tv BOS Replay Govt Audits and Oversight 2217 SFGTV February 6, 2017 9:00pm-12:01am PST
february 2, 2017, meeting of government did it and oversight committee. we have >>supervisor aaron peskin: and >>supervisor london breed:. i would like to recognize leo daisies and from sfgovtv.org. they provide transcripts to the public. madam chair, would you like to make any announcements? >> yes, please silence all cell phones and any copies of your speech should be submitted to the clerk. thank you, madam clerk. i have acknowledged all in today's meeting. please call item 1. >>clerk: hearing on existing building standards in seismic safety zones, including infill and waterfront neighborhoods; and requesting the department of
building inspection to report . >>supervisor jane kim: thank you, this item is to continue to discuss the structural safety concerns at 301 mission street. will for clarification purposes, today's hearing is related to file no. 161299, a motion passed by the board to issue a subpoena for professor jack moiler. a structural engineer who designed the 301 mission as a third party in 2006. i understand that madam clerk. supervisor peskin would you like to make a comment. >>supervisor aaron peskin: this is a series of hearings not only
with regard to 301 but the issue of large buildings and safety standards particularly in the downtown core where we have a lot of party that are bay lands. i am very pleased that professor maile has joined us today and we have a number of questions that we are seeking to ask him in his role as one of the peer reviewers as well as the peer reviewer of a similar project that was not built at 80 natoma which was the issue of this body. after the oath is administered i have questions that are meant to be friendly. we are trying to figure out the bottom of this as to who
knew what and when. >> thank you. we'll bring up the clerk of the board to administer the oath. >> mr. maile, please stand at the podium. prepare by raising your right hand and say i do when i finish the oath. >> you do solemnly state that the testimony you are giving here in the city of san francisco shall be the truth and nothing but the truth. >> i do. >> >>supervisor jane kim: >>supervisor aaron peskin: let me say that professor maile is in the highest regard and i know director tom speaks highly of
mr. maile and have heard from others in the industry that mr. maile is highly regarded. i want to start with an introduction. if you would give us a little bit of your background as to your qualifications and educational experience, awards, just a a little bit of your bona fided. >> sure. my name is jack maile. my main position as a structural engineer at university in california. i am interested not only in teaching and research but development issues and divine guidance and as a consequence of that have been involved in developing some design guidelines that are affirm widely used in tall buildings
today. i served on several panels related to tall buildings in this city as well as other cities. i'm currently the chair of the american constitute building code committee which involves the national standards for buildings of all reinforced concrete. as to awards, i don't want to go on too long about things. but locally i have been involved with the structural engineers association of northern california where i was designated some years ago as an honorary member. i'm also affiliated of course with the statewide structural engineer's association where i was elected to category of fellow. and i'm a member of the national academy of engineering. >> and a license state
structural engineer? >> i'm a licensed state civil engineer. the structural engineer license is one that requires and additional examination and qualifying years of structural engineering practice under a registered and structural engineer. because i'm a professor at uc berkeley, i don't qualify for that examination. i never took that exam. >> thank you for your background. as you indicated you have been a peer reviewer in san francisco and other locals. and at a certain point prior to the 301 mission project which of course is the subject of great interest and concern in so far as it is undeniably not performing as to the specifications that were setforth, but prior to the 301 mission street project, you were a peer reviewer on the 80
natoma project. i wanted to as start with a little bit of background for our edification. how does a peer review work, where is the client, where does the product go and what is your responsibility. if you want to give us your gala of the peer review. >> because peer review has developed over the years and formalized in ab 282 and ab 083 in the city and county of san francisco. >> our administrative bull tins from the department of buildings inspection.
