065-302-74 Patio Retaining Wall. " June 5,2008.

14.Marin County Community Development Agency. Marin Countywide Plan. November 6,2007.

15.Peter A. Kleinbrodt, Freitas McCarthy MacMahon & Keating, LLP. Letter entitledDR/VA/TRP 04-038, Woodrow Residence, 9 Edwards Avenue, Sausalito, CA, APN 065-302-74, Patio Retaining Wall. October 6, 2011.

16.Robert H. Settgast, GEOENGINEERING, INC. Geotechnical Monitoring Sendees,Foundation Drilling, Patio Improvement, 9 Edwards Avenue, Sausalito, California. March8, 2004.

17.Sausalito Planning Commission. Staff Report for Project 9 Edwards /DR/VA 04-038 /APN065-302-74. December 7, 2005.



Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

18.Terry Craven, Principal Geotechnical Engineer, Kleinfelder. Geotechnical Review,Existing Retaining Wall, 9 Edwards Avenue, Sausalito, Avenue. March 30, 2010.

19.Todd Teachout, City Engineer. Memorandum, 9 Edwards Retaining Wall and SiteImprovements. November 30, 2005.

I:\CDD\PROJECTS - ADDRESS\E\Edwards 9\Environmental Review\IES-MND\Public Review Draft - 6-1 l-2014.docx



Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

APPENDIX I

ERRATA SHEET

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

Woodrow Retaining WallInitial Environmental Study/Negative Declaration DR/VA 04-038

Errata SheetJuly 30, 2014

Wording added is printed in double-underlined non-italicized text. Wording deleted is printed instrikeout.

IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The first sentence under the Site Location header on Page 7 of the IES/MND is revised as follows:

The project site is located in the City of Sausalito, and is composedcomnrised of one2,721 square foot (sf) parcel identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 065-302-74 (SeeExhibit 1, Regional Location Map; and Exhibit 2, Project Location Map).

A second Project Location Map, showing the subject site parcel, in the context of surroundingparcels, is hereby included as Exhibit 3, on page 11 of the IES/MND, as shown on the next page ofthis Errata.

Under the Project Background header on page 10 of the IES/MND, a fourth item is hereby added forclarification purposes:

On December 7, 2005, the Planning Commission reviewed the following project:

1.Design Review Permit to allow a 10-foot high stucco wall covered with

hanging creeping fig (Ficus repans) vines, as well as a flagstone patio and aniron safety railing.

2.A Variance to allow a 10-foot high retaining wall to be located within a sideyard setback.

3.A Variance to allow for an elevated patio to be located within a side yardsetback.

4.Retroactive Tree Permit for the removal of a California bav laurel.

Section 3, Air Quality

On page 25 of the IES/MND, under Questions b,c, and d, the text of the second large paragraph isrevised as follows:

Although implementation of the proposed improvements would result in emissions of airpollutants during construction activities, the improvements are substantially less than the

BAAQMD construction screening criteria utilized for determining whether adevelopment could result in a potentially significant impact to air quality.

Initial Environmental Study/Negative Declaration - Errata SheetWoodrow Retaining Wall

July 30, 2014Page 1

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

<N

(N c

3^ d

jo ^

top(D

-SCOcd

"cSfcWdoo(DP(D>CJ3

B1$2^B£p^.3

<Dp

O<

D.g

^fl^w

a*^

3^

.2o

."tn0

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

Section 9, Hydrology and Water Quality

Page 44 of the IES/MND, under Questions d,e, and f, is revised as follows:

Impervious surface currently makes up 66 percent of the project site. Implementingthe proposed project would increase impervious surface area to 69 percent. Thisamount of impervious surface area is consistent with the maximum allowableimpervious surface area of 75% for the R-2-2.5 zoning district. However, tThe City

Engineer concluded that despite the slight increase in impervious surface, theproposed means of collecting and discharging stormwater runoff would reducerainfall runoff to neighboring properties and would not have a significant negativeimpact.

Initial Environmental Study/Negative Declaration - Errata SheetWoodrow Retaining Wall

My 30, 2014Page 3

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

APPENDIX II

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

Woodrow Retaining WallInitial Environmental Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Responses to CommentsJuly 30, 2014

Three comment letters were received during the public comment period on the Woodrow RetainingWall Initial Environmental Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IES/MND) from June 11,2014to July 9, 2014. These are as follows:

1.Law Offices of John E. Sharp, July 2, 20142.Law Offices of John E. Sharp, July 9, 20143.The Freitas Law Firm, July 8, 2014

In addition, responses submitted by the Sausalito Planning Commission, at its July 16th hearing,are provided after Letter 3.

Responses to Letter 1 [Law Offices of John E. Sharp, July 2, 2014]

Response to Comment 1-1

The City of Sausalito Public Works Director and City Engineer has reviewed the two reportsprovided in the comment: MX. Hicks, SE, Site Investigation Report, Evidence of Damage to 1Edwards Avenue, Sausalito, California, October 15, 2005; and Craig Herzog, GE, GeotechnicalInvestigation Neighboring Retaining Wall, 1 Edwards Avenue, February 12, 2010. The City ofSausalito Public Works Director and City Engineer concurs with Karp's finding that chert bedrockis located beneath the retaining wall, and based in part on prior reviews by others, a recent reviewfor the City by the City's contract plan check firm, CSG, as well as a review performed for the Cityby Dolmen Structural Engineers, has determined that implementation of Karp's and the applicant'sStructural Engineer, Joshua Kardon's proposed retrofit solution will satisfy the requirements of theCalifornia Building Code and adequately ensure that the retaining wall will not result in adverseon- or off-site impacts. This determination has not changed as a result of the information containedin the two reports provided in the comment. Therefore, the conclusion that without implementationof the proposed internal wall retrofit, the potential for a potentially significant impact from theproject may exist with respect to exposing people or structures to substantial adverse effects,including the risk of loss, injury, or death remains unchanged. Similarly, the conclusion that theambiguity regarding that potential will be satisfactorily resolved with implementation of theMitigation Measure 1 of the IES/MND also remains unchanged.

As stated on page 33 of the Woodrow Retaining Wall IES/MND, and as noted above, the SausalitoPublic Works Director and City Engineer, has confirmed the adequacy of the applicant's engineers'internal retrofit design.

1 Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

Responses to Letter 2 [Law Offices of John E. Sharp, July 9, 2014]


Please see Response to Comment 1-1.


The comment references an attached letter prepared by M.L. Hicks, S.E., of Sheerline StructuralEngineering. Lawrence Karp prepared a response to Hicks' letter. Karp's letter is dated July 12,2014 and is included herein as Attachment 1. See Responses to Comments 2-5 through 2-9 forresponses to Hick's letter.


As noted in footnote 5 on page 17 of the IES/MND, the City's Zoning Ordinance, Section10.44.020.D.2, permits a four-foot fence atop a six-foot retaining wall at a side property line. Thus,the Zoning Ordinance currently allows a 10-foot-tall solid wall (retaining wall plus solid fencing)to be built at the property line with design review. With approval of the requested Design ReviewPermit, the 10-foot high retaining wall with the proposed stucco finishing, hanging vines, and ironrailing would not be expected to result in a substantial degradation of the existing visual characteror quality of the site, which would adversely affect the downslope neighbor. The relevant CEQAChecklist question is concerned with whether the project would "substantially degrade theexisting visual character or quality of the site and its surrounding" (emphases added). In this way,the IES/MND concludes that the 10-foot wall does not substantially degrade the quality of the siteand its surroundings. The IES/MND clearly acknowledges that the visual character and quality ofthe site and its surrounding has changed as a result of the project. The focus is one of degree inthis case - Is the change considered substantial? The IES/MND provides reasons why the changein visual character or quality of the site and its surrounding, as a result of the project, should notbe considered substantial.


The drainage system for the retaining wall was designed by a licensed civil engineer and permittedby the City. Upon completion of construction, the same engineer issued "As-Built" drawings. Karpinspected the drainage system and has confirmed that it was properly built as designed. Regardingthe "weep holes" that appear in the details on J. L. Engineering's Drawing CI (1/2/07), they areredundant and superfluous (standard drafting) because the backdrainage facility componentsspecified on Drawing C2, Drainage Note 2, provides for internal collection of subsurface water(seepage) so the "weep holes" that are positioned higher than the base of the retaining wall willnever discharge water. Furthermore, all surface water from the building is collected and dischargedoff-site per Drainage Note 8, assuring that water crossing the property line will be negligible (onlywhat falls between the retaining wall on 9 Edwards and 1 Edwards, which is a tiny fraction ofwater that would cross if there were no building at 9 Edwards).

2 Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155


The City, relying on reviews of the proposed retrofit by others retained by the City, has determinedthat the elevations of the top or bottom of the stone wall on the adjacent property of 1 EdwardsAvenue are not relevant to the fact that the proposed retrofit solution will satisfy the requirementsof the California Building Code and adequately ensure that the retaining wall will not result inadverse on- or off-site impacts.




Please see Response to Comment. 1-1.


Karp's July 12, 2014 letter, provided as Attachment 1, again notes that the piers of the wall weredrilled into sedimentary bedrock of the Franciscan formation, namely radiolarian chert, a fine¬grained rock composed almost entirely of chalcedony or opal, which is the ultimate result of theconsolidation of accumulations of the siliceous shells of radiolarians or diatoms. This is alsoclearly noted on page 32 of the IES/MND, with reference to Robert Settgast's 2004 FoundationDrilling documentation. The City Engineer concurs with Karp that Franciscan bedrock does not"creep." Creep is typically phenomena of expansive clayey soils; it is not a term applied toFranciscan bedrock.


The "north wall" is not the subject of the Woodrow Retaining Wall IES/MND. The north wall wasconstructed in 2004 in accordance with approved Building Permit. A10666 issued by the SausalitoBuilding Division. Karp has confirmed the adequacy of the "north wall"; and his analysis isincluded in Attachment 2.

Response to Letter 3 [Freitas Law Firm, July 8,2014]

This letter does not address the adequacy of the IES/MND; and no response is necessary.

Response to July 16, 2014 Planning Commission Comments

Response to Comment 1

Per the Commission's request, the text on page 7 of the IES/MND has been revised in the Erratafor the Woodrow Retaining Wall IES/MND, as follows:

3 Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

The project site is located in the City of Sausalito, and is composedcomprised ofone 2,721 square foot (sf) parcel identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 065-302-74 (See Exhibit 1, Regional Location Map; and Exhibit 2, Project Location Map).


Page 29 of the Woodrow Retaining Wall IES/MND describes that the arborist report for the projectnoted that the California bay laurel tree, removed during retaining wall improvements, had limitedsupporting roots and stump decay, and therefore was not a candidate for preservation due to thedecay in the trunk and lack of supporting roots on the northeast side. Consistent with Staff srecommendations provided at the December 7, 2005 Planning Commission hearing, planting areplacement tree is not believed to be necessary considering the health and condition of the tree.As a result, the IES/MND does not include mitigation measures regarding the subject Californiabay laurel tree.




Per the Commission's request, the text on page 25 of the IES/MND has been revised in the Erratafor the Woodrow Retaining Wall IES/MND, as follows:

Although implementation of the proposed improvements would result in emissionsof air pollutants during construction activities, the improvements are substantiallyless than the BAAQMD construction screening criteria utilized for determiningwhether a development could result in a potentially significant impact to air quality.


Please see Response to Comment 2.


Page 34 of the IES/MND provides the City's conclusion regarding these issues, as follows:

The City of Sausalito Public Works Director and City Engineer concurs with Karp'sfinding that chert bedrock is located beneath the retaining wall; and, as a result,implementation of Karp's proposed retrofit solution will satisfy the requirementsof the California Building Code and adequately ensure that the retaining wall willnot result in adverse on- or off-site impacts. Therefore, without implementation ofthe proposed internal wall retrofit, the potential for a potentially significant impactfrom the project may exist with respect to exposing people or structures tosubstantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death. Theambiguity regarding that potential will be satisfactorily resolved withimplementation of the mitigation measure(s).

4 Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

The City, in making these conclusions, reviewed all of the geotechnical documentation submittedfor the project. The IES/MND summarizes those reports that the City of Sausalito Public WorksDirector and City Engineer has deemed adequate with respect to describing the appropriate meansof retrofitting the existing 10-foot retaining wall. These include:

Lawrence B. Kaip, Consulting Geotechnical Engineer. Technical Memorandum:"Woodrow Residence 9 Edwards Avenue APN 065-302-74 Patio Retaining Wall."June 5, 2008.

Joshua B. Kardon, Ph.D., SE. RE: Woodrow Residence, 9 Edwards Avenue (APN 065-

302-74), Building Permit A. 10666, February 5, 2004 (Revision), Reinforced ConcreteRetaining Wall, Structural Analysis by Kleinfelder. April 15, 2010.


Please see Response to Comment 1-1. While page 33 of the IES/MND discusses Kleinfelder'sconcern that the NE patio retaining wall may be underlain by colluvium, page 34 clearly states thatthis concern has been resolved by other experts, who have confirmed that chert bedrock underliesthe NE retaining wall. As noted on page 34 of the IES/MND:

Karp indicated that the colluvium observed by Kleinfelder is underlain byRadiolarian chert, a prominent rock of the Franciscan formation. The City ofSausalito Public Works Director and City Engineer concurs with Karp's findingthat chert bedrock is located beneath the retaining wall; and, as a result,implementation of Karp's proposed retrofit solution will satisfy the requirementsof the California Building Code and adequately ensure that the retaining wall willnot result in adverse on- or off-site impacts.


Based upon the geotechnical work done to date, it is unlikely that the underlying chert is unstable.Furthermore, Mitigation Measure 1 of the IES/MND requires that the retrofit pier be installed intocompetent chert bedrock, as verified by inspections by the applicant's geotechnical engineer(Karp) and the City Engineer.


The staff report for the project will present the discretionary approval options available to thePlanning Commission. Should the Planning Commission deny the application for the 10-foot wall,the applicant would be required to reduce the height of the existing 10-foot retaining wall alongthe northeastern side of the concrete patio at 9 Edwards. This would involve minor earthwork andconcrete removal over a short period of time. All construction activities would be completed inaccordance with the City's allowable construction hours. In addition, the Public Works Directorand City Engineer would ensure that appropriate construction Best Management Practices (BMPs)are implemented so that soil erosion does not occur, which could affect downslope properties. Asa result, the IES/MND does not need to be revised to address the potential physical environmental

5 Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

impacts that could result if the Planning Commission denies the application for a 10-foot retainingwall.


Factor of safety can be calculated using different assumptions. As discussed in the IES/MND,Karp, Kardon and the Public Works Director and City Engineer are confident that installation ofthe proposed counterfort will provide the necessary minimum factor of safety of 1.5, in compliancewith the California Building Code, as required in Mitigation Measure 1 of the IES/MND.


The Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum impervious surface of 75% for the R-2-2.5 district.Therefore, the amount of post-project impervious surface area is consistent with the ZoningOrdinance. As a result, page 44 of the IES/MND, under Questions d, e, and f, is revised as follows:

Impervious surface currently makes up 66 percent of the project site. Implementingthe proposed project would increase impervious surface area to 69 percent. Thisamount of impervious surface area is consistent with the maximum allowableimpervious surface area of 75% for the R-2-2.5 zoning district. However. tThe CityEngineer concluded that despite the slight increase in impervious surface, theproposed means of collecting and discharging stormwater runoff would reducerainfall runoff to neighboring properties and would not have a significant negativeimpact.


As noted on page 12 of the IES/MND, a 2-foot- by-5-foot-wide hole has been cut into the patioslab perpendicular to the wall, with approximately 6 inches of the hole extending past the pier. Ahand dug pier (also known as an underpinning pit) has already been excavated into the underlyingcompetent bedrock (Franciscan formation chert, a silica-rich sedimentary rock formed from theshells of marine plankton called Radiolaria). Its final depth will be at least 2 feet below theelevation of the walkway at the subject property, about 15 feet from the top of the retaining wall.Any additional excavation of the pier into the underlying bedrock will be accomplished via handtools, consistent with the approach utilized to date. Further, it should be noted that the counterfortto be installed will be contained entirely behind and below the existing retaining walls and will notbe visible from outside when completed.

I:/CDD/PROJECTS - ADDRESS/E/Edwards 9/Environmental Review/IES-MND/IES RTC 7-24-2014.docx

6 Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

Attachment 1

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

LAWRENCE B. KARPCONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER

July 12,2014

Philip C. Woodrow9 Edwards AvenueSausalho, CA 94965

Subject: Patio Retaining Wall9 Edwards Avenue, Sausalito7/9/14 Letter from Sheerline Engineering

Dear Mr. Woodrow:

A.s requested, this correspondence replies to a 7/9/14 letter from Sheerline Engineering contained in amissive from the neighbor's lawyer, which appears to be from yet another reincarnation of FulcrumEngineering, Pivot Engineering, or other various DBA entities defunct or otherwise of M. L. Hicks orhis associates. As in the other iterations of M. L Hicks' writings which pander to lawyers, there is nophysical investigation, no observations, no calculations, and there is absolutely no evidence of theauthor's qualifications such as geotechnical education, experience, and certifications, although hepurports to address "Geotechnical Issues".

