Jim Dasturs recommendation regarding the Balboa Island seawall.

The following is a letter sent to the Tidelands Management Committee from Jim Dastur.  When Jim talks I listen:

Dear Tidelands Management Committee:

Ever since the news broke, almost 3 years ago, about a plan to possibly spend upwards of $70,000,000 for new sea walls for Balboa Island, I have been trying to understand the need for and the details behind this evolving proposal. To the extent that I have knowledge of and experience in marine construction and engineering cost estimates, I have tried to put in my two cents worth. I am truly thankful to City Council members for having given me the opportunity to participate through my appointment to the Citizen's Advisory Panel to the Tidelands Management Committee.(TMC)

A lot of new, useful information has been provided by City staff during the last 3 meetings of TMC. I find it difficult to respond to facts and figures presented at the meeting without taking the time to understand and digest them over a period of time. My current understanding of the situation, along with my personal/professional opinion, for what it is worth, is as follows:

1. Balboa Island is protected from sea erosion and tidal flooding by a concrete wall, owned and maintained by the City. The total length of the wall is approximately 13,200 feet (+/-). The elevation of the top of the wall varies from a high of 9.1' to a low of 7.7'. 

2. Of the 13,200 feet of wall, about 3,800 feet (along the Grand Canal and the West end of the big island) has

deteriorated to the extent that it would be prudent to replace it within the next 5 to 7 years. There is no impending emergency to replace this section of the wall immediately, although planning, engineering and permitting needs to be addressed and is being addressed currently. The remaining 9,400 feet of wall has at least 20 to 25 years of useful life left, with normal routine maintenance. (This conclusion was supported by the City's consultant at one of the TMC meetings) With competing claims for scarce tax dollars, it would be a non-starter to consider any replacement of this section of the wall, any time soon.

3. There is general consensus that the sea level has risen in the past 20 years and is continuing to rise. The top elevation of 7.7' for a significant portion of the existing sea wall poses a present and imminent danger of swamping the island during a king tide combined with an ocean surge and a heavy rain storm. The probability of this happening may be small, but the consequences would be catastrophic. This issue needs to be addressed on an expedited basis.

4. The political football as to who should pay for any or all of the costs associated with these issues is finally being kicked around. The suggestion that Balboa Island property owners be required to pick up a substantial portion of the costs associated with sea walls, further muddies the already murky waters.

5. Current thinking and planning is for the City to put all issues - the entire 13,200 feet of the sea walls, ferry terminal & fuel dock, bridge retrofits, etc. - into one package for permitting and financing; this leads to the daunting $72,000,000 number. It also forces a design decision for 75% of the wall that does not need to be made for the next 25 years.

Based on the above premises, I would like to put forth these ideas for your consideration.

A.  As a first order of business, engineer and construct a cap addition to the 9,400 feet of wall that has a remaining life expectancy of 25 years, so that the top elevation is 9'. This can be accomplished along the lines of the cap addition done to the Little Island's South Bay Front. This would not entail any extraneous issues such as access to private docks and the beach, permitting for encroachment, ADA issues, home-owner views, etc. The total cost associated with this, per the City's estimate of $250 - $300 per foot would be $2.4 to $2.8 million. The cost for this should be borne by the City. Do not have this issue tied up with planning or permitting for a new wall.

     The reason for opting for a height limit of elevation 9.0 is that this 9,400 feet long wall will be replaced at some date in the distant future. At that time, we will have a better understanding of how fast the sea is rising as well as what is being done holistically about rising sea level for the rest of the inner harbor.

B.  Proceed cautiously with the planning, engineering and permitting of the 3,400 feet of new wall. The total cost associated with this, per the City's estimate of $3,800 - $4,000 per foot (I believe this number already has contingencies built into it and does not need additional contingency on top of that) would be $14.4 to $15.2 million. Since this is a new wall and expected to serve for the next 75 to 100 years, the preferred top elevation should be 10'. The City should be able to find the money, from the tidelands fund and supplemented by the General Fund, to get this done over the next 5 to 7 years.

C. Its is premature and counter-productive to reconfigure the entire ferry landing for future high tides. Re-grading the sidewalk and Agate street to provide protection up to elevation 9' can be accomplished at minimal cost out of the General Fund. The same applies to retrofitting of bridges.

The above course of action reduces the monumental $72,000,000 problem to a more manageable $15,000,000 to $20,000,000 problem that addresses issues for the next 20 to 25 years while we continue to look for holistic solutions for the entire harbor, for the future beyond.

I am available to meet with anyone of you if you are so inclined, to discuss my views in detail.

Thank you for your indulgence in reading this presentation.

Jim Dastur