>> going back to 80 natoma and the mission project that was pretty early in the development of formal base design for tall buildings. when i say performance based design, what i mean is that the design involves the structural system or a kind of material or a new configuration of the materials that is different from what is prescribed in the building code. so the design in such a case is done by a more advanced structural analysis in foundation analysis sometimes for the building. and the we can go back to the example of this building which is today which is one of the earliest in san francisco which the design or the redesign and retrofit of this building is seismic
isolate ors. those kind of developments were covered by the building code but not in depth that enabled the building department to conduct a review without outside expertise. the same applies to the powers going back to 80 natoma not including 301 mission, but many other high rise towers are being performed by this design procedure in which the analysis are outside the prescribed methods of the building code. the city typically will bring in a seismic peer review panel. the panel usually has a scope of work that is restricted to seismic design because that's where the main difference
with the prescriptive code revisions lies. it at times will also include design for wind because of the similarities between wind force and seismic force in terms of what systems are resisting those actions. but the scope is usually a seismic scope. and in current practice, the peer reviews are generally structured with a chairperson. the chairperson i think is required in this city to be practicing and registered structural engineer. there is typically a geotechnical engineer or engineer with seismology background who is skilled in issues related to the foundation design. geotechnical parameters, earthquake ground motion. and then there is generally an academic who is brought in. the academic is not so much
to bring an academic perspective, but to bring to bear the specialized knowledge that might be required to understand the design of a particular building. so, i might be brought in as an academic reviewer or as a reviewer are academic background as my related expertise in concrete construction. in steel, someone might be brought in with a structural steel kind of background. and the review is is in the city and county of san francisco. let's step back, you had many questions in your question. one of the questions was how is the peer review panel assembled. it's been done in various ways. i have never been part of the
assembly process. i think in the past there is very often been discussions among the building department, the structural engineer of record and perhaps the developer. and i think such discussions are not inappropriate. i think they are appropriate because the structural engineer of record has the best knowledge of going into the project of what are the special conditions that have to be addressed in this peer review. and also the peer reviewers and the structural engineer of record have to work extensively over a period of 6-12 months typically in the review process. so it's good that they have some rapport in doing the work. but eventually the city makes the final decision. the building department makes the decision who the reviewers should be. each of the reviewers are contacted. do you have time available and do you have time to spend
on this activity and do you have a related context to this project. that is the more recent question. in this city, the practice has been that the individual peer reviewers write a proposal to the developer, and the developer in some cases will take that proposal and simply sign it and date it and say approved. in other cases, depending on the corporate structure of the developer, they may have attorneys that rewrite everything and it coming back in some different form. so the process varies. but, i think invariably in the past, the contract has been between the individual peer reviewers and the developer. the responsibility for
working is between generally it's between the peer reviewers and the engineer of record and commonly involve the representative of the department of building and safety in san francisco to review various details. we go through what a typical review entails. but invariably each project has special conditions that the peer reviewers have the skills identified to ask questions to identify modifications, to check spot some of the details the engineer is proposing and make changes in the design because the design isn't suitable for the performance intent. the performance responsibility is a very serious one. i know i take it very seriously. and the reporting is strictly
to the department of building department of san francisco. all responsibilities for writing letters for reporting go to the representative of the building department. it's really a safety first kind of mentality. although the developer maybe paying compensated for the time spent and a lot of the work is between the peer review panel and the structural engineer of record. the responsibility is really the city of san francisco. the reporting is done there and that's where my allegiance has always been except when the developer decides to take his
or her independent in-house peer review and the report goes back to the developer. >> in the case of 80 natoma, what was the relationship? >> with 80 natoma, it was one of the first of the high rise performance based designs to come into this city that utilized what we would call a hoer only, all the seismic resistance is contained in the elevator hoer. no moment frame. when they consider the height, that falls out of the prescription for the building code and the building department would invoke a peer review. 80 natoma was the first of
those. so 80 natoma was a 3-person review panel. i was one of the members. it was way early in the process. i was the chair. >> you were the chair which was interesting because you were not a licensed structural but playing the role of the academic but you were the chair? >> right, back then the rule to be a structural engineer wasn't in print anywhere. so i served as a chair in more than one such panel, but in the last 10 years i have not chaired a single peer review panel anywhere and that's fine with me. so there was a practicing structural engineer, license structural engineer who was a member of the peer review panel, and there is a geotechnical engineer who was also involved with that panel.