Furthermore, not only are the author's statements conclusive evidence of incompetence in the field ofgeology, soil mechanics, and foundation engineering but to make the point the lawyers ordered him tomake he misquotes qualified geotechnical engineers and ignores reports by them: all these acts arenegligent and clear violations of the Professional Engineers Act, California Code of Regulations, Codeof Conduct for Professional Engineers, Rule §475(c)] prohibits professional engineers frommisrepresenting their qualifications, Rule §475(c)7 prohibits professional engineers from providingopinions not based on fact and engineering principles, and Rule §475(c)8 requires professionalengineers attribute proper credit to others for their professional work.

In the 7/9/14 Sheerline letter there is a list of references, howe ver key documents are missing whichcould have been obtained from the City before writing the letter rather than depend on a lawyer toprovide selected documents. M. L. Hicks has a duty to the properly owner to properly report thecondition of the retaining wall at 9 Edwards Avenue, but he failed to do so; instead he blindly did whatthe lawyer told him to do without consideration of the effect on the consumer. Missing from his list ofreferences (and therefore out of his sight) are, in reverse chronological order, the following:

Karp, Lawrence B. - Consulting Geotechnical Engineer, July 3,2014;"Patio Retaining Wall, 9 Edwards Ave., Sausalito, 2/12/10 report byCraig Herzog, letter-report prepared for Philip Woodrow, 12 pages.

"Kardon, Joshua B. - Structural Engineer, September 15,2011; "WoodrowResidence Retaining Wall. 9 Edwards Ave.," Structural Engineering Analysis",letter- report prepared for Frictas McCarthy MaeMahon Keating, 1 page.

100 TRES MESAS, ORINDA CA 94563 (925) 254-1222 fax: (925) 253-0101 e-mail: [email protected]

FOUNDATIONS. WAUS. PUBSUNDERPINNING, TIEBACKS

DEEP PETAtNED EXCAVAHONSSHORING & BULKHEADS

CEQA, FARTHWOftKA SLOPESCAISSONS, COFFERDAMS

COASTAL & MAWNt STRUCTURES

SOIL MECHANICS, GEOLOGYGROUNCWATER HYlMClOGY

CONCRETE TECHNOLOGY

8 Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

Woodrow Patio Retaining. 9 Edwards Avenue. Sausalito: 7/12/14 Page 2 of2

Karp, Lawrence B. - Consulting Geoteclmical Engineer, March 21,2010;"Calculations, Woodrow Site Retaining Wall, 9 Edwards Avenue, Sausalito",design prepared for Philip Woodrow, 4 pages.

Settgast Geoenginecring, Inc., May 16,2004; "Geoteclmical Evaluation -Drilled Bulkhead Downslope from Dwelling and Review of BulkheadHeight, 9 Edwards Avenue, Sausalito, California", letter-report prepared forPhilip Woodrow, 3 pages w/photos.

Settgast Geoenginecring, Inc., March 8,2004; "Geoteclmical MonitoringServices - Foundation Drilling - Patio Improvement, 9 Edwards Avenue,Sausalito, California", letter-report prepared for Philip Woodrow, 2 pages.

Settgast Geoenginecring, Inc., January 15,2004; "Geotechnical Review -Patio Improvement Plans, 9 Edwards Avenue, Sausalito, California", letter-report prepared for Philip Woodrow, 1 page.

Schlbcker, Julius, 1974; "Geology of the San Francisco North Quadrangle,California" (includes Plate [1 ] "Geologic Map...", Scale 1:24,000 (1" = 2,000');Plate [2] "Composition and Grain Size of Surficial Deposits....", and Plate [3]"Map Showing Areas of Exposed Bedrock, Contours on Bedrock Surface, andLandslides....", Scale 1:24,000 (1" = 2,000'), Dept of the Interior, GeologicalSurvey ProfPaper 782, U. S. Govt Printing Office, Washington DC, 109 pages.

Schlocker, Julius, 1964; "Bedrock-Surface Map of the San Francisco NorthQuadrangle, California", U. S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field StudiesMap MF-334, Scale 1:31,680 (1" = 2,640'), 1 sheet.

The most egregious statement by Hicks in his 7/9/14 Sheerline letter is that the bedrock that supports thepatio retaining wall foundation flows and exerts creep forces on the foundation, which he believes havenot been considered. As evidenced by geoteclmical engineer eye witnesses (above documents that Hicksdid not bother with), in 2004 the piers were drilled into sedimentary bedrock of the Franciscan formation,namely radiolarian chert (KJch), a fine grained rock composed almost entirely of chalcedony or opalwhich is ultimate result of the consolidation of accumulations of the siliceous shells of radiolarians ordiatoms. Franciscan bedrock does not "creep"; if it did the exposed radiolarian chert slopes alongAlexander Avenue would have made the roadway from US 101 to Sausalito impassable many years ago.Creep is typically phenomena of expansive clayey soils, it is not a term applied to Franciscan bedrock.The author improperly quotes Herzog as stating bedrock creeps; Her/og was referring to surficial soils.Hicks also opines that the bedrock will flow between or under foundations. Bedrock does not flow.

The 7/9/14 Sheerline letter also faults the property owner's engineers for not showing where bedrockis located. No wonder, because M. L. Hicks did not review the reports listed above; all designs showverified bedrock profiles. The remainder of the Sheerline letter is gibberish beyond comment, but itis consistent with the author's demonstrated lack of qualification in gcotechnical engineering.

h i

Yours truly,

Lawrence B. Karp

LAWRENCE B, KARP CONSULTING ENGINEER

9 Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

Attachment 2

10 Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

WOODROW RESIDENCE

9 Edwards Avenue, Sausalito

APN 065-302-74

ENGINEERING CHECK OF EXISTING

SITE RETAINING WALL CONSTRUCTION

< CODE FACTOR OF SAFETY COMPLIANCE >

BUILDING PERMIT No. A 10666 Issued 2/5/04

Title Sheet

Plan

Section

Stability

Calculations

Notes

References

Lawrence B. KarpConsulting Engineer

100 Tres MesasOrinda,CA 94563

(925)254-1222

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Rev. 0 June 17,2014Issued for Proof of ComplianceSheet 1 of 7

11 Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

—//' ablO (¦: >-—30. x -»:& fc :

JTW15° IS'oo" W S-&, 3 O

""gpcnOftJ-'""

-§Bg-«rsr^'3'

c) ttWAlZDS 'n/

^ .. \ /A33mJ-WtAXU.' \ jW/a1'^ - ^ \ ^:r&i,5

.../ a,?"

:F..LA.fe»:T.j.-ht-ft-

P L A M

Rev. 0 June 17,2014 Issued for Proof of Compliance Sheet 2 of 7

12 Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

r:a\l9rmu'Je^n i. i

Wl Vj '!¦~ L-'.'t/P, C

|'.fv (v

r: i_j uaiiL u

:tc.i.,5

V3"

9f —*fT I

OV'l'

J]iJb

J iI S^ n

'O

.cTf/Jii/I v ¦ t-fK-

• ^ - ii i'7'f.- r-'

'~jl4 --Jl b!-Y/ < I'y'I'-"

o

* .ytziLL&p piea


13 Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

ma:

tmiLny? C P c.

-kteicLj. Cffiw/spyXATBFAL, zotrwAp-

woi.'i. 2, \_Xhiotf ca^9mA\ u&P)¦cprrB^rA::

isatzsLATE PAL Fe^PlNG AQP^/TXZQk.lt.A __". ^r^A pe r"/\e-roR

- 2 1

\bOO fof

-^HP = /^(^o) - ^ 5" FWytT- —

=j^ 4g s)- = ^g5PT s ^^^^SESTCBS :

A- 2,34 P _ 2r?4ffcHs-)<5^b '

^ i('+/,+ -^')=^f1 +J,^4'Im^)~ 5,17^jActval factor OF SAFFry

M> E.FP — PT A 0zr-"ivs""-'-- 45" - ^S4r 4 ?4 6",17

" 1-6 42 -7?^! 2,5^ 5,5.1/,7 _5l ._¦ ¦775 7 '^6 Z.b!V? ..._53f- S-zi 3 4,00 £,42. ..

J f g j? 4,08 0,00-^ti£&£j£j--CF/*rMp0LIC ^SSI^TAHoB.)

. 7,62-PC?.)^ cf -> ^M ^ ^ 7^2 7 /be/2-

i- B '•-

-tee•l &5F

hd :f-

"2.

Fz _ g.gS"/'gg^5"; llZ) .

'i.bt&ys -f5aj? .•+-f ^7= 3,4-35

imiMuffiUTfl zssianDR 22^-551=^17. - 1^ 23

Rev. 0 June 17,2014 Issued for Proof of Compliance Sheet 4 of 7

14 Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

: l&mu*

- [-2# ST'"'X- Vi.-f-'i rotf/A\": piBf

. 7/.12 Ties v-

1

K

,/

::_. coucebte

Z-SJSgML yFAUu\H<& PliSR "

ZZSK-fAdrV

'A$-C&% 5' Âu") - 4(c> ,f4 ivr4"J>Ec iall5rmp /4? £. &, 'itt

rum^ViSfTTWM-pêp -

4(0,14)\71le J*'

cJ

'ititu

a >

tc. - OfOO=4— -H-F=-Tf

|X^1

TEF

s|).. ^.gcr/t fo"o.vqs.rj• a

V? r- 4 r 14 IA

Mp-'0^

PEMANP

J aw Hr fok^jjpr^KSE.

'_'.... Md ^ 5*ia Fr- I<

j | "werorfff,^ ^wpiktY«,l&S

~XFSzl,&3)

: U=- H (Aci •f.z)

- -W,s rr-^

34.8 < FT-K

"IBWII LOFP)ZZÂCITY..--

7fe=-0.c?'5 rE'^X=7;0--fl>2S'- 0^ 7J i- ^ ,0?1

: ^ ^ .0S4-"2^ ^4 iW

- iê- Ginft'S)#

3^ pt-K

^/IU " 1/4r. ^7) rr- K 9 3 ^ <?R.—1~v—

Rev. 0June 17,2014Issued for Proof of ComplianceSheet 5 of 7

15 Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

Note

1. The purpose of this engineering check of existing construction, even though there has beenno evidence of movement over the past 10 years, is to answer questions posed about Factorof Safety for stability (overturning), or, in other words, prove complete compliance for thenorthern retaining wall design constructed under Building Permit No. A10666 Issued 2/5/04by the City of Sausalito with the current Sausalito Municipal Code, e.g. 2013 CaliforniaBuilding Code: particularly §1807.3.2.1 (drilled pier design for non-constrained retainingwalls), §1610.1 (design earth pressure) and §1807.7.3 (factor of safety).

References

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), March 15,2013; "Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Oiher Structures", ASCE/SCI7-10, American Society ofCivil Engineers - Structural Engineering Institute, New York, 593 pgs.

Bailey, Edgar H., Irwin, William P., & Jones, David L., 1964; "Franciscan and Related Rocks, and their Significance in the Geology ofWestern California", California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 183, 177 pgs.

Buel Engineering - Civil & Structural Engineering, August 24,2004; "(N) Rear Patio Cone. Bulkhead Rtg. Wall [Woodrow Residence,No. 9 Edwards, Sausalito, Calif. 94965]", calculations, 5 pgs.

International Code Council, Inc. (ICC), January 2014; "2013 California Building Code", California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2(Volume 1 of2,786 pages & Volume 2 of 2,756 pages).

J. L. Engineering, Civil Engineering - Land Surveying, March 12,2004a; "Patio Wall Steel Placement for Concrete Pour Certification, 9Edwards Ave., Sausalito, CA - Woodrow Residence", letter to the City of Sausalito, 1 pg.

J. L. Engineering, Civil Engineering - Land Surveying, November 3,20044; "Plan Modifications, Structural Details, and DrainageImprovements, 9 Edwards Ave., Sausalito, CA", letter [w/transmittal of as-built drawings] to the City of Sausalito, 2 pgs.

J. L. Engineering, Civil Engineering - Land Surveying, January 2,2007a; "Plan Modifications, and Drainage Improvements, 9 EdwardsAve., Sausalito, CA", letter [w/transmittal of revised plans, hydraulic calcs, previously submitted data] to the City of Sausalito, 1 pg.

J. L. Engineering, Civil Engineering - Land Surveying, January 2,2007ft; "Patio Improvement Plans - As-Built, Woodrow Residence,9 Edwards Ave., Sausalito, Marin County, CA", drawings [11/7/03, resubmitted 11/1/04], 2 sheets.

Herzog Geotechnical Consulting Engineers, August 15, 2007; "Geotechnical Recommendations for Landslide Remediation, 19Edwards Avenue, Sausalito, California", report prepared for John Decker, 19 Edwards Avenue, Sausalito, 13 pages.

Karp, Lawrence B.-Consulting Geotechnical Engineer, May 19,1989; "Soil & Foundation Investigation, Bay Area Discovery MuseumBuildings, Fort Baker Military Reservation, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Sausalito CA", report prepared for the Bay AreaDiscovery Museum, Job 88027,27 pgs.

Karp, Lawrence B.-Consulting Geotechnical Engineer, September 23,1990; "Soil Investigation, Seawall & Landfill, 30 El Portal,Sausalito CA", report prepared for William H. McDevitt, Job 90110, 32 pgs.

Karp, Lawrence B.-Consulting Geotechnical Engineer, August 3, 1992a; "Supplemental Recommendations, Bay Area DiscoveryMuseum-Exhibition & Multipurpose Building, East Fort Baker, Sausalito CA", letter-report prepared for Spencer Associates -Structural Engineers, Job 92135,5 pgs.

Karp, Lawrence B.-Consulting Geotechnical Engineer, November 14, 19926; "Proposed Development - Construction Feasibility, 855Bridgeway, Sausalito CA", letter-report prepared for James Cappe, Job 92123,2 pgs.


16 Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

References

Karp, Lawrence B.-Consulting Geotechnical Engineer, October 5,1993; "Soil Investigation, Elevator Pit - The Inn Above Tide,30 EI Portal, Sausalito CA", report prepared for William H. McDevitt, Job 93126, 7 pgs.

Karp, Lawrence B.-Consulting Geotechnical Engineer, September 15. 1997o: "Ground Conditions & Concrete Substructure RepairRecommendations, 8 Alexander Avenue, Sausalito CA", report prepared for Barry & Michelle MacKay, Job 97071,13 pgs. (Includesreport "Petrographic Examination and Chemical Analysis", 7 pgs,) [Supplement November 19,1997,3 pgs.]

Karp, Lawrence B.-Consuhing Geotcchnical Engineer, October 1, 1997fe; "L'Auberge de Lydle - Retaining Structure & BuildingFoundations, 855 Bridgeway, Sausalito CA", report prepared for James Cappe, Job 97096,42 pgs.

Karp, Lawrence B. - Consulting Geotechnical Engineer, June 5,2008; "Patio Retaining Wall, 9 Edwards Avenue, Sausalito, APN 065-302-74", letter-report prepared for City of Sausalito, Community Development, Building Division, Job 20816, 8 pgs.

Karp, LawrenccB. - Consulting Geotcchnical Engineer, July 3,2008; "Retrofit of Existing Retaining Wall Construction, BuildingPeraiit No. A 10666 Issued 2/5/04,9 Edwards Ave., Sausalito, APN 065-302-74", design prepared for Philip Woodrow, 5 sheets, Job20816, 5 sheets.

Karp, Lawrence B. - Architect & Engineer, June 30, 2009; "Emergency Replacement of Substructure Wood Beam & Emergency Seismicand Wind Bracing of Substructure Wood Beams and Connections to Concrete Piles, <Marine Environment^ Construction PermitRevision for Permit 09010 [Rev. to December 30,2008 design], design-report prepared for Seoma's Restaurant, Job 20902, 74 sheets.

Karp, Lawrence B, - Consulting Geotechnical Engineer, March 21,2010; "Calculations, Woodrow Site Retaining Wall, 9 EdwardsAvenue, Sausalito", design proof prepared for Philip Woodrow, Job No. 20117,4 pgs.

Rice, Salem J., Smith, Theodore C., & Strand, Rudolph G., 1976a; "Geology for Planning in Central and Southeastern Marin County,California" [Plate IE "Tiburon Peninsula and Sausalito Geology" and Plate 2E "Tiburon Peninsula and Sausalito Slope Stability"],California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 76-2 S.F., map. Scale 1:12,000 (1"= 1,000'), 2 sheets.

Rice, Salem J., Smith, Theodore C., & Strand, Rudolph G., 1976A; "Geology for Planning in Central and Southeastern Marin County,California" [Plate 2D "South Central Marin Slope Stability"], California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology,Open Pile Report 76-2 S.F., map, Scale 1:12,000 (1" = 1,000'), 1 sheet.

Rice, Salem J„ Smith, Theodore C., & Strand, Rudolph G., 19764 "Geology for Planning: Central and Southeastern Marin County,California" [Monograph], California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 76-2,114 pgs.

Schlocker, J., Bonilla, M. G., & Radbruch, D, H., 1958; "Geology of the San Francisco North Quadrangle, California",U. S. Geological Survey (USGS), Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations Map 1-272, Scale 1:24,000 (1" = 2,000'), 1 sheet.

Schlocker, Julius, 1964; "Bedrock-Surface Map of the San Francisco North Quadrangle, California", U. S. Geological SurveyMiscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-334, Scale 1:31,680 (1" = 2,640), 1 sheet.

Schlocker, Julius, 1974; "Geology of the San Francisco North Quadrangle, California" (includes Plate [I] "Gcologic Map,..", Scale1:24,000 (I" ¦ - 2,000'); Plate |2] "Composition and Grain Size of Surficial Deposits...,", and Plate [3] "Map Showing Areas of ExposedBedrock, Contours on Bedrock Surface, and Landslides....", Scale 1:24,000 (1" = 2,000'), Department of the Interior, GeologicalSurvey Professional Paper 782, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC, 109 pages.

Settgast Geoengineering, Inc., January 15,2004a; "Geotechnical Review - Patio Improvement Plans, 9 Edwards Avenue, Sausalito,California", letter-report prepared for Philip Woodrow, 1 pg,

Settgast Geoengineering, Inc., March 8,20046; "Geotechnical Monitoring Services - Foundation Drilling - Patio Improvement, 9Edwards Avenue, Sausalito, California", letter-report prepared for Philip Woodrow, 2 pgs.

Settgast Geoengineering, Inc., May 16,2004c; "Geotechnical Evaluation - Drilled Bulkhead Downslope from Dwelling and Review ofBulkhead Height, 9 Edwards Avenue, Sausalito, Califomia", letter-report prepared for Philip Woodrow, 3 pgs w/photos.

Structural Engineers Association of Califomia (SEAOC), 2009; "Seismically Induced Lateral Earth Pressures on Retaining Structuresand Basement Walls" SEAOC Blue Book Article 09.10.010, 17 pages.

U. S. Geological Survey, 1956 (Photorevised 1968 & 1973); "San Francisco North, Calif." 7l/i Minute Quadrangle, map, Scale1:24,000(1" = 2,000'), 1 sheet.

Rev. 0June 17,2014Issued for Proof of ComplianceSheet 7 of 7

17 Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

Letter 1

1-1

Law Offices ofJOHN E. SHARP

24 Professional Center Parkway, Suite 100San Rafael, CA 94903

John E. SharpTelephone: (415)[email protected]: (415)479-2648

July 2, 2014

Jeremy Graves, DirectorCommunity Development DepartmentCity of Sausalito420 Litho StreetSausalito, CA 94965

RE: Woodrow Retaining Wall (DR/VA/TRP 04-038)

Dear Director Graves and Members of the Commission:

This office represents Ann Watson, who resides at 1 Edwards Avenue, Sausalito, CA 94965. Ms.Watson's property is adjacent to that of the project Applicant Phillip Woodrow (hereinafter"Woodrow" or "Applicant") at 9 Edwards Avenue, Sausalito, CA 94965. Please include thiscorrespondence and attachments in the administrative record of the proceedings in conjunctionwith Woodrow's application.

This letter concerns the documents listed on page 60 of the Initial EnvironmentalStudy/Mitigated Negative Declaration ("IES/MND") prepared by Raney Planning &Management, Inc., the City's consultant. This list of "information sources" reviewed by Raneyin its analysis and preparation of the IES/MND fails to include documents submitted for therecord by Miss Watson, specifically reports submitted by Miss Watson's consultants, MichaelHicks and Craig Herzog. We respectfully request that the enclosed reports be included in this listof documents and that Raney review and report on these documents to the Commission prior tothe Commission's final action on the IES/MND.

Miss Watson's consultants are preparing updated materials which will be submitted well inadvance of the hearing on July 16,2014, at which Miss Watson understands the Commission willtake action on the IES/MND and the merits of Mr. Woodrow's retaining wall.

Very truly yours,Law Offices of John E. Sharp

J d^wJohn E. Sharp/enclosures

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

F LJ L. C R. LJ MSTRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

WSThiW St. SUi« lU $»n Frmrtdieo, CA 94107 MI5.543.0UI MlS.S4J.OU2 .^©fu.crurnK.com

SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT 10/15/05

FSE Job No: 04-19: 9 Edwards Avenue, Sausalito, CA.

RE; Evidence of Damage to 1 Edwards Avenue, Sausalito, California.

On August 31*' I visited 1 Edwards Avenue, Sausalito, California to examinedamage recently discovered by the owner, Anne Watson. She stated that shewas concerned about the damage in light of the recent construction of a pier-supported concrete retaining wall on the uphill adjacent property, 9 Edwards.

This wall is currently a subject of contention between Ms. Watson and the Ownerof 9 Edwards and is the subject of a Request for Variance with the SausalitoPlanning Commission. Prior to writing this report, I also reviewed the Staff Reportof the Sausalito Planning Commission regarding this issue.

Previous to this meeting I have reviewed the finished retaining wall, the designdrawings for the wall, and calculations submitted by the Engineer of Record afterinstallation of the wall in support of the design. I submitted a letter dated 10/8/04pointing out concerns regarding the design, I also reviewed plan checkcomments from Sal Lucido P.E. of the Phillips Group, who was tasked by the Cityof Sausalito to provide a structural plan check of the design. Mr. Lucido'scomments mirrored my own, To date, I have not received any record of theEngineer of Record's response or the City's or Mr. Lucido's acceptance of thedesign.

Damage Observed 8/31 /05;

-New cracking was observed in the short unreinforced rock retaining wall of 1Edwards [see attached photos 1 through 3-note all photos taken by Ms. Watson}.At three locations stones and mortar have been cracked in the area below thenew wall at 9 Edwards. This damage was not noted in previous visits to the site.

-Cracking was observed in the lower floor plaster along East-West aligned walls inthe South 14 of the House (see Photos 4-6). The cracks are consistent with distresscaused by movement of the upper foundation supporting the floor aboverelative to the foundation below at the rear of the house. The area affected isdirectly below the new retaining wall at 9 Edwards.

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

-Cracking was observed in stucco of the South exterior wall of 1 Edwards (see

photos 7 and 8).

-Cracking and separation were observed at the joint between the patio slaband the South wall (see photos ? and 10). This is consistent with movement of thepatio slab at 1 Edwards. Note that the rear part of the patio is not an on-gradQstructure. It is a raised slab supported bv concrete frgminSL

Discussion:

The distress noted is consistent with movement of the upper floor and patio ofrear part of the house-that part below the new retaining wall constructed at 9Edwards. This is of particular concern In light of the design method used-that of awall supported by drilled concrete piers "constrained" at the base by the rockretaining wall, patio, and ultimately by the foundation at) Edwards.

In order for the design to work, the small, unreinforced rock wail and the patiowill need to resist the relatively high loads needed to constrain the piers at thebase of the wall. Also, the patio slab and/or paving and the footings of 1Edwards will need to generate enough friction to resist these loads. However, the .slab is a column-supported slab at its southern end, providing very littleresistance.

To my knowledge, the Engineer of Record has not provided the City of Sausalitocalculations demonstrating the ability of the wall to stand independently of therock wall and patio or of the ability of the rock wall, patio, and foundation of1 Edwards to resist the constraining loads.

I also question the Sausalito Building Department's willingness to allow thestability of the new wall at 9 Edwards to be dependent on structural elements ofI Edwards, as shown on the original design. While if is inevitable that the soil androck below the downhill property will be resisting loads from above, usinglandscapina. structural or foundation elements of the structure below to supportstructures above requires the current and all future owners of the ndjnr-entproperty to maintain these elements in perpetuity or replace them with otherelements designed to replace their structural fi inrtinn. I know of no otherjurisdiction that allows this kind of burden be placed on a property owner with orwithout their consent. Also, the rock wall and patio in question representlandscaping elements that typically do not require a permit to alter.

Recommendations

"The condition of the damaged areas of I Edwards should be monitored for anyfurther distress. Should the damage continue the owners of I Edwards and 9Edwards should contact the City Engineer and consult with a GeotechnicalEngineer and a foundation contractor to develop a plan to shore the upperfoundation of the house or the wall at 9 Edwards.

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

tfa -I;,.

-The Report Of the Staff of the Planning COImn;^.n.^^,!;^^oyaV*

SS?. AlSoPthe Report

and myself.

The Reoort of the Staff of the Planning Commission recommends that the heightofThewaTbe reduced based on architectural design rules. The Comrmstonshould note that if on further review if the retaining wall cannot function as astructure independent of structures on the adjacent property, it may needlowered further to ensure stability.

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

i'v^.*ii j ii_iiim.iiiumi i v*t'lTi.r..rp~nini Trf^trti,ft

f§mt> I

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

C .r^^

(AbO-a^-

•• '• * '..ifvtf' ';v-i'.n-« "'••••

¦JS}

::kS %Tm''^:M

7^4-

{2- rcNcJc. civ\ -^cnp

ti)4jiSL. cb. tecJHU^

biicu^ fVUs^

t4 <Vf '<^ JjjcJ',

PrtotO ^ Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

PiteiD G

fl&jOn <LK-(- u\ \rs4(x2

0r\

Rtetb S"

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

C. Coct^ (CWyn ce.^0)^-Ctjtn^CcxZ)

cLcv\

,|" J«> |j[

FWtd "3-

C tn ""v m ^ 1£>gJ\

J? tn(Lcid^~ MV>-CA cCcxn

Bhsn> S>

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

¦qiyar.'n,tr -T V—

iiiiLHiuK'iy'mi—i-îim ' i J T'l ji;

rUn^'^ cUtx-Cr^

Ô'aJXL -ô r M^'VT

2)-|-\1

|! 4i«nkr:^ iy i.

MMlifete

Pitefo ^

I Cdksj^\ Ga3-£Î^ cjxî' S^- '

jt^r^ of" O-la Gz^ ( | -vS^

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

US Third St, Suit* 313, San Fnndico, CA ?4I07 t.4tS.S«.0UI MI5.5«.0I«2 lnfD®fulcrum»..eom

Fax

To: Anne Watson From: M. Hicks

Fox: (415)332-3303 Pages: 3

Phone: (4)5) 332-1773 Dote: 8/29/2005

Re; Review of Project Documents for CC:

Pqtio Improvements 9 Edwards.

Urgent ÿ For Review O Please Comment 0 Please Reply ÿ Please Recycle

• Comments:

This is the document I spoke of this morning on the phone.

As I recall, after my review of the calculations and drawings the City of Sausalito sentthe package of documents to Sal Lucido of The Phillips Group, who I understand atthe time was providing structural plan check services for the City (Please note thatthis is a common arrangement for small cities without the money or volume of workto justify employing such plan check staff).

Attached is a copy of Mr. Lucido's review for your file. As you can see, it was sent tothe City Building Dept. and forwarded to me on 11 /10/04.

Note that Mr. Lucido's concerns are identical to those 1 mention in my review.

I understand that the City is satisfied with the design of the walls. Has some otherinformation been provided by the Engineer responsible for the design to respond tothese comments? If so, I would appreciate o copy of this response for my file andwould be happy to review this on your behalf if you wish.

Call me if you have any questions.

Anne:

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

New iO 04 04s44p 4 IS .SB

lis!-,

p. J

Page t of2

SHI LUCWOFrom-.Sal LticidoS^'ed 11/10/2004 2:53 PMTo!"Steve Buffenb*fg« (ibuf»'CTib»fger@cj.»»w)«a.c:i:.u3VCt:'Gaytc Ann Disks (gDtike^ei.sauMliio.ci.us)*Subjtef. Ptrmii A10666 . Patio litiprovemsnti tl 9 Edwards

Atuchments:

Stev«,

At your request, we reviewed the following documents for the referenced project:

1,permit plans (Sheets 1 & 2 by 3.L. ingineering) dated il-7-03, approved 2-5-04 {Nocpreviously revlev/en by TPG].

2,Seotechnlcal Review tetter by Setgsst datea 1-15-04, approved 2-5-04 (Not prevtousfy

reviewed by TPG]3,Calculations by Buel Engineering dated 8-24-044,Peer review.by Fulcrum Structural Engineering (Ni. Hicks, S,E. 4081)sl Geoteehnicel Eveluation letter by Setgast dated 5-16-046.Letter by 3.L. Engineering deted 11-3-04 (Jay Hallberg, RCE 30455)7,As-Built Plans by 3.L, Engineering dated ll-:-04

Based on our review, we offer the following observations:

1 we concur that the drilled piers are nof constrained and should therefore be evaluatedusing the equations In §1806.6.2.1. The piers, as installed, may be adequate; however,the calculatlorts should be revised to demonstrate that. 1 he geotechmca' engineer shou.dprovide, or confirm the assumed, soil deign properties In writing os part of thegeotechnlcal evaluation/Investigation (§l$04).

2. The structural analysis of Standard Wa;l Section A (ref. 3 above) is based on restraint atthe top of well and a simple pin connection at the bottom of wall. Therefore, no wallbending Is transmitted to the piers - only shear. Based on the design parametersassumed, the wall analysis appears to be in general conformance with the CBC andgenerally accepted engineering practice. However, there are several locations referencedIn plan where top of wail restraint Is not provided (Sections C and C). for these walls,the flaxural reinforcement i$ shown on the incorrect face of the wall. This may not be acritical Issue If the retaining wall heights are low, but the details Indicate 9'max.retaining height. The spot elevations on the plens appear to require only about 2 ofretained soil. This condition should be verified and revised a& needed. Also, theretaining wall at the front of the house references Section A, however, top restraint doesnot appear to be provided. This wall appears to be retaining about $ of soils and shouldalso be verified and revised as needed.

Please let me know if have any questions or require additional assistance.

Sincerely,

http;//inHil.phillipsgroup.cortv'public/Jarisdictions/SauK»]ito/Penn)t%20Al0666%20-%20,.. 11/10/2004

'TEM MO. >5

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

fi6SThird St. Suit® 923, Sen Frindieo, CA W107 «.4IS.S4).OI6i f4IS.S43.0li2 [email protected]

Ann Watson10/0/04Watson Consulting1 Edwards Ave.Sausalito, CA

Job No: 04-19: 1 Edwards Avenue Consulting.

Re: Review of Calculations by Buei Engineering.

Dear Ann:

I have completed my review of the calculations by Buel Engineering for the RearPatio Concrete Bulkhead Retaining Wall at 9 Edwards Avenue, Sausalito,California. The calculations are dated 8/24/04, and have been stamped andsigned by Jos. Buel S.E. as Structural Engineer of Record.

I have the following comments regarding the calculations:

-The calculations were prepared after construction of the wall was complete,and no input from the Supervising Geotechnical Engineer of Record (R. SettgastG.E.J was used, I assume it is based on Mr, Buel's review of the drawingssubmitted by J,L. Engineering, the available construction inspection reports, areconnaissance of the site, and his judgement as a Structural Engineer.

-Without input from the Geotechnical Engineer, the calculations use assumedvalues for soil parameters. The assumed value for the "at-rest pressure" on thewall is 50 PCf, somewhat low in my experience. The value used for "passivepressure", the resistance of the soil on the drilled pier, is 100 PCF, a conservativelylow value. However, no higher value may be used without input from the G.E.

Used in this combination, the soil values assumed in the calculations areprobably conservative. As noted in the calculations, the Geotechnical Engineershould review the values and assumptions used.

-Although the wall design uses an assumed load that is somewhat low (the at-rest pressure noted above), the installed wall depth is slightly less than the 10'assumed in the calculations, and the wall thickness and reinforcement isrelatively robust. However, no calculations are provided for the bendingcapacity of the vertical reinforcement of the wall at the piers.

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

-The calculations use the Constrained Pole Formula from the 1997 UniformBuilding Code, This formula is used fo determine the depth of embedment forpoles and piers embedded in soil or rock that are surrounded at the base by a'concrete slab or foundation.

In this case, the wall is act constrained by such a slab (see attached sketch SK-1),but is embedded in soil adjacent to an unreinforced stone wall and patio slab, inthis case, the Unconstrained Pole Formula should be used to determine therequired depth for the piers. Use of this formula will result in required drilled depthsmuch greater than those shown on the drawings or calculations. Note also thatthe effective embedded depth of the piers should be measured from theelevation of the patio below.

-The calculation does not cover the retaining wall installed at the front of theproperty. This wall is of even greater concern at it appears to be built per therear wall but at the top of a steep slope without any slab, tieback, or otherrestraint.

Based on the above, I have the following recommendations:

-The calculations should be amended fo include the vertical reinforcement forthe piers.

-The calculation of required depth of embedment for the piers should bemodified to use the Unconstrained Pole formula to determine depth. Based onthis formula, the piers may not be of sufficient depth to resist the calculatedloads. 1 understand from a previous conversation with the Geotechnical Engineerthat the pier depths were increased at his direction at the site. The G.E. shouldprovide the actual installed depths and may also wish to provide lessconservative criteria for passive pressure.

-provide calculations for the front retaining wall. Based on the calculationssubmitted, the design of this wall does not appear to be adequate.