we were hired by, i think the developer was jack myers. >> that is correct. >> i haven't heard the name in a while, but he was the developer in that case. so i presume our contract was through him and the maintenance of record was clav chic and ron was the -- i don't remember the plan checker. >> the plan checker was tom huey. >> quite possible. that's how that project was set up. i can give my own version of the firsthand history of what happened there. >> going back to the role of
educators in peer reviewers, back to the case, the peer reviewers were paid by the developers, but in the case of 80 natoma, your duty, i don't want to put words in your mouth was related to the department of building and safety even though your client was the developer? >> yes. the duty is really to the city, but the reporting line was the building department, yes. >> and then relative to the findings that happened in the 80 natoma case relative to a concrete building albeit without moment frames, but within a similarly situated geotechnical area, the substraight is very very similar, but a few hundred feet away,
what was the peer review panel's determination? >> the peer review panel was, it's a complicated logic determination. it's not a thumbs up or thumbs down. it's a very gold project. the peer review was satisfied with the design of this project. >> let's talk about the history. >> okay. >> i don't know, supervisor peskin if you saw the exhibits that i brought in today. >> the reason we started late is because they were copied and as i have been trying to speak i have been looking at them.
but yes, we have them. >> these are all of my documents of these projects. they are fairly old projects so the number of documents is limited. but for ease of reference, i put a little exhibit number on the first page of each of these. one of them is jpn, my initials. >> yes, that is the letter from dbi to you, as long as mr. donny was part of that project. before mr. ladd and mit came involved. >> mr. vadoni became involved from the very beginning. i will point out some things of this letter in a moment. the project was under review. it being the first of these
tall core only reviews. there was a lot of time spent going through the details of how the engineers were handling the design of the reinforced concrete system. there was as well although i am not an expert in geotechnical engineering. i recall that shaul vedanta was also with the text graphic issues early in those days. as i recall, they expected settlement in this building from the geotechnical engineers who had written a report based on this was that the expected long-term settlement was on the order of 5 inches. my understanding
was that vadity was on the peer review panel. i don't want to put words in his mouth. just as we ended the peer review process something remarkable happened. nothing like this has happened since i have been involved. if you turn to page 10, and look at what is contained here. ken harrington is the city writing to verdana at berkeley saying we need another independent review because we have received these 15 reports. and the remarkable thing about this is that report no. 1 is the report of the technical engineering firm. there is a
report no. 2 from me on behalf of the peer review panel. on april 2nd. and then may 9, may 12, may 14, may 25, may 31, june 2nd, june 3rd, june 11th, june 14th, june 17th, june 24th. there is a series of 13 reports that came in from geotechnical engineers. i think they are all geotechnical engineers which, of course, told me something strange and different was going on with this project from anything that i have ever reviewed before because we never saw such interest. somebody has hired all of these people, these experts, recognized experts to write reports. and i think the report that has been noted previously is one from
professor whittle from mit, a recognized expert in geotechnical experience and also a professor ladd had written an independent report as well and had claimed the expected settlement was not 5 inches but 11 inches. of course everyone was concerned including the panel. we asked shaw verdani to review the technical reviews of the project. i thought it was reports both by ladd and whittle which were very similar. to find out the source of the discrepancy five verses 11 inches. shau went out and looked at the detail of the two sets of
reports with different results. as i recall he cited two main sources of the discrepancy. the first one is a little complicated to explain, but if a soil is precompressed let's say by an over lying ice sheet which doesn't happen here, or by over lying soil sometime in the geo logic past. that soil is decreased and it compresses to a certain point with equilibrium of the soil and due to a process, that soil might be removed. when a new building is built on such a soil deposit, that soil deposit is initially very stiff until you get the
previous pressures of the over pressures burden has been and then it gets pressed very significantly. so one of the whittle reports is that one had assumed one precompression ratio and the other one a slight different one. >> it was minor but a.4 or 5. relatively minor change. the other was the assumed weight of the building. and according to shau verdani and we verified the same in the peer review panel. the report by andrew whittle used the percent of the