The above review and recommendations is based on the information availableto me at this time and on my judgment as a Structural Engineer. Should furtherinformation be made available, these recommendations may change. Theabove review and recommendations are in keeping with the current standards6f practice of Structural Engineering. No other warranty is expressed or implied

luestions.

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

u o ut wvjiufjm^11 11 1 w€3ua>l^ri

Job Ho.: (p^-- }6j By:Chk::Dote: lO/eJof^Date:

. ,.

c<wfcie<'P? t/p

/,3US

//

F*•

AM«/>

v? 3«x 5\ "*^

/.* '*

1

/1* •

•v**

r^*00

(gJNati-

Ptaatvtf ^

^ua

"~T 3^^.^

4&*4&Me*r

^NATV6Mk

, S^-l + Qes/6^^&^ &7t^^ teicCJiiu

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

ULi ^ uo ut WO Vf.3 KJt I

magmNome : ~Chk:

Job No.: &y- ^ /d/da^"Dili;

/

•A-

+

TD^cS1*

^g/t-

f (^sJNDiTvO^ ^fcS&OtJ&s t

im âlcu-uatuj^

fP/h>«$U&

f-

eîg/Vru/ f^r.

/kfU4£. O^CUTw^^T fÂju^*- L/^f^

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

FULCRUMSTRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

66S Third St, Suite 333, San Francisco, CA 94107 t.4l 5.543.0161 1415.543.0162

Ann Watson s4/13/04Watson Consulting1 Edwards Ave.Sausalito, Ca

Job No. 04-19: 1 Edwards Avenue Consulting

Re: Preliminary Report-Retaining Walls at 9 Edwards Ave.

Ann:

On Friday 4/2/04 we met at your house at 1 Edwards Avenue to review theretaining wall work at the adjacent uphill property at 9 Edwards Avenue. At thattime work had been suspended pending a review by the Sausalito BuildingDepartment. I also visited the Building Department on Thursday 4/8/04 in order toview the Civil Engineering plans for the work. Also available to me are copies ofthe Inspection Record you provided and a letter of review for the plans by R.Settgast, G.E., the project Geotechnical Engineer.

To date, no calculations have been reviewed and I understand that no formalgeotechnical report was written.

At the time of my visit Maverick Construction had finished the retaining walls andthe rear patio with the exception of installation of some additional counterfortpiers yet to be built behind the front wall and safety railings shown on the typicalsection. I understood from Steve at the Building Department that the counterfortpiers are part of a revision to the plans due soon from the J.L Engineering, theCivil Engineer.

Front Retaining Wall

Review of the plans shows a front concrete retaining wall of height 7ft at thefront corner nearest the street, with a small return at the front and a smallcounterfort at about mid-length. The wall extends back from this corner,stepping upward with the rise in grade to terminate at an existing wall. TheNvallreplaces a wood wall that has been removed. The original elevation of thewood wall is not shown on the project plans. The plans do not show existingcontours behind or adjacent to the wall. However, the sole elevation shown atthe property line indicates that the slope at this location exceeds ! :1, and dropsperhaps ten feet from the base of the wall to Edwards Street. No final surfaceslope or drainage information is shown for the area above the wall.

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

Examination of the conditions in the field show that the wall is located at the verytop of the slope, which is armored with mortared stones. Also, the short return atthe end of the wall has been extended, tapering as the grade rises.

Rear Patio and Retaining Wall

Examination of the plans show a concrete patio installed over an existing brickpatio and retaining wall system. Adjacent to 1 Edwards, the plans show theoriginal condition to be a wood retaining wall with a fence with a top of wallelevation about 123 feet. The new patio elevation is shown as 124 feet, with atop of wall elevation of 124.7 feet, showing a typical height of 6'-8" aboveexisting grade. The new wall is also about 12-18" away from the old wall, andcloser to the stone wall at the property line. No slope or surface drainageinformation is shown for the new patio. Based on the elevations shown on thedrawings, the patio is sloped toward 1 Edwards.

Examination of the conditions in the field show that the wall has beenconstructed about 2 feet higher-with a height of 8'7" above grade. Note thatthe curb indicated on the plans, which would have redirected water flow, hasnot been constructed as shown (see below).

Wall Section

The same wall section is shown on the plans for both the Front and RearRetaining Walls, however the section shows the Rear Retaining Wall condition.The section shows a 12" thick reinforced concrete wall supported on 18"diameter reinforced concrete drilled piers spaced approximately 5 ft apart. Thewall is reinforced with vertical bars running between horizontal beams. Thebeams transfer the loads to the drilled concrete piers. The typical section showsthe patio connected to the wall, extending above the patio surface. Aninteresting detail is that the wall shown appears to be reinforced for acantilevered condition (only the inner pier bars are continuous), yet at the rearwall there is a supported condition. The wall also shows a curb at the rear wall,but the installed condition does not have one. The front retaining wall does nothave a patio slab attached.

The typical wall section shows a backdrain (drain rock in filter fabric), and theground water so trapped exits out the front of the wall through weep holes. Thereis no surface swale drain at the top of the section, and presumably the watercollected at the top of the wall will percolate down to the weep holes.

Comments

I feel that after review of the plans and a visit to the site, I have the followinginitial comments:

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

1. Based on our conversations and on my conversations with officials at theBuilding Division of the City of Sausalito, "patio walls" of more than 6 feetin height are required to be approved through the planning process. Iunderstand that this was not the case here, although the plans clearlyshow both walls to be of greater height. Also, the drawings were notsubject to civil or structural plan check.

2.The as-built height of the rear retaining wall is 8-7", exceeding theheight indicated on the plans, the original height of the wood wall andthe 6 ft. "non-approval" height. Note also that the final height of wall +railing will be about 11 feet above grade and about 13-14 feet above thepatio elevation at 1 Edwards.

3.The slope shown and the lack of a curb or lip at the edge of the patio willcause the patio (and any roof drains emptying onto the patio) to drainonto the slope above 1 Edwards. This and flow from the weep holes at thewall may cause drainage problems and increased erosion below. Theweep holes at the front retaining wall currently drain directly to theground in front of the wall.

4.The copy of the Inspection Record you gave me indicates that the patiowalls were inspected by an engineer representing the City. I understandalso that the drilling of the piers and the construction of the wall wasapproved by the Inspector and the Project Geotechnical Engineer, whohas yet to do so in writing. The notes in the Inspection Record seem torefer to the rear patio wall only-no reference is made to the front retainingwall.

5.Initial analysis of the wall shows that the walls and piers and theirreinforcement are relatively robust, in spite of the inconsistencies notedabove. One issue, however, is the impact of the retaining walls and pierson the stone wall at the rear and on the steep slope at the front. In bothcases the piers will exert some load on these elements. At the rear wall,the low stone wall at 1 Edwards may rotate and/or crack over time. At thefront wall, the armored slope may exhibit some distress. As the high, steepslope overlooks Edwards Street this could have an impact on use of theroadway below.

Recommendations

I recommend that I contact JL Engineering and request their design calculationsas well as any drainage information and/or revised plans they may havegenerated. I also suggest that I call Robert Settgast to verify that he hasreviewed and approved the wall and drainage measures installed to date, orindicate what remedial measures he is recommending. I understand that theCity is having the site re-surveyed. Has that been done?

s?" ^504081

M.

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

HERZOGGEOTECHNICALCONSULTING ENGINEERS

February 12,2010Project Number 2423-01-09

Law Office of John SharpAttention: Mr. John Sharp930 Irwin Street, Suite 216San Rafael California 94901-3207

RE: Geotechnical InvestigationNeighboring Retaining Wall1 Edwards AvenueSausalito, California

Dear Mr, Sharp:

This presents the results of our geotechnical investigation of stability impacts posed by therecently constructed retaining wall at 9 Edwards Avenue to the downslope property at 1 EdwardsAvenue in Sausalito, California. The scope of our investigation was to review previous reportsand plans by others, review selected geologic references, observe exposed site conditions, drilltwo test borings, conduct laboratory testing, perform engineering analyses and developgeotechnical criteria for use by the client's structural consultant to evaluate the adequacy of thewall, and to develop conclusions regarding potential geotechnical related impacts posed by thewall to the subject property, and geotechnical recommendations for remedial measures. Ourscope of work was outlined in our proposal dated December 17,2009.

WORK PERFORMED

We reviewed the following information as part of our work:

¦ Davenport, C. W., 1984, An Analysis of Slope Failures in Eastern Marin County,California, Resulting From the January 3 & 4,1982 Storm, California Department ofConservation, Division of Mines and Geology DMG Open-File Report 84-22.

" Buel Engineering, August 24,2004, (N) Rear Patio Com. Bulkhead Rtg. Wall,Woodrow Residence, 9 Edwards Avenue, Sausalito, California, 94965.

• GeoEngineering, Inc., January 15,2004, Geotechnical Review: Patio'ImprovementPlans, 9 Edwards Avenue, Sausalito, California, File No. 3-041-pw.

70 WOOD SIDE LANE ..MILL VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 94941 • PHONE (415) 388-8355 • FAX (415) 388-9266Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

Februaiy 12,20101 Edwards Avenue, SausalitoProject Number 2423-01-09

Page 2

GeoEngineering, Inc., March 8,2004, Geotechnical Monitoring Services: FoundationDrilling, Patio Improvement, 9 Edwards Avenue, Sausalito, California, File No. 3-041-pw.

" GeoEngineering, Inc., May 16,2004, Geotechnical Evaluation: Drilled Bulkhead,Downslopefrom Dwelling and Review of Bulkhead Height for Rear Patio, 9 EdwardsAvenue, Sausalito, California, File No. 3-04 l-pw.

J.L. Engineering, November 7,2003 (revised December 1,2003), Patio ImprovementPlans, Woodrow Residence - 9 Edwards Ave., (A.P.No. 065-302-74), Sausalito,Marin County, California, Sheets CI and C2.

¦JX. Engineering, May 4,2004, Section: Wall @ Building Corner, WoodrowResidence - 9 Edwards Ave., (A,P. No. 065-302-74), Sausalito, Marin County,California, Sheets CI and C2.

¦J.L. Engineering, November 1,2004 (revised January 2,2007), AS-BUILT - PatioImprovement Plans, Woodrow Residence - 9 Edwards Ave., (A.P. No. 065-302-74),Sausalito, Marin County, California, Sheets CI and C2.

¦Lawrence B. Karp, Consulting Geotechnical Engineer, June 5,2008, WoodrowResidence, 9 Edwards Avenue, APN 065-302-74, Patio Retaining Wall.

Rice, S.J., Smith, T.C., and Strand, R.G., 1976, Geology for Planning: Central andSoutheastern Marin County, California, California Division of Mines and GeologyOFR76-2.

We explored the subsurface conditions near the base of the subject wall on December 3,2009 tothe extent of two test borings approximately 5-1/2 and 10 feet deep, and extending into bedrock.Due to limited access, the test borings were drilled with portable drilling equipment Theapproximate locations of the test borings are shown on the attached Site Plan, Plate 1.

Our Consulting Project Engineer observed the drilling, logged the subsurface conditionsencountered, and collected soil samples for visual examination and laboratory testing. Sampleswere retrieved using Sprague & Henwood and Standard Penetration Test samplers driven with a70-pound hammer. Penetration resistance blow counts were obtained by dropping the Wnwthrough a 30-mch free fall. The samplers were driven 18 inches or to refusal, and the number ofblows were recorded for each 6 inches of penetration. These blow counts were then correlated toequivalent standard penetration resistance blow counts. The blows per foot recorded on Hieboring logs represent the accumulated number of correlated standard penetration blows that wererequired to drive the sampler the last 12 inches or fraction thereof.

HERZOGGEOTECHNICALCOWSULriMGENQIHEEKS

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

Februaiy 12,20101 Edwards Avenue, SausalitoProject Number 2423-01-09

Page 3

Logs of the test borings are presented on Plates 2 and 3. The soils encountered are described inaccordance with the criteria presented on Plate 4. Bedrock is described in accordance with theEngineering Geology Rock Terms presented on Plate 5. The logs depict our interpretation ofsubsurface conditions on the date and at the depths indicated. The stratification lines on the logsrepresent the approximate boundaries between material types; the actual transitions may begradational.

Selected samples were laboratory tested to determine their moisture content, dry density andshear strength. Laboratory test results are posted on the boring logs in the maimer described onthe Key to Test Data, Plate 4. The results of the unconsolidated imdrained triaxial (Tx-UU)strength testing are presented on Plate 6.

FINDINGS

Site Conditions

The site is located on the southern side of Edwards Avenue in Sausalito, California. Weunderstand that the subject concrete wall was constructed in 2004. The wall ranges toapproximately 8-3/4 feet high, and is reportedly supported on drilled piers spaced 5 feet on-center. Plans and a cross-section by the project civil engineer (J.L. Engineering, Inc., 2004)indicate that the new wall replaced a wooden wall along the same approximate alignment, andthat fills were placed behind the new wall in order to raise the rear patio at 9 Edwards Avenueapproximately 2-1/2 feet. The concrete wall is generally situated about 3 to 5 feet away from amortared stone wall which steps down to stairs and a walkway on the 1 Edwards Avenueproperty. The mortared wall ranges to about 3-1/2 feet high, and portions of this wall are leaningand cracked. The area between the concrete wall and the top of the mortal- wall is a landscapedslope ranging to approximately 3 feet high, and inclined between approximately 1-1/2:1 and 3:1(horizontal:vertical). A March 8, 2004 report by GeoEngineering, Inc. indicates that the piers forthe concrete wall were drilled between 10 and 11 feet deep, and extend 5 feet into bedrock and5 feet below the base of the mortared stone retaining wall at 1 Edwards Avenue.

Subsurface Conditions

The site is within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province, which includes San Francisco Bay andthe northwest-trending mountains that parallel the coast of California. These features wereformed by tectonic forces resulting in extensive folding and faulting of the area. Previousgeologic mapping by Rice (1976) indicates that the site is underlain by radiolarian chert of theFranciscan Assemblage.

Our test borings encountered fill, colluvium and residual soils overlying bedrock. The fillencountered generally consisted of loose clayey sand. The colluvium encountered consisted of

HERZOGGEOTECHNICAL

' COHSULTfflG ENGINEERSItem 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

Februaiy 12, 20101 Edwards Avenue, SausalitoProject Number 2423-01-09

Page 4

soft to Medium stiff sandy clay which, washed down from upslope areas. The residual soilsencountered consisted of soft to medium stiff gravelly clay derived from the m-place weatheringof the underlying parent bedrock. The soils encountered are relatively weak and compressible,and are subject to downslope creep on hillsides: Bedrock encountered in the borings generallyconsisted of firm to moderately hard chert.

The approximate test boring locations are shown on the Site Plan (Plate 1). The test boringsencountered the following profiles:

Depth (feet) ColluviumResidual SoilBedrock

1.7-6.56.5-9.39,3-10.0+

0-2.72.7-3.63.6-5.5+

Descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered are presented on the boring logs.

Groundwater

Free groundwater did not develop in the borings at the time of our investigation. Groundwaterlevels at the site are expected to fluctuate over time due to variations in rainfall and other factors.Rainwater percolates through the relatively porous surface soils. On hillsides, the water typicallymigrates downslope in the form of seepage within the porous soils, at the interface of thesoil/bedrock contact, and within the upper portions of the weathered and fractured bedrock.

CONCLUSIONS

Our test borings downslope of the base of the recently constructed wall encountered bedrock asdeep as approximately 9-1/4 feet. The soils above the bedrock are weak and compressible, and

• are not suitable for supporting the wall. In addition, the adjacent pre-existing mortared stonewall precludes utilizing materials above the base of that wall to develop lateral pier support. As-built information indicates that pier depths for the new wall ranged between 10 and 11 feet,which corresponds to usable bedrock embedments below the base of the masonry wall of as littleas a. few feet. These embedments may be inadequate to provide mandated factors of safetyagainst wall instability, especially during earthquake shaking. In addition, the pier embedmentsare likely insufficient to avoid surcharging the existing mortared stone .wall under static andseismic loading conditions. We therefore judge that the new wall should be evaluated by astructural engineer based on the loading conditions outlined in this report. Portions of the walldetermined to be inadequate should be buttressed with supplemental piers extending well intobedrock below the influence of the masonry block wall, and/or restrained with tiebacks groutedinto bedrock.

HERZOGGEOTECHNICAL

¦ CONSULTING EWQ1MEERS

BoringFillB-l0-1.7B-2

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

February 12, 20101 Edwards Avenue, SausalitoProject Number 2423-01-09

PageS

The mortared stone wall displays areas of recent cracking which appear to be attributable tosurcharging by the neighboring wall. Damaged poitions of the existing mortared stone wallshould be repaired or replaced.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Lateral Pressures

The new concrete wall and any required supplemental supports should be evaluated based on anactive lateral earth pressure equivalent to that exerted by a fluid weighing 45 pounds per cubicfoot (pcf) in areas where the top of the wall is free to rotate. Where the top of the wall is retainedby patio slabs and/or where supplemental tieback supports will be provided, the wall andsupplemental supports should be evaluated based on an "at-rest" equivalent fluid pressure of60 pcf The seismic stability of the wall should be evaluated based on an additional uniformlateral earth pressure of 15xH psf (where H is the height of the wall in feet). Active pressuresshould be assumed to act on the wall facing, and over two diameters of the portion of pierslocated above the elevation of the base of the existing mortared stone wall. A minimum factor ofsafety against instability of 1.5 should be used to evaluate static stability of the retaining wall andremedial wall supports.

Drilled Piers

Support for existing and supplemental drilled piers should only be derived in competent bedrocklocated below the base elevation of the existing mortared stone wall. The depth to supportingbedrock may be estimated based on the boring logs. All piers should be at least 18 inches indiameter. Required pier depths and diameters should be calculated by the Project StructuralEngineer using the criteria presented below. The materials encountered in new pier excavationsshould be evaluated by our representative in the field during drilling. Drill spoils should beremoved from the site.

The portion of the piers extending into bedrock below the base elevation of the existing mortaredstone wall can impose a passive equivalent fluid pressure of400 pounds per cubic foot (pcf)acting over 2 pier diameters, and vertical dead plus real live loads of 1000 pounds per square foot

, (psf) in skin friction. These values may be increased by 1/3 for seismic loads. Skin friction andpassive resistance should be neglected in the soils above the bedrock. End bearing should beneglected due to the uncertainty of mobilizing end bearing and skin friction simultaneously. Thedownward thrust imposed by supplemental tiebacks should be added to the vertical load on thepiers.

HERZOGGEOTECHNICALCOWSUUING ENGfflEERS

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155


Page 6

If groundwater is encountered, it may be necessary to dewater the holes and/or to place concreteby the tremie method. If caving soils are encountered it will be necessary to case the holes. Harddrilling or coring will likely be required to achieve the required penetration.

Tiebacks

Tiebacks should be inclined downward at an angle of at least 15 degrees from the horizontal.Tiebacks should have minimum unbonded lengths of 10 and 15 feet for bars and strands,respectively. Tiebacks should have minimum bonded lengths of 12 feet in bedrock. Forplanning purposes, the location of the bedrock surface may be estimated based on the boringlogs. The allowable skin friction for tiebacks will depend upon drilling method, groutinstallation pressure, and workmanship. For estimating purposes, the portion of tiebacks groutedinto bedrock may be assumed to impose a skin friction value of 2000 psf. The contractor shouldbe responsible for determining the actual length of tiebacks necessary to resist design loads basedon the materials encountered and their familiarity with the installation method utilized. Our fieldengineer should be present to observe conditions during drilling. Tiebacks should be located soas not to interfere with existing foundations or utilities.

Tieback materials, installation, corrosion protection and testing should conform toRecommendations for Prestressed Rock and Soil Anchors (Post-Tensioning Institute, latestedition). The tieback bars or strands should be double corrosion protected. The bars or strandsshould be positioned in the center of the holes, and the bonded length grouted in place from thebottom. If a frictionless sleeve is used over the unbonded length, the bars or strands may beinitially grouted over their entire length. When the grout has attained the required compressivestrength, the anchors should be proof tested to 1.33 times the design load as outlined by the Post-Tensioning Institute. Proof test loads should be held for 10 minutes, and the deflection at testload between the 1 and 10 minute readings should not exceed 0.04 inches. After testing, thetension in the anchor should be reduced to the design load and locked off. Replacement tiebacksshould be installed for tiebacks that fail the load testing.

Supplemental Services

Our conclusions and recommendations are contingent upon Herzog Ge'otechnical being retainedto review the project plans and specifications to evaluate if they are consistent with ourrecommendations, and being retained to provide intermittent observation and testing during pierdrilling, and during tieback drilling and load testing to evaluate if subsurface conditions are asanticipated and to check for conformance with our recommendations. We should also be notifiedto observe the completed project. Alignment, steel, concrete, shoring, surface drainage and/orwaterproofing should be inspected by the appropriate party, and are not part of our scope ofwork.

HERZOG• GEOTECHNICAL

¦ CONStlbTlNG ENGINEERSItem 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

February 12,20101 Edwards Avenue, SausalitoProject Number 2423-01-09

Page 7

If during construction subsurface conditions different from those described in this report areobserved, or appear to be present beneath excavations, we should be advised at once so that theseconditions may be reviewed and our recommendations reconsidered. The recommendationsmade in this report are contingent upon our being notified to review changed conditions.

If more than 18 months have elapsed between the submission of this report and the start of workat the site, or if conditions have changed because of natural causes or construction operations ator adjacent to the site, the recommendations of this report may no longer be valid or appropriate.In such case, we recommend that we review this report to determine the applicability of theconclusions and recommendations considering the time elapsed or changed conditions. Therecommendations made in this report are contingent upon such a review. We should be notifiedat least 48 hours before the beginning of each phase of work requiring our observation, and uponresumption after interruptions. These services are performed on an as-requested basis and are inaddition to this geotechnical reconnaissance. We cannot provide comment on conditions,situations or stages of construction that we are not notified to observe.

LIMITATIONS

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Law Office of John Sharp and theirconsultants. Our services consist of professional opinions and conclusions developed inaccordance with generally-accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. Weprovide no other warranty, either expressed or implied. Our conclusions and recommendationsare based on the information provided us regarding the proposed construction, the results of ourfield exploration and laboratory testing programs, and professional judgment. Verification ofour conclusions and recommendations is subject to our review of the project plans andspecifications, and our observation of construction.

The test boring logs represent subsurface conditions at the locations and on the dates indicated.It is not warranted that they are representative of such conditions elsewhere or at other times.Site conditions and cultural features described in the text of this report are those existing at thetime of our field exploration and may not necessarily be the same or comparable at other times.The locations of the test borings were established in the field by reference to existing features,and should be considered approximate only.

Our work was limited to the subject wall, and did not address other items or areas. Ourinvestigation did not include an environmental assessment or an investigation of the presence orabsence of hazardous, toxic or corrosive materials in the soil, surface water, ground water or air,on or below, or around the site, nor did it include an evaluation or investigation of the presenceor absence of wetlands.

HERZOG¦ GEOTECHNICALCOHSUbTlNG EPTCHNBERS

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155


Page 8

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you. If you have any questions, please call us at(415) 388-8355.

Sincerely,HERZCK

Craig Herzog/Principal Engineer

Attachments: Plates 1 - 6

HERZOGGEOTECHNICALCONSULTING ENGINEERS Item 5A - Attach 8

02-10-15 of 155

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

OtherLaboratoryTests

30.2

equipment: Continuous Sampling elevation: **

logged by: G.M.start date: 1-19-10

FINISH DATE: 1-19-10

BROWN CLAYEY SAND (SC), loose, wet, withroots (Fill)

RED-BROWN SANDY CLAY'(CLbstiff, wet

roots encountered at 4-1/2 feet

RED-BROWN. GRAWLLY'crAY'i'cHh "soft tomedium stiff, moist to wet, with roots (ResidualSoil)

ORANGE-QRAY-BROWn CHERT, firm to moderateiyhard, friable, highly weathered

BOTTOM OF BORING 1 (g> 10.0 FEETNo Free Water Encountered

* Converted to equivalent standard penetrationblow counts.

Existing ground surface at time of fnvestigatfon.

. Job No: 2423-01-09 LOG OF BORING 1 PLATEAppr: 71

HERZOGDrwn: LPDD 1 Edwards Avenue 2

GEOTECHNTCArCONSULTING ENGINEERS Date: JAN 2010 Sausalito, California Item 5A - Attach 8

02-10-15 of 155

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

MAJOR DIVISIONS TYPICAL NAMES

®w .iu=: toCoCrt oQ Syj2 A5a=CD £

gsDC x:< ^o eO O

05>

c/3 *»

! OO O

QUJ V

< "(5DC X

cLU ®;£

U- ®v_o

gravels

MORE THAN HALFCOARSE FRACTIONIS LARGER THANNO. 4 SIEVE

CLEAN GRAVELSWITH LITTLE ORNO FINES

GRAVELS WITHOVER 12% FINES

SANDS

MORE THAN HALFCOARSE FRACTIONIS SMALLER THANNO. 4 SIEVE

CLEAN SANDSWITH LITTLEOR NO FINES

SANDS WITHOVER 12% FINES

SILTS AND CLAYS

LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50

SILTS AND CLAYS

LIQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN SO

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

GW

GC

SW

WELL GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND

POORLY GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES

S1LTY GRAVELS, POORLY GRADED GRAVEL-SAND-SILTMIXTURES

CLAYEY GRAVELS,.POORLY GRADED GRAVEL-SAND-CLAYMIXTURES

WELL GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS

POORLY GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS

SM

SC

ML

SILTY SANDS, POOORLY GRADED SAND-SILT MIXTURES

CL

OL

MH

CH

CLAYEY SANDS, POORLY GRADED SAND-CLAY MIXTURES

INORGANfC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOURS TY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS, OR CLAYEY SILTS WITHSLIGHT PLASTICITYINORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITYGRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYSLEAN CLAYS

ORGANIC CLAYS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOWPLASTICITY

INORGANIC-SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACIOUS FINESANDY OR SILTY SOILS, ELASTIC SILTS

INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAYS

oh W ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITYORGANIC SILTS

Pt k PBAT OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

UNIRED SQfL CLASStFICATION SYSTEM

Consol

LL

PL

PI

Gs

SA

¦aB

Consolidation

Liquid Limit (in %)

Plastic Limit (in %)

Plasticity Index

Specific Gravity

Sieve Analysis

Undisturbed Sample (2,5-inch ID)

2-inch-ID Sample

Standard Penetration Test

Bulk Sample

Shear Strength, psf| Confining Pressure, psf

Tx2630 (240)Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxtal

Tx sat2100(575)

DS3740 (960)

TV1320

UC4200

LVS500

FSFree Swell

ElExpansion Index

PermPermeability

SESand Equivalent

Unconsojidajed Undrained Triaxial,saturated prior to testUnconsolidated Undrained Direct Shear

Torvane Shear

Unconfined Compression

Laboratory Vane Shear

KEY TO TEST DATA

HERZOGGEOTECHNTCAr'CONSULTING ENGINEERS

Job No: 2423-01-09

Appr: —

Drwn: LPDD

Date: JAN 2010

SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHARTAND KEY TO TEST DATA1 Edwards Avenue

Sausalito, California

PLATE

4Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

ROCK SYMBOLS

SHALE OR CLAYSTOWE

SILTSTONE

SANDSTONE

CONGLOMERATE

A A iA AAi

% A A CHERT

PYROCLASTIC

VOLCANiC

PLUTONIC

eraxpetu/iVf/Tu

SERPENTINITE

METAMORPHIC ROCKS

DIATOMJTE

SHEARED ROCKS

LA YERING

MASSIVETHICKLY BEDDEDMEDIUM BEDDEDTHINMLY BEDDEDVERY THINNLY BEDDEDCLOSELY LAMINATEDVERY CLOSELY LAMINATED

JO/NZ FRACTURE, OR SHEAR SPACINGGreater than 6 feet2 to 6 feet8 to 24 inches2-112 to 8 inches3/4 to 2-1/2 inches1/4 to 3/4 inchesLess than 1/4 inch

VERY WIDELY SPACEDWIDELY SPACEDMODERATELY SPACEDCLOSELY SPACEDVERY CLOSELY SPACEDEXTREMELY CLOSELY SPACED

Greater than 6 feet2 to 6 feet8 to 24 inches2-112 to 8 inches3/4 to 2-1/2 inchesLess than 3/4 inch

HARDNESSSOFT - Pliable; can be dug by hand

FIRM - Can be gouged deeply or carved with a pocket knife

M0Jter^ELpIwdAefhasCbten\rw1ilUayChed 8SCratCh ,eaVeS heavy traCe of dust and is ^clily visable

HARD - Can be scratched with difficulty; scratch produces little powder and is often faintly visable

VERY HARD - Cannot be scratched with pocket knife; leaves a metallic streak ..

STRENGTHPLASTIC - Capable of being molded by hand

FRIABLE - Crumbles by rubbing with fingers

WEAK - An unfractured specimen of such material will crumble under light hammer blows

MODERATELY STRONG - Specimen will withstand a few heavy hammer blows before breaking

STRONG - Specimem will withstand a few heavy ringing hammer blows and usually yields large fragments ¦

VE%inSgTfra?mentRs0Ck ^rin0in9 hammer bl0WS and wil1 with difficulty only dust and small

DEGREE OF WEATHERING

^ssssssa -^ssssar"»-»<«* »*¦M0.^ »

SLIJ!SmVpOTttfonHEBED "4 **"*»»»"' discoloration, little o, no .ff.ct

FRESH - Unaffected by weathering agents, no appreciable change with depth

little to no effect on cementation,

on cementation, no mineral

HERZOGGEOTECHNTCAT.CONSULTING ENGINEERS

Job No: 2423-01-09

Appr: H

Drwn: LPDD

Date: JAN 2010

ENGINEERING GEOLOGYROCK TERMS1 Edwards Avenue


PLATE

5Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

900 r

600

ResultsC, psf

degTanQji)

255

tn 300

300 600900

Normal Stress, psf

1200 1500

900

750

&s<0

3to"><Do

600

450

300

150

10

Axial Strain,1

15

Sample No. 1Water Content, %Dry Density, pcfSaturation, %Void RatioDiameter, in.Height, in.

22.785.162.4

0.98002.4304.900

Water Content, 0/(Dry Density, pcfSaturation, % .VoicJ RatioDiameter, in.Height, in.

36.385.1

100.00.98002.4304.900

20

[ Type of Test:Unconsolidated Undrained

I Sample Type: Undisturbed

Assumed Specific Gravity® 2.70| Remarks: A TX/UU/S was ran on this sample.

Sample had many small roots.

Strain rate, in./min.-

Back Pressure, psfCell Pressure, psfFail. Stress, psf

Strain, %Ult, Stress, psf

Strain, %c, Failure, psfCa Failure, psf

0.0507488.07987.7735.1

7.0

752.914.9

1234.8499,7

1800

Client; Herzog Geotechnical

Project: 1 Edwards Avenue

Source of Sample: B-l Depth: 1.5'

Proj. No.: 2423-01-09 Pate Sampled: 1-19-10

Tested By: GEF Checked By: TMc

HERZOG

Job No: 2423-01-09

Appr:

Drwn: LPDD

Date; JAN 2010

STRENGTH TEST DATA

1 Edwards Avenue


PLATE

6Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

Letter 2

Law Offices of

JOHN E. SHARP24 Professional Center Parkway, Suite 100

San Rafael, CA 94903

John E. SharpTelephone: (415) [email protected]: (415) 479-2648

July 9, 2014via email and hand-delivery

Sausalito Planning CommissionJoan Cox, ChairJeremy Graves, DirectorCalvin Chan, Assistant PlannerCommunity Development DepartmentCity of Sausalito420 Litho StreetSausalito, CA 94965

RE: Woodrow Retaining Wall: Draft lES/MND Comments (DR/VA/TRP 04-038)

Dear Chair Cox, Director Graves, Mr. Chan and Members of the Planning Commission:

This office represents Ann Watson, who resides at 1 Edwards Avenue, Sausalito, CA 94965. Ms.Watson's property is adjacent to, and downhill from, that of the project Applicant PhillipWoodrow (hereinafter "Woodrow" or "Applicant") at 9 Edwards Avenue, Sausalito, CA 94965.Please include this correspondence in the administrative record of the proceedings in conjunctionwith Woodrow's application. Please continue to provide the undersigned with copies of any andall notices, letters, correspondence, and/or staff materials prepared in conjunction with thismatter, from this point forward. We reserve the right to submit such evidence and testimony asmay be appropriate up to and including the time of hearing. [Government Code § 54950 et seq.]

This letter constitutes Ms. Watson's comments on the Initial Environmental Study/MitigatedNegative Declaration of Environmental Impact for the project pursuant to the requirements of theCalifornia Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA").

Reference is made to the Woodrow Retaining Wall Initial Environmental Study/Mitigated

Negative Declaration DR/VA 04-038 Public Review Draft—June 2014. ("IES/MND").

Watson's Objections to Specific Findings and Recommendations in the IES/MND

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

1. Engineering Issues

As stated in this offices correspondence of July 2, 2014, Ms. Watson's Structural Engineer,Michael Hicks of Sheerline Structural Engineering (previously of Fulcrum Engineering),prepared reports dated April 13,2004, October 15,2005 and March 20,2008. HerzogGeotechnical Consulting Engineers prepared a report dated February 12, 2010. Those reportswere submitted as part of Ms. Watson's comments on the IES/MND and are further referenced inMr. Hicks' report of this date which is submitted with this correspondence. Please include all ofthe above in Ms. Watson's comments on the IES/MND.

While Mr. Hicks' comments findings and observations are self-explanatory, we make theobservation that, based upon those comments findings and observations, the geology and soilssections of the IES/MND, specifically at pages 31 through 33 are not accurate and do not supportthe conclusions of" less than significant impact" or that the project as designed can providemeaningful mitigations to its impact upon the Watson property. Furthermore, representations setforth in the IES/MND are in accurate insofar as the dimensions of the original wall and newproposed retaining walls are not accurately set forth.