building by 25 or greater. i'm not presuming that for mr. whittle, i presume someone gave him the weight. the conclusion of our peer review panel was that the weight used in mr. whittle's report was about 25% too high. shau verdani documented that in this report. i presume it's report no. 15 listed here. with that information at hand, the peer review panel, excuse me, backing up. shau's conclusion as i recall it was the prospective settlement was about the right number when you had the correct building weight in there. and so, again our peer review panel was on the verge of again approving the design, and
that's when all of these series of meetings began to be called at the building department. the building department invoked, is it called the sunshine law or sunshine clause, that i think it requires all the meetings to be publicly announced 24 hours ahead of time and allows for the public to come and speak, and we suddenly found ourselves having peer review meetings that instead of being the three peer review ers and the engineers representatives and the building department's representative included now geotechnical engineers, tunnelling experts, many attorneys and the general public. the meetings were very
interesting and i was required to chair those things. i was ill equipped. those meetings went for a short while. almost finish. >> this is summer of 2004, is that what we are talking about? >> yes. >> please proceed. >> i think the peer review work on this project was picked off in january of 2004. and so this had run its course sort of about 5-6 months review process when everything blew up. and what seems to have been at issue was that the transbay transit center was planning the transit center. this was the early days of the transit center so we were
not aware of any of the details that that was going to be, but there was a train tunnel there was a train tunnel alignment that was going to be in the front of this building. the concern was if the building was built with the foundation system that it had, that one of several things had to happen. either the train tunnel alignment had to be changed which i think tjpa wasn't keen on that, this is just speculation part of it. the tunnel could be reconstructed. i don't know if the planners were far along to know to do
that. the soil where the tunnel was located could have been treated in such a way that the tunnel could be constructed without dewatering the site. like grout injection or excavation and replacing with something else, but it would probably be some injection system. or the tunnel replacement would be after it was built but you would have to completely dewater the site. there has been a lot of discussion about dewatering such an effect. if the tunnel is dewatered, then the settlement in the building would accelerate and that would cause problems probably for the building as well as for the
tunnel. right about the time that that came to light and we brought in tunnelling experts as part of the peer review panel and had a few meetings with them, sometime right around then through the process of eminent domain somebody acquired the site from jack myers. i was instructed to write to the sort that at some point it was compromised. i don't remember exactly the details of that letter. >> your instruction in that was mr. myers or the city and county of san francisco. >> it was the city and county of san francisco. it was let's put this thing to rest.
the property has been acquired. the belief of the peer review panel was that it was designed to construction. my recollection back then is the interest in the city was don't put the details of what the extenuating circumstances was. >> i appreciate your candor. let's talk about the 301 mission street tower. >> give me a moment, please. >> take your time. >> okay, where shall we start? >> let me talk about a few things that i have observed and this has been very helpful and i appreciate you coming today. in terms of timing it is interesting that 80 natoma is happening
at exactly the same time that 301 mission street is happening, and i just say that because the documents that you brought and i really appreciate having a copy of what is your contract with millennium partners dated 12 july 2004, that is the letter which you brought is interestingly enough is almost exactly the same times as the letter that you referenced with the 15 exhibits which is dated july 26, 2004. it's all happening at the same time. i'm not alleging any great conspiracy between these two projects, but the fact that they are happening at the same time is interesting in so far as while it is true that 301 mission street was not a performance based,
but was, or i should say became a code prescribed project as originally envisioned by partners it probably was a performance based project but eventually by the time july 2004 comes around it's a codes prescribed project and you were retained. can you tell us how you were retained, how you were selected. this document shows that you work for millennium partners which is consistent with the way peer review is done a decade or 13 years at this point. can you give us some recollection about that? >> yes, so you've noted already the contract with millennium which i marked as jpn one. we started at the end this morning and coming back at the beginning. this contract, is one of the few documents i retained because it lays