Of equal importance is the fact that test results reveal that the depth of bedrock necessary tosupport any proposed mitigation or, indeed, the walls themselves, simply has not beendemonstrated.

2. Design Issues

With reference to the values addressed and sought to be protected at pages 16 and 17 of theIES/MND, we offer the following:i.On page 17, the report states, "[t]he concrete retaining wall contributes to the stability ofA hillside with known stability issues."

This finding is contrary to reality, as demonstrated by the Hicks report dated July 9,2014.

ii.On page 17, the report states, "The height of the concrete retaining wall and patio makesthe patio area and home of the adjacent residence at 1 Edwards less visible from the project site;thus, providing more privacy for the neighboring residence."

This finding is contrary to reality. Accompanying this correspondence is a series of sixphotographs taken, variously, from the living room window and area immediately outside theWatson residence, facing the subject wall and deck. The photographs clearly demonstrate thelooming uninterrupted and unarticulated mass and bulk of the proposed structure and the impactof these conditions upon the Watson property.

V

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

3

iii. On page 17, the report states, "The retaining wall and patio are taller and closer to theproperty line than what had previously existed, and appear larger and more massive when viewedfrom 1 Edwards; thus these features are more visible from the adjacent residence than what had

occurred prior. However, the perceived bulk and mass of the wall would be reduced by theproposed stucco finishing, and hanging creeping vines that, when mature, would cover the wallsurface. This purported mitigation is nothing more than an attempt to cover illegally andimproperly constructed massive elements with paint and plantings which provide no relief fromthe deprivation of privacy, light and air to the Watson residence. As such, these are notmeaningful mitigations. Again, please refer to the accompanying photographs.

On behalf of Ms. Watson the commission is invited and encouraged to visit the property in orderto witness firsthand the referenced impacts.

Stormwater/Drainage Issues

Pages 43 and 44 of the IES/MND discuss stormwater impacts and the suppose it mitigationsproposed to address those impacts. The project as proposed does nothing to address stormwaterentering and surrounding Ms. Watson's property; that is, there are weep holes in the existing wallwhich direct water toward Ms. Watson's property and, during the rainy season, stormwaterdaylights directly At the foot of the steps by which Ms. Watson enters the public right-of-way inorder to exit her property. Although there is discussion in the IED/MND of plans by Mr.Woodrow to connect to the city's storm water sewer system, such plans are not evident in thesubmittals supporting the project.

Conclusion:

The IED MND seems calculated to support a foregone conclusion that the project, as built(without benefit of proper permitting or review), will be approved. On behalf of Ms. Watson, werequest that the Planning Commission keep an open mind with reference to the myriad of issuesidentified above, and consider the substantial impacts to Ms. Watson's property.

Shortly following will be additional materials addressing the merits of the applicationsthemselves, and Ms. Watson and the undersigned will be present at your hearing of July 16, 2014to further address Mr. Woodrow's applications.

Very truly yours,Law Offices of John E. Sharp

^ 4John E. Sharpenclosures

3

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

t.;.? rj i,< v?y/• 7.:¦..'?^. c!j y "l —jji J v - y.v '' -

stnictiira! engineeringCalvin Chan, Assistant PlannerCity of Sausalito420 Litho StreetSausalito, CA 94965

CChan@,ci. sausalito. ca. us

SSE Job No. 14-011: ] & 9 Edwards Ave, Sausalito.

Review of and Comments for "9 Edwards Retaining Wall Initial Environmental Study/MitigatedNegative. Declaration DRVA^A 04-038"

We .have reviewed the Administrative Public Review Draft of the document "9 EdwardsRetaining Wall Initial Environmental Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration DRV/VA (M-QSo"(the IES/MND}, by the City of Sausalito dated October 2013. Our review of this document andthe associated documents noted below has been performed at the request of John B.Sharp,Attorney at Law, who is counsel, for Ms. Ann Watson, owner of 1 Edwards Avenue, the property

adjacent to the disputed wall

Our review is based on the document and the following additional documents cited or related, tothe IES/MND:

1)Report by Lawrence B. Karp, Consulting Geotechnieai Engineer, to Todd.Teaeh.oui* Cityof Sausalito titled "Woodrow Residence, 9 Edwards Avenue, APN 065-302-74 PatioRetaining Wall" dated 6/5/2008.

2)"Retrofit of Existing Retaining Wall Construction, Building Permit No. A 1.0666 Issued2/5/04- By Lawrence B. Karp, Consulting Geoteehnical Engineer, Dated 7/3/2008

3)"Retrofit of Existing Retaining Wall Construction Building Permit No. A 1Q666 Issued2/5/2004," By Lawrence. B. Karp, Consulting Engineer and Joshua B Kardmi, S.E. dated7/3/2008.

4)Letter from Joshua B Kardon, S.E, to Todd Teachout, City Engineer, City of Sausalito"Woodrow Residence, 9 Edwards Avenue, (APN 065-302-74) Building Permit A, 10666,February 5, 2004 (Revision) Reinforced Concrete Retaining Wall, Structural Analysis byKleinfelder. Dated 4/1.5/2010.

5)Drawings titled "Patio Improvement Plans Woodrow Residence-? Edwards Ave., (APN065-302-74) dated 11/7/2003 Sheets 1 and 2, by J.L. Engineering. These plans arestamped as submitted and approved for permit A10666 on. 2-5-04.

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

6) "Preliminary Report-Retaining Walls at 9 Edwards Ave." by .Fulcrum Structural

Engineering, dated 4/13/04.

2-5

2-6

V

7)"Evidence of Damage to 1 Edwards Avenue, Sausalito California" by Fulcrum StructuralEngineering, dated 10/15/2005.

8)"Continued Damage to Residence at 1 Edwards. By Fulcrum Structural Engineering,dated 3/20/2008.

9)"Geotechnical Investigation, Neighboring Retaining Wall, 1 Edwards Avenue, SauslitoCalifornia" by Herzog Geotechnical Consulting Engineers, dated 2/12/2010.

And various other documents currently on file associated with this Case.

Our comments on the IES/MND are:

Section IV-Proiect Description

Wall height:

From reference 5) the original wooden wall is shown to have a top of wail elevation ofapproximately 123 feet, a base of 118 feet, making the original wooden wall 5 ft or less.Photographs of the pre-existing condition show no fence atop the wall.

The project, is described as having been permitted for a 6 foot retaining wall, and. that a 10 footwall was constructed. This is not entirely accurate structurally. Quoting from L. Karp; reference1) above, page 3:

"The stone wall was not engineered and it. is leaning, so the actual height of the new retainingwall (at its most critical location, across from the entrance to 1 Edwards) has to mdude theheight of the stone wail above the walkway for a total (as surveyed) of about ISM feet"

In addition, measurements taped at the time of the Fulcrum Structural Engineering Report(reference 6) above showed the wall face to be. about 8-8.5 feet above grade at the base of thewall as-built. This differs from both the plans and the calculations for the retrofit design.

Section 6. Geology and Soils.

Geotechnical Issues,

The EBS/MND lists reference 1) above with regard to the proposed retrofit. Note that, thisreference indicates that the "underpinning pit" (which has been excavated) is intended to serveboth in lieu of an overall geotechnical investigation of the site, special inspection of the piers,and as part of the proposed retrofit. No report from Mr. Karp or Mr. Rardon. seems to have beensubmitted regarding any logging of tire soil profile or sampling and testing the soil, or rock or the

of 4

.fftiru Si suite 5id I raftfranr-iscoCA wo? j 1, F4!.>:>; nhkoJi^Siiverlm^H.can!Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

concrete and reinforcing of the existing piers to confinn the assumpi.ions for the design, asrecommended in reference I). Note that the retrofit design assumes the existing piers contributesignificantly to the stability of the retrofitted walls.

2-6

Con't

2-7

Although we are not in possession of the report by Kleinfelder referenced in the 1ES/MND, weunderstand that it is their opinion that rock was not encountered at the current depth of the pit.

Ann Watson retained Herzog Geotechnical Engineers to perform an investigation into conditionsat the site. The results of Boring 1 of the subsurface investigation in this work (see reference 9)showed bedrock to be 9-10 feet below the surface of the 1 Edwards patio at elevation 103 ft. Thepiers are believed to extend 11 feet below grade at the wail location or elevation 107 ft. Evenconsidering that the rock surface rises in elevation over the 2-2.5 feet from the location of Boring]. to the wall, this would seem to bear out that the existing piers and the "underpinning pit" dostot extend into rock 4'~6" per the design calculations of reference 3), and in fact may not extendinto rock at all, per the concern of the Kleinfelder report, if so, the "pit'5 would need to bedesigned to be much deeper, and without the support of die existing piers.

In addition, the design values used in reference 3) for the retrofit are Code-derived and aretypically used for fiat sites and common conditions. Herzog recommends a different loadingcondition, which produces greater design loads for the wall consistent with the sloping site. Notealso that the height of the wall face used in the design calculations, 6\ is substantially less t hanthe 8H was noted, in reference 6). This will also result in much higher loads than what wereconsidered.

The IES/MND also correctly identifies the issue of creep of soils on this steep site. The Herzogreport recommends feat creep loads be applied to the piers and the "wderpirming pit" down to atleast the level of the adjacent patio at 1 Edwards. No creep toads are considered in the Karpdesign.

Soil creep can also cause flow below the wall as currently configwred The wall does not extendto below the adjacent patio level and as noted in references 1), 6) and 7) can contribute toloading on structures at 1 Edwards.

One issue not treated in the IES/MND or any of the above references is the issue of verticalmovement of the wall. If the wall is not founded solidly in rock, it may also settle vertically as.the soil it is founded in creeps and settles. Although this is probably not an issue for tb.e propertyat 1 Edwards, movements may cause cracking and setdemeut of the. house or patio that might be

of concern for the current or any future owners of 9 Edwards.

North Wall.

2-9 Part of the permit described in reference 5) and subsequent submittals, by J. L. Engineering is thewall at the North (front) of 9 Edwards. This wail is shown as being of the same design and. as thewall at the South (rear) of lEdwards, but conditions and the final construction of this wall are

sy

S oi

rhkv/ sv Suite 513! .Sun Francisco ('.'A 'W K?;: 1 LV>?5kM.Yi ' F •115.57&-55341 imke.h#§Sterlim\Sr. vom

2-8

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

very different. We feel that the safety of the design of this wall should also be included in thist [IES/MND.

In conclusion, we are concerned that there appear to be inconsistencies in the description of theexisting conditions in the IES/MND, as well as its completeness. We also feel that the proposedretrofit design does not seem to take into account the actual geotechnical conditions at the site orthe as-built configuration of the wall.

Sincerely,

4 or 4

Third Si Suite- ;M.« t Sen i-jaswHcs'- t'A 94(07 , T4!.!>-5?l<o! '¦ i i K •?i inike.f!^S!Kv;'«?«Sr^omItem 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

111111mm11

:1

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

Letter 3

Thomas F. Keating, [email protected]

Robert J. Turrinicturrini@ frei taslaw .com

Neil j. Moraniiei]moraxt@freitaslaw .com

Peter A. Kleinbrodtpkleinbrodt@freitaslaw. com

Christian F. Kemosckemos@ freitaslaw. com

VIA HAND DELIVERY

Thb Frbitaslaw Firm

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

July 8,2014

JUL

1108 Fifth AvenueThird Floor

San Rafael, CA 94901Tel. 415-456-7500Fax 415-456-0266

[email protected]. freitaslaw. com

j-OI'/sk'i! 'Sin'' , .i, i.

Mr. Jeremy GravesCommunity Development DirectorMr. Calvin ChanAssistant PlannerCity of Sausalito Planning CommissionCity of Sausalito420 Litho St,Sausalito, CA 94965

Re: DR/VA/TRP 04-038Woodrow Residence9 Edwards AvenueSausalito, CAAPN 065-302-74Patio Retaining Wall(the "Project")

Dear Mr. Graves, Mr. Chan and Commissioners:

This firm represents the applicant for the above referred Project, On July 16, Stafffor the City of Sausalito will present to the Planning Commission a request for aretroactive Design Review Permit, Variance and Tree Removal Permit at 9 EdwardsAvenue (APN 065-302-74). An Initial Environmental Study/Mitigated NegativeDeclaration (IES/MND) has been prepared by Raney Planning & Management, Inc.("Raney") under contract with the City, which analyzed the impacts associated with theProject. The IES/MND concludes that with the addition of mitigation measures therewould be no significant impacts resulting from the project, The mitigation measurespertain to Geology and Soils (Chapter VI.6 of the IES/MND). The public review periodfor the IES/MND is scheduled to conclude on July 9,2014.

The Law Offices of John E. Sharp representing Ms. Arm Watson, who resides at 1Edwards Avenue, Sausalito, CA 94965 submitted, at the July 2, 2014 Planning

JUL 0 8 -20Ur / Cfr oAUbMU!

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

00082998,DOC

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

Mr, Jeremy GravesMr. Calvin ChanCity of Sausalito Planning Commission

July 8, 2014Page 2 of 3

Commission hearing for public comments to be heard, certain "reports" and requestedRaney respond to the submitted documents.

The applicant consulted with Lawrence B. Karp, with over 50 years' experiencein design and construction, specializing in soil-structure interaction with applications tofoundations for buildings and other structures, ground support systems, reinforced andprestressed concrete technology, demolition and shoring, stability evaluation ofexcavations and slopes, site development and construction logistics, and groundwaterhydrology stability evaluation (who holds an earned doctorate in civil engineering andother degrees from the University of California, Berkeley; is licensed as a civil andgeotechnical engineer, as well as an architect in California and other States; belongs tomany professional societies and has authored numerous technical papers) to review themost recently dated document submitted by Mr. Sharp at the July 2,2014 publiccomment Planning Commission hearing: a letter dated February 12,2010 from HerzogGeotechnical Consulting Engineers to Mr. John Sharp, Mr, Karp's comments areattached hereto for submission.

Furthermore, by Mr. Herzog's own express terms (set forth on page 7 of theFebruary 12,2010 document), raises the question why it was submitted at this point forthe first time (e.g. "if more than 18 months have elapsed between the submission of thisreport and the start of work at the site, or if conditions have changed because of naturalcauses or construction operations at or adjacent to the site, the recommendations of thisreport may no longer be valid or appropriate"),

On the other hand, there is a plethora of competent, respected findings to Dr.Karp's analysis, as well as, his proposed retrofit and calculations. See electronic messagefrom the City of Sausalito Engineer, Mr. Todd Teachout dated October 15, 2008(attached hereto for your ease in review) stating "Mr. Woodrow has been working on thismatter since 2004. He has an outstanding Planning Commission design review andvariance application linked to the wall that your plan impacts" and ".. .your analysis andsolution is creative and technically rigorous,"

The applicant, Mr. Woodrow, has paid for a number of engineers separate andapart from project engineers to perform independent analyses of the design, constructionand performance of the subject wall as it relates to structural soundness. See The PhillipsGroup letter report to the City of Sausalito dated January 26, 2009 (attached hereto foryour ease in review) stating "We reviewed the report dated June 5, 2008 by LawrenceKarp,. .and generally concur with the findings therein" and "... we judge that proposeddesign is a reasonable solution based on generally accepted engineering practice andaddresses the issues we previously raised concerning the rear patio retaining walls."

00082998.DOC

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

Mr. Jeremy GravesMr. Calvin ChanCity of Sausalito Planning Commission

July 8, 2014Page 3 of 3

In addition, multiple geotechnical engineers with actual observation of theunderlying ground conditions have categorically confirmed that the lower part of the testpit is socketed in bedrock, Mr. Karp's determination confirmed the prior findings ofgeotechnical engineer; Robert H. Settgast, who was involved in the project during thebuilding permit process and throughout all construction activity (See Mr. Settgast's May16, 2004 Geotechnical Evaluation and part of the administrative record). Dr, Karp'sretrofit calculations clearly showed a factor of safety above the 1.5 specified in the Code.

Mr. Joshua B, Kardon PhD, SE completed an independent structural analysis ofDr. Karp's proposed retrofit. Dr. Kardon's stamped and signed letter report of Sept. 15,2011, based on Dr. Kardon's own observed field conditions, has been addressed in theIES/MND., His report clearly states that the counterfort system contributes to anincreased factor of safety for overturning and sliding, over and above that required by§ 1807.2.3 of the 2010 California Building Code (formerly §1611.6 and 2007 CBC§1806,1). Dr. Kardon verifies "using several approaches, that all calculations for factor ofsafety greatly exceed 1.5 (which means a resistance of more than 50% over design)".This is also consistent with the prior peer review for the City which, many years ago,concluded the proposed retrofit design to be a reasonable solution based on generallyaccepted engineering practices as well as addressing all the issues raised concerning therear patio retaining walls (rendering comments made in the various, now antiquated,documents submitted by Mr. Sharp on July 2, 2014 essentially moot).

In conclusion, the IES/MND analyzes the environmental effects to the degree ofspecificity required by § 15071 of the SEQA Guidelines. Along with the record, it clearlydemonstrates that the Project would not result in significant impacts to the environment.Ms. Watson's and her attorney's comments constitute argument, speculation,unsubstantiated opinion, clearly inaccurate evidence and do not constitute substantialevidence to require revision and/or disapproval of the Project.

VepNffflyyours,J

Peter A. Kleinbrodt

PAK/Enclosure(s)

00082998.DOC

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

LAWRENCE B. KARPCONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER

foundations, walls, pilesunderpinning, tiebacks

deep retained exca vationsshoring & bulkheads

JUL 0 8 2014 ceqa, earthwork & slopescaissons, cofferdams

coastal s, marine structuresJuly 3, 2014

soil mechanics, geologygroundwater hydrology

concrete technology

Philip C. Woodrow9 Edwards AvenueSausalito, CA 94965

Subject: Patio Retaining Wall9 Edwards, Sausalito2/12/10 Report by Craig Herzog

Dear Mr. Woodrow:

Today I received the subject report prepared for the neighbor's lawyer 454 years ago, with a note that it(1) had not been authorized or seen before by you, the owner of the properly where the patio retainingwall in question is totally situated, and (2) was lodged without notice with the Planning Commissionyesterday evening. The report purports to be compliant with Mr. Herzog's proposal to the neighbor'slawyer which commences with "The scope of our investigation was to review reports and plans byotheis", however it totally fails to include critical reports on file with the Cily of Sausalito, insteadrelying on a lawyer's representation of what should be included in the review:only a critical report I wrote to the City of Sausalito on 6/5/08. After preparing that report, which wasauthorized by you (the actual property owner), I participated in the preparation of comprehensiveimprovement plans to provide a factor of safety of 1.5 (50% overdesign) to the as-built retaining wall.

The document Mr. Herzog failed to reference and review in his 2/12/10 report is as follows:

Karp, Lawrence B. - Consulting Geotechnical Engineer, July 3,2008; "Retrofit ofExisting Retaining Wall Construction, Building Permit No. A 10666 Issued2/5/04,9 Edwards Ave., Sausalito, APN 065-302-74", Plans & Specifications,design prepared for Philip Woodrow, Job 20816,5 sheets.

In addition, before lodging his report with the Planning Commission on 7/2/14, Mr. Herzog failedto review follow up proofs and checks as follows:

Karp, Lawrence B. - Consulting Geotechnical Engineer, March 21,2010;"Calculations, Woodrow Site Retaining Wall, 9 Edwards Avenue, Sausalito",design calculations prepared for Philip Woodrow, Job No. 20117,4 pages.

"Kardon, Joshua B. - Structural Engineer, September 15,2011; "WoodrowResidence Retaining Wall. 9 Edwards Avenue, Structural Engineering Analysis",report prepared for Frietas, McCarthy, MacMahon & Keating, 1 page.

100 TRES MESAS, ORINDA CA 94563 (925) 254-1222 fax: (925) 253-0101 e-mail: [email protected] 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

Woodrow-Site Refainiofi-V^a lis. 9- Edwards Avenue. S'ausalito: 7/3/14 Page 2 of 3

The 7/3/08 engineering noted above (6 years ago), which Mr. Herzog does not list in hisreferences and shows no knowledge of in his report (although he was at a site meeting on8/21/11), as well as the subsequent checks and confirmations, all cover improvements whichare totally internal on the Woodrow property and not disruptive to adjacent properties. The7/3/08, 3/21/11 and 9/15/11 engineering has been approved by the City of Sausalito and amitigated negative declaration was prepared, so the apparent intent of releasing this obsolete4Vi year old report yesterday is to attempt to thwart the passage of the declaration.

Instead of bothering to review City records that show the retrofit engineered years before his2/12/10 report (and now accepted by the City), Mr. Herzog proposed, 41/2 years ago, newconstruction consisting of drilling tiebacks from the Watson property. The idea does not eveninclude a schematic sketch of how Mr. Herzog intends to have that drilling performed, as wellas a right-of-way executed by Miss Watson for staging, scaffolding, and drilling on herproperty. The idea is not accompanied by calculations showing how shear reinforcing can beadded to the existing retaining wall stem to resist the concentrated forces exerted by tiebacks;the only practical process would be to add a wale of reinforced concrete to the east face of theexisting retaining wall which would require another right-of-entry and an easement recordedby Miss Watson for the tieback rod ends, angled seating, bearing plate, and Hewlett nut thatwill remain on Miss Watson's property if tiebacks were installed as Mr. Herzog suggests.

Not only are the recommendations in the report unworkable and obsolete, the data Mr. Herzogstates he depends upon in his analysis is incomplete, faulty, and misleading. To begin with,Boring 1 was not drilled in the Woodrow patio area nor at its "base"; it was drilled on theWatson property 3% feet from the existing piers of the Woodrow patio. As the bedrock slopes45°, the actual depth of penetration of the existing piers into bedrock should have had reportedto be 3Va feet more than it was in the report, or instead of "9^ feet", I2V2 feet which is morethan the "10 and 11 feet" reported and approved by a locally experienced geotechnicalengineer special inspector for the 9 Edwards Avenue project, Robert Settgast, on 3/8/04.

In his report, Mr. Herzog states "Our Consulting Project Engineer observed the drilling, logged thesubsurface conditions encountered, and collected soil samples for visual examination and laboratoiytesting." However, Mr. Herzog's "Consulting Project Engineer" is only identified by initials "G. M", noname, license number, seal, and signature as required by Business & Professions Code §6735. At no timedoes Mr. Herzog state he saw anything, so his recounting is nothing but hearsay. He gave no notice toWoodrow's engineers of the drilling. At anytime Mr. Herzog could have looked at the test pit dug intobedrock for the internal retrofit design filed with the City of Sausalito on 7/15/08 (attached) before hewrote his report; if he had done so he would have seen fresh and capable radiolarian chert bedrock.

As a matter of fact, on 8/24/11 (more than 3 years after the retrofit plans were submitted to the City)Mr. Herzog and I attended a site meeting at which time the issue of where the bedrock was withrespect to the retaining wall piers was discussed. Without any knowledge of the 2/12/10 report,which we first learned of yesterday, on 8/24/111 personally invited Mr. Herzog to observe thebedrock exposed in the patio test pit, but his lawyer told him not to look; at no time was Mr.Herzog's report of 2/12/10 (long obsolete by 8/24/11) revealed by Mr. Herzog or Ms. Watson'sattorney. California Code of Regulations, Code of Conduct for Professional Engineers, Rule§475(c)7, prohibits professional engineers from providing opinions not based on fact andengineering principles. Mr. Herzog did not see the borings supposedly drilled on 1/19/10 and loggedin his report, and he refused (through the lawyer) on 8/24/11 to look into the test pit dug for theproposed internal counterfort which he knew about at the time of the site visit.

LAWRENCE B. KARP CONSULTING ENGINEERItem 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

Woodtow Site'Retaining Wialls.J iSdwmds A^igiiue^Siausal^ Page 3 of3

Also, in his 2/12/10 report, Mr. Herzog failed to reference is own report for another adjacentproperty owner:

Herzog Geotechnical Consulting Engineers, August 15,2007: "GeotechnicalRecommendations for Landslide Remediation, 19 Edwards Avenue, Sausalito,California", report prepared for John Decker, 19 Edwards Avenue, Sausalito,13 pages.

For production of the 2/12/10 report, the 8/15/07 Decker report was simply recycled to the extent ofincluding copies of paragraphs and standard recommendations. The Decker report has the sameretaining wall recommendations as Settgast Geoengineering provided to Woodrow (and Halbergdesigned for Woodrow), except that the use of tiebacks was not even considered or even mentioned,although the Decker retaining wall was for a hillside wall in a landslide and the Woodrow retainingwall was for a patio without a landslide. The 8/15/07 Decker report has the same "Consulting ProjectEngineer" also only identified by initials "G. M.", no name, license number, signature, or seal, as doesthe 2/12/10 report.

To summarize, the evidence of negligence and incompetence is conclusive: Mr. Herzog's surprise2/12/10 report is also missing review of key documents (plans and specifications for internal retrofit)although that was the scope of work given by Mr. Herzog and the documents were on file with the Cityunder the 9 Edwards address. Professional Engineers are licensed by the California Department ofConsumer Affairs and their work is supposed to be for the benefit of consumers, however Mr, Herzogwas misdirected by a lawyer to serve the lawyer's purpose, not the consumer.

Mr. Herzog had a duty to the property owner at 9 Edwards Avenue to advise that consumer that he wasinvestigating conditions so the consumer would have the opportunity to provide information to Mr.Herzog that was missing from his investigation, for instance the documents that Mr. Herzog should haveobtained from the City before writing his report. Mr. Herzog has a duty to properly report the conditionof the retaining wall at 9 Edwards Avenue but he failed to do so, instead he blindly did what the lawyertold him to do without consideration of the effect on the consumer. Mr. Herzog fails to advise the readerthat the owner of 1 Edwards Avenue has a duty to maintain lateral and subjacent support to 9 Edwards(Civil Code §832). Mr. Herzog implies the patio retaining wall is unstable but he produces nocalculations as proof nor does he explain why there has never been a physical indication of instability.When Mr. Herzog visited the site on 8/24/11 and was told that bedrock was exposed in the test pit thatwas to be used for the internal retrofit, he was negligent in not revising his 2/12/10 report to include themissing information. The 2/12/10 report is derivative of a report Mr. Herzog prepared for 19 Edwards in2007 which does not contain a criticism of the patio retaining wall at 9 Edwards. The 2/12/10 report iscomprised totally of hearsay and it uses defective data presented without question by a "ConsultingProject Engineer" without a seal or credentials. The tieback recommendations in the report areincomplete, unworkable, and useless for the site and existing conditions. The 2/12/10 report isinconsistent with the writer's report for an adjacent property owner, the report is obsolete, it containsunsupported notions and unworkable ideas, and it is otherwise negligent and professionally incompetent.

LAWRENCE B. KARP CONSULTING ENGINEER''''Mil'!#!*****

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

WOODROW RESIDENCE

9 Edwards Avenue, Sausalito

APN 0(55-302-74

RETROFIT OF EXISTING

RETAINING WALL CONSTRUCTION

BUILDING PERMIT No. A10666 Issued 2/5/04

III'OrwMja&jTp

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

TMe Sheet

Plan

Section

Notes

References

Lawrence B.KarpConsulting Engineer

100 Tres MesasOrinda,CA 94563

(925)254-1222

JOSHUA B. KARDON + COMPANYSTRUCTURAL ENGINEERS

1930 Shattuck Avenue, Suite CBERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704

FAX (510) 548-1805(510) 548-1892

Rev. 0 July 3,2008 Issued for Revision to Permit Sheet 1 of 5

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS7t*eve drswiups antJ calculaltons, and thn idfiasana d«M|)n»as in«l(U()en<tiof piijleEsiotiil t'ervice, ate the ptopelty pi

LAWRENCE B.mWwhole 01 m part.kjranyothei: Rjq[ec&i(tl(i;M theeiprusE wirtten aphcrliy ol iAWftENCiE & j^AiRP

JOSHUA B, KARDON + COMPANY"STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS


FAX (510) 548-1895^10) 548-1892

LAWRENCE B. KARPCONSULTING ENGINEER

100 IRES MESASORINDA. CALIFORNIA 94563

(926)264-1222

Rev.O July 3,2008 Issued for Revision to Permit Sheet 2 of 5

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

T/0)(rtTiti6 #1^IU.7(U0U)f I

|l/'^ No.«2^'|||'"Ts,^ V Ron 12/31/11 t §S5. *,".&'

Rev. 0 July 3,2008 Issued for Revision to Permit Sheet 3 of 5Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

Notes

1.The purpose of this design is to complete compliance for Building Permit No. A 10666Issued 2/5/04 by the City of Sausalito with the 2007 California Building Code: §1806.8.2.2(constraint of drilled piers) and § 1611.6 (earth pressure and factor of safety).

2.Shoring and all safety precautions and protection of adjoining property is the soleresponsibility of the contractor.

3.Concrete compressive strength shall be/,, = 2,500 psi and when placed concrete shall have awater-cement ratio not exceeding 0.50 by volume. Reinforcing steel shall be^ = 60 ksi. Allconcrete must be vibrated.

4.Excavation, placement of reinforcing steel, concreting, anchorage, and all other constructionshall be observed by a licensed civil engineer especially qualified in soil mechanics andfoundation engineering.

5.No construction shall be considered satisfactory unless and until a written engineering reportto that effect has been lodged with the City of Sausalito.

Rev. 0 July 3,2008 Issued for Revision to Permit Sheet 4 of 5

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

References

Bailey, Edgar H., Invin, William P., & Jones, David L., 1964; "Franciscan and Related Rocks, and their Significance in the Geology ofWestern California", California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 183,177 pgs.

Buel Engineering - Civil & Structural Engineering, August 24,2004; "(N) Rear Patjo Cone, Bulkhead Rtg. Wall [Woodrow Residence,No. 9 Edwards, Sausalito, Calif, 94965]", calculations, 5 pgs,

International Code Council, Inc. (ICC), January 2008; "2007 California Building Code", California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part2, Volume 1 of 2,674 pages & Volume 2 of 2, 702 pgs,

J, L. Engineering, Civil Engineering - Land Surveying, March 12,2004(7; "Patio Wall Steel Placement for Concrete Pour Certification, 9Edwards Ave., Sausalito, CA - Woodrow Residence", letter to the City of Sausalito, 1 pg.

J. L. Engineering, Civil Engineering - Land Surveying, November 3,20046; "Plan Modifications, Stnictural Details, and DrainageImprovements, 9 Edwards Ave,, Sausalito, CA", letter [w/transmittal of as-built drawings] to the City of Sausalito, 2 pgs.

J. L. Engineering, Civil Engineering - Land Surveying, January 2,2007a; "Plan Modifications, and Drainage Improvements, 9 EdwardsAve., Sausalito, CA", letter [w/transmittal of revised plans, hydraulic calcs, previously submitted data] to the City of Sausalito, 1 pg.

J, L. Engineering, Civil Engineering - Land Surveying, January 2,20076; "Patio Improvement Plans - As-Built, Woodrow Residence,9 Edwards Ave., Sausalito, Marin County, CA", drawings [11/7/03, resubmitted 11/1/04], 2 sheets.

Karp, Lawrence B.-Consulting Geotechnical Engineer, May 19,1989; "Soil & Foundation Investigation, Bay Area DiscoveryMuseum Buildings, Fort Baker Military Reservation, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Sausalito CA", report prepared for theBay Area Discovery Museum, Job 88027,27 pgs,

Kaip, Lawrence B.-Consulting Geotechnical Engineer, September 23, 1990; "Soil Investigation, Seawall & Landfill, 30 SI Portal,Sausalito CA", report prepared for William H. McDevitt, Job 90110,32 pgs.

Kaip, Lawrence B.-Consulting Geotechnical Engineer, August 3,1992a; "Supplemental Recommendations, Bay Area DiscoveiyMuseum-Exhibition & Multipurpose Building, East Fort Baker, Sausalito CA", letter-report prepared for Spencer Associates -Structural Engineers, Job 92135, 5 pgs.

Kaip, Lawrence B.-Consulting Geotechnical Engineer, November 14,19926; "Proposed Development - Construction Feasibility, 855Bridgeway, Sausalito CA", letter-report prepared for James Cappe, Job 92123,2 pgs,

Karp, Lawrence B.-Consulting Geotechnical Engineer, October 5,1993; "Soil Investigation, Elevator Pit • The Inn Above Tide,30 El Portal, Sausalito CA", report prepared for William H. McDevitt, Job 93126,7 pgs,

Karp, Lawrence B.-Consulting Geotechnical Engineer, September 15,1997a; "Ground Conditions & Concrete Substructure RepairRecommendations, 8 Alexander Avenue, Sausalito CA", report prepared for Barry & Michelle MacKay, Job 97071, 13 pgs. (Includesreport "Petrographic Examination and Chemical Analysis", 7 pgs.) [Supplement November 19,1997, 3 pgs.]

Karp, Lawrence B.-Consulting Geotechnical Engineer, October 1,19976; "L'Auberge de Lydie - Retaining Structure & BuildingFoundations, 85S Bridgeway, Sausalito CA", report prepared for James Cappe, Job 97096,42 pgs,

Rice, Salem J,, Smith, Hieodore C., & Strand, Rudolph G., 1976a; "Geology for Planning in Central and Southeastern Marin County,California" [Plate IE "Tiburon Peninsula and Sausalito Geology" and Plate 2E "Tiburon Peninsula and Sausalito Slope Stability"],California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 76-2 S.F,, map, Scale I; 12,000 (1" = 1,000'), 2 sheets.

Rice, Salem J., Smith, Theodore C., & Strand, Rudolph G., 19766; "Geology for Planning in Central and Southeastern Marin County,California" [Plate 2D "South Central Marin Slope Stability"], California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology,Open File Report 76-2 S.F., map, Scale 1:12,000 (1" => 1,000'), 1 sheet.

Rice, Salem J., Smith, Theodore C., & Strand, Rudolph G., 1976J; "Geology for Planning; Central and Southeastern Marin County,California" [Monograph], California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 76-2,114 pgs.

Settgast Geoengineering, Inc., January 15, 2004a; "Geotechnical Review - Patio Improvement Plans, 9 Edwards Avenue, Sausalito,California", letter-report prepared for Philip Woodrow, 1 pg.

Settgast Geoengineering, Inc., March 8,20046; "Geotechnical Monitoring Services - Foundation Drilling - Patio Improvement, 9Edwards Avenue, Sausalito, California", letter-report prepared for Philip Woodrow, 2 pgs.

Settgast Geoengineering, Inc., May 16,2004c; "Geotechnical Evaluation - Drilled Bulkhead Downslope from Dwelling and Review ofBulkhead Height, 9 Edwards Avenue, Sausalito, California", letter-report prepared for Philip Woodrow, 3 pgs w/photos.

U, S. Geological Survey, 1956 (Photorevised 1968 & 1973); "San Francisco North, Calif." 714 Minute Quadrangle, map. Scale 1:24,000(1" = 2,000'), 1 sheet.

Rev. 0July 3,2008 Issued for Revision to PermitSheet 5 of 5

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

JOSHUAS. R:t))Q}\| + COMPANY in'tM'irffi-'ry iH'l^tTTYFf"''STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS -^glMgETy yb&TlON

LAWRENCE B. KARPCONSULTING ENGINEER

100 IRES MESASORINDA. CALIFORNIA 94563

(925) 264 1222-mtMrnc?


FAX (510) 548-1885(510)548-1882

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

Wovwyt zi nw mQ

ttummw

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

OMLBBT-B:sJmur —

I=^:wiur —Ttte 2O\Q

b'(J,gS'(2,9)( 12") - l'l -v,_ Afcfl. _ fao)

" wpi< '

zdzmttty

-£"3 0 ilo (o>bZ%&BS[. n.61 - 0.74?

StiiE-SEStC:-

Ep.Wt ' ^ofetXl)^ 223_3 J^

—y-py—

" 45 *(0SZl)¦-' L> A1 Tlfr—

jgLu-' "-

'Hniti

11

^jUIA

<^Z2 v S"-2..

Fr- Mt •*: ¦

M: ~zziS:;; ^t^lC• ——ff.QS^ ?2 ^ tfVl

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

TtoJ$tl?AT\V1!LmmaMzMiM&ie

PBstatf vsmca acpe.-

wmiema

WVWrW*#Tjoryr^RC TJLTSK&'HelZ

pptltl 19 ± f it (2<?.Z«) S ^-YT-g-

M/J! KfeBECT'^l Ig/Ug

jri^'WRS! ^Jag:<f.glY:i

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

Peter Kleinbrodt

From:

Sent:To:Cc:

Subject:

Todd Teachout <[email protected]>

Wednesday, October 15, 2008 9:02 AML. B. Karp

Jeremy Graves; Sal LucidoRE: Woodrow's Retaining Wall, 9 Edwards: Permit. Revision

Hi Mr. Karp:

Mr. Woodrow has been working on this matter since 2004. He has an outstanding Planning Commission design reviewand variance application linked to the wall that your plan impacts. Your plan may enable'him to return to the PlanningCommission to decide on his planning application request.

Based on my conversation with Mr. Lucido of the Phillips Group, your analysis and solution is creative and technicallyrigorous. Nonetheless there are other considerations that also weigh into the matter. The Planning Commission willneed to consider structural, geotechnical, visual among other issues to determine if the necessary findings can be madeto approve the application request. I am working with the Planning staff, yourself, Mr. Woodrow, arid our plan checkingconsultants to advance Mr. Woodrow's application. I will defer to the Community Development Department staffregarding issuing building permit without completing the outstanding zoning entitlement request.

Todd Teachout$>**?>*>City EngineerCity of Sausalito420 Litho Street JUL I) 8 2011Sausalito, CA 94965(415) 289-4111 (voice)(415) 339-2256 (fax)

IMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTCi'lYOrSAUHAUro

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

THEPHILLIPSGROUP

Plan Review

and Building Code

Consultants

10D Stony Point Road

Suite 290

Santa Rosa, CA 95401

Tel. 707-527-8500

Tel. 800-953-8585

Fax 707-527-0338

wvw.phlllipsgroup.com

Building Partnerships That Work

January 26,2009

Mr. Todd Teachout, City EngineerCity of Sausalito420 Litho StreetSausalito, CA 94965

t- e \ Ti-1 V ' '~1 ¦¦

JUL 0 3 .2014

Application #: A10666SUBJECT: TPG #: 070166Project: Woodrow Residence Patio Improvement

Address: 9 Edwards AvenuePlanning File: DR/VA 04-038

Based on our recent phone conversations and the additional information emailed to us, itis our understanding that the City seeks our opinion as to the adequacy of Mr. Karp'sproposed retrofit design of the previously constructed patio retaining walls, as it pertainsto moving the Design Review and Variance Application process forward. Accordingly,we offer the following observations.

We reviewed the report dated June 5,2008 by Lawrence Kafp (received via Email1/20/09) and generally concur with the findings therein. The retrofit design datedSeptember 16, 2008, which we previously reviewed in September 2008, generally followsthe June report findings. Based on our conversations with Mr. Karp, we judge thatproposed design is a reasonable solution based on generally accepted engineering practiceand addresses the issues we previously raised concerning the rear patio retaining walls.

Please note, that although we concur with the proposed solution for the rear retaining wallretrofit, we were unable to determine whether the other retaining walls shown on theoriginal plan submittal that shared many of the same technical engineering concerns asthe rear patio walls were addressed (our comment number 2). Accordingly, this lettershould not be construed as an approval of the permit plans originally submitted.

If you have any questions, please Email or call me at (707) 527-8500 or (800) 953-8585.

THE PHILLIPS GROUP

Salvatore A. Lucido, P.E.

Plan Review Manager

cc: Heidi Bums, Planner

F:\PCU_0tters\2OO7\O7O166.1 .dooItem 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

January 26, 2009Mr. Todd TeachoutCity of SausalitoPage 2 of 2

THEPHILLIPSGROUP

RFFERENCES

On January 20,2009, we received the following document via Email:1. Report RE: DR/VA 04-038 by Lawrence B. Karp dated June 5,200 .

~ « *uic onns wp rpreived the following additional document from the City:0n f'71m of0S8^M wal. CoiotioadatedT-S-OSbyLaw^ceKan,

On August 1,2007, we received the following document from the City:3. Staff Report for DR/VA 04-038 dated 12-7-05

revised 12/1/03 and 11/1/04)5. A copy of a one

Todd Teachout

enclosure^as foUows^^ p^g (presumably the set noted above)

b. (1) 2-page Hydrology/Hydraulic Analysis by JL Engmeermg dated 10-5-c (1) 2-page Wall Analysis by JL Engineering dated 11-27-06d. (1) 2-page geotechnical observation report by Geoengineenng, Inc. da e

6A copy rfthfimpection record for 9 Edwards under Permit A-10666 that wasissued 2/5/04 to "Remove and replace retaining wall" with the last entry erngthe stop work order dated 3/29/04 for constructing a wall exceeding; 6> 1^elght

7A minted copy of our 11-10-04 Email, which was presumably faxed to JL

Fneineering at (415) 457-2517 on 11-10-04 at 4:42 pm.8A copy of a one-page letter from Todd Teachout, City Engmeer, to Phillip

Woodrow at 9 Edwards dated 1/12/06 regarding additional information aboutDR/VA 04-038 and APN 065-302-74. (The letter references a PlanningCommission Action item on December 7,2005 regarding as-built grades,drainage concerns, and "comments from The Phillips Group attache 0

9. A copy of an Email from Otto Bertolero to Todd Teachout regarding the

drainage review, sent 4/9/07 at 8.52 am.

^ . . i11-10-04 were based on the following:(Sheets 1 & 2 by JX. Engbeermg) dated 11-7-03, approved 2-5-04

,,dated 1-15-04, approved 2-5-04 ^previously reviewed by TPG]j o _

12. Calculations by Buel Engineering dated 8-24-0413 Peer review by Fulcrum Structural Engineering (M. Hicks, S.E. 408 )14. Geotechnical Evaluation letter by Setgast dated 5-l<W>415 Letter by J.L. Engineering dated 11-3-04 (Jay Hallberg, RCE )16'. As-Built Plans by J.L. Engineering dated 11-1-04

F:\PC\Letters\2007\070166.1 .doo Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

Sausalito Planning CommissionWednesday, July 16, 2014

Planning Commission Comments regardingWoodrow Retaining Wall IES/MND

9 Edwards Avenue

Revised: August 4, 2014

1.Page 7 under Site Location: Where it says, "This project site is composedof..." replace the word "composed" with "comprised."

2.Page 7 at the bottom: Makes reference to removal of protected tree, but thereare not mitigation measures concerning that tree removal, there or elsewhere.

3.Page 17: It says, "The impact to the quality of the site and its surroundings isless than significant," even though the 10' concrete retaining wall modified thevisual character of the site and surroundings. Staff should reconsider thatstatement, because the neighbor is now facing a 10' wall and not the 6' wallinitially approved, and also because the report acknowledges that the wallappears larger and more massive when viewed from 1 Edwards.

4.Page 25: It says, "Although implementation of the proposed improvementswould result in emissions of air pollutants." It needs to be clarified that it refersto pollutants emitted during construction, or if not during construction, it needsto clarify what it does refer to.

5.Page 29 at the top: Makes reference to removal of a protected tree, "RequiredPlanning Commission approval of retroactive Tree Permit," however, there isno mitigation measure concerning a replacement tree. If no mitigation measureis proposed due to the fact that the root ball of the tree that was removed haddeteriorated and the tree was dying, it should be stated.

6.The Planning Commission has been given a number of conflicting engineeringreports. Not all of those reports are now summarized in the Geology and Soilssection. All of the reports need to be briefly summarized with some attempt atreconciliation of the reports. The current report summarizes several of thereports and goes into mitigation measures without a Staff conclusion that this isthe appropriate approach and these mitigation measures are adequate.

7.Page 33 and 34: It says, "Kleinfelder concluded that Karp's retrofit calculationsassume that the wall is fully restrained at the top of the bedrock. Colluvialdeposits are subject to creep and can be prone to failure (landsliding),particularly on steep slopes when saturated." It is confusing and unclearwhether it had been concluded that the wall was fully restrained at the top ofthe bedrock.

1Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

8.Page 34: It says, "The City of Sausalito Public Works Director and CityEngineer concur with Karp's finding that chert bedrock is located beneath theretaining wall." However, in his report Karp said, "If the chert is stable," leadingto the question of how will the chert be addressed if upon hand boring it isfound that it is not as stable as the initial borings supposed? There is nomention of what further mitigation measures would be taken if the chert isfound to be unstable.

9.The environmental document needs to address the possibility that the PlanningCommission will deny the application for a 10' wall and instead approve a 6'wall, as initially submitted. It needs to be ensured that the document addressesboth possible scenarios.

10.Page 33 at the top: Discusses a Factor of Safety of 1.5 as required by theCalifornia Building Code. The environmental document states the as-built wallprovides a Factor of Safety of 1.3, while another engineering report states theas-built wall provides a factor of safety of 1.62. The document should addressthat allegation and conclude that it is 1.3, or whatever it is, and that it has to be1.5 to ensure the document is comprehensive.

11.Page 44: References increasing impervious surface area to 69%. Confirmationthat that is within code needs to be provided, perhaps just a sentence.

12.Page 49: Discusses, "Minimal increase of noise levels from constructionactivities on the project site." It is assumed that is because page 39 says, "Theconstruction operations would be limited to hand tool equipment," but if that isnot the case it is questionable whether excavation into bedrock results in aminimal increase of noise levels. The environmental document needs to beclear and accurate about what the possible construction impacts would be.

\\ASTROBOY\data\CDD\PROJECTS - ADDRESS\E\Edwards ^Environmental Review\[ES-MND\Final Version IES-MND\PCcomments 8-4-2014.doc

2Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

APPENDIX III

MITIGATION MONITORING ANDREPORTING PROGRAM

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

> I

^ b

l)

a £

.9 P

h.&

w)

£ *

p4

o^ C

DOH

^Td

8 £3O

03

^ £f• i-H

o

o<N

cu -m

$ 8

1do0O• tH

bfi

o a

K<

3 o

^

w E

^u

<ucd

' ^ -dm

JE

h d

T?

s a

^o

~<1 !3

13 <$Z

<D0)

Uw

O O

U

c3O

!Dcr

0) «

a ^

5 %.h

§

cj rrt

tJ) u

w a

cda

a,p

cdbO

t+H

• i-H

^ a

Oi

<nbb

<uH

<&

Se2^

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155

IBofl

CO

a0'•§ a

1¦§a ^

a>

u

B

-a-

0ZHH

s2

6Do^

•-h>

5S

hCJ

o0

is«

35^

-io

ooHoHH

H

oP3Ooo£flow

o

a0sc¦o1So¦3(Uovo

S-Ho<ua•i-hd3W£•i-ho

as s^ s

^ -o

« §

VO

^vo

^3

s ^

•~h

K

si

<^>

CoSSC

^C

LS |

ftj fe;ostik

<N^ a

<ae

-o1

"ts50o

g¦«

<a¦s£co-O

^St

F ^

-P

^ r

<3

ts.&

5?

SSt

53

IfciOnSi

72

5^sf

IsSQSH

Co^ o

5^ R

."

RIo

^<3

5^^

53*s

:cy

^s

;ts

oQ

)

&s

^o

^ u

-sQ.Si

•&0>}1~

S

K W

5<*25SO§&tu

« ^>

0Q

^ <

3'—a<>3

O"««

a -

«K

•«

CO

-SR

-S IRa-R

f -to

"§ _

& g

RvO

^)RIfci<3 -,0'S-RO•40o^>to

o? ^

&QR

So

ss

to C

U•SCR

O^ 0

"Stsao-s;

o(u^Sa•S§«o I>

0e?S"

-SJkIs^,•K

j

s&0

-£2

^^ ¦w

^ S

R O

?<. '»^»^ C

ls, I

•s w•l-

b5^

.R.1 §•§"a

^S

^«

.KR

"*

•2 's

o«

.K§ ^8-18 J5v

^ RX

^

"a b

eR

R3 y

^ s««,

&.«

£^ 5

>

<*>-R

Q•Ki

^3 O

ii ^-2

SR

1 „

g fw

p^ v

o^3

^^•g

Xj *

-'B

, ^

«§. "^

s" R<3

"«Ra^3•13s>s^5S

50•S

Ci

>r1

<abOV

Rw''*4<a^ts~

Q"«5J<3

O"Q

^R

r<3 -52

§ ^

6531 ^

o•sSP-RoR

bORRR&"«RS

1¦SRO'•Cs§

*13 U

<u01^&

"5

t3(a

S¦s

Q

01

R

"?.5?5SU

- S>

C3 5>

js F

^to1

~R

50R ^3

R" ^

•^ o

0 s

50 ^

•s ^

^ §

« -

sa ^

U. £

>2

R O

'Sfl.S

§ «N—

^a ^

•2

oR

65

R"S

50jS^5

0"S

-K2 ^

ft) 50

So ^

53Is.1

-i «^ g

Ie*->«»

pRK—c-h

^

"Ki

goROO ^

R ¦«

-RBy

1.^

e o

R 5

0.0

'S•j-4

^

O ^

5^ i-tj

Ao"S O

J

6i) u

co

o

.. B

p

a3 3

-S2

^ ^

^ (D

TO

< c

; v

I -£

¦§H

-» O

o ^

5-

a><D

.a(50P

iW-<-»

o^k

2 ?

sR

^ ^

•*<

.o

^1

RU

^.O

nR

-R•R

^ Q

.1C^ Z

Ie^ §^S

J "5SIR

fv*

§^ :«

's^

"3«.ft) R

¦HS

o~

S u

Ww

>i

§ fcR2,o"ROI

ft) ^ *3

R ~

^ 5

~R

s "

S ^

ca

^ R

"P "p

s .0

s«

K? «

«

P «

u o

s^01-

« 8

a>

P -R

ft) ^

a §

§ ^3s ^

Sd ^

a "5

3R

50

J? £

^ o

^ cl

>0 ^

&Q

cq a

R ^s

•2 ft)

R S

?¦R

ft)ft)«>.sio

3R•2

.1S

"rl<0

S Jg

^^ t?

S! ^**>«»f^

w OR**>^» r-»

§ «

h5

§ •§

^^ •' g

0R

g "a

o §

3 R

•« S

, a

.§) ^

oJ<

^ C

^3

R vP

o T

^

.R

^>

0 Q

M J

-2 -2

^)

65 ^ ^

^3

s*

5J §R

R.0

R «

•a S

"2

2 -s

I§

1^

& -S

^ft) ^

f s^

C\i

z<_JQ

_OZHtr001UJmQ<Oztr.0HZ02zoI-<oh;_1_J<o2Z<HUJtr5occQ00£

Item 5A - Attach 8 02-10-15 of 155