out what my scope of work was and i like to keep those things so that it's clear. going forward and into the future of what i was designed to do and what i wasn't designed to do. this project is different from the performance based projects in that the peer review in this case was not initiated by the building department. it was to the best of my knowledge initiated by millennium partners. i recall a meeting with the representative from millennium partners very early on. a guy name scott patterson, the guy who signed this. and his interest as expressed in the cover letter on sheet two here, his interest was for me to do an internal review to
ensure that the structural system being selected would be suitable and that if there was a peer review that came along later on, a formal one by the city, that most of the questions would be dealt with already. it would be a clean building. he was concerned as most developers would likely be that the project move forward in a timely fashion because the market is what the market is and i think the market was ready for that tower at that time. and so i was brought in. i don't know how i was identified, i have suspicions but i don't know. and my job was to serve as the internal peer reviewer reporting to scott patterson what i saw and if i saw anything going on that might interfere with the project being done in a
timely fashion. so, i carried out the peer review in the same way i would do for any other project. to look at the safety of the system, to look at compliance for code revisions to the extent they apply. in this case, it was an especially tall building like some others that were being designed by performance methods to try and bring in some of the thinking and the knowledge that had been gained from those projects and bring that to bear -- on this project. so i met several times with the engineer of record and the other fellow who is working closely with him and some other engineers and some of the offices to review various things that they were
doing. they would come with questions such as well, do the provisions of the code apply? how do the drift provisions of the building code apply. what stiffness assumptions should be used for the tower. all of these kinds of questions fall within the scope that was established by this contract. jpn 1. i would like to call attention if i might to, i guess the third page and at the bottom of says scope of services. and i don't want to bore you with the list of going through all of these things. >> the methodology sequence, design, base model analysis methods, building strength stiffness, concrete rebar, allowable
displacements, drifts, go ahead. >> well you summarized it well. it was seismic design of the tower. it's all the concrete things related to the tower, and i think in a later peer review later that we can look at later on in this hearing. my review went as far as the part of the foundation that is integral with the power. so, in this building, the concrete tower which is a core wall plus moment frames is supported on a 10-foot concrete map. and my interest went as far as the concrete mats and there were specific things that the building code requires with design to a concrete matt, but there were other things that i
encouraged the structural engineers to implement because i felt they were important ultimately to the performance of the building. those are things such as, in this tower, there is a core and it's surrounded by moment frames and to get the frame in this situation is what are called core elements. if you think of my arms as the out rigers and my hands the outside columns, the out rigers grab the columns and provide extra strength and stiffness. >> at the 24th floor and yes, we are familiar with outriggers. >> we can point to them in exhibit 2. the code allows of design of
those outriggers at whatever you calculate. i convinced the engineer of record that the outrigger column should be designed to support the weight of the tower that was tributary to those columns and to the strength of the outrigger so if there is any yielding of this building during an earthquake or maybe today, i have not been in the building recently, but that the columns themselves are sufficiently strong to abstain the column of the outrigger without defraction. additionally the math foundation was designed to be sufficient to pick up that force as well as to have enough strength to develop this moment of the strength of the core itself. to my
recollection this is the first building that i was a peer reviewer for where i cajoled the structural engineer to put sheer reinforcement in the foundation matt. i'm pretty sure it was this building. the way most of these towers had been designed at that time was the foundation matt was thick enough that shear reinforcement steel was not necessary. the what we were learning at that time is that very thick structural elements have a unit shear strength is less than the shear strength of thinner elements. so if i have a foundation map that is 1 foot thick, if i make it 10 feet thick, it's not ten times as strong, maybe 2-3 times as
strong. by putting sheer reinforcement in the map it enhances the performance of the system so you get the strength back out. i think that sheer reinforcement is serving and good purpose today and the future as well. >> you said you had suspicions about why you were selected. can you share what those suspicions are? >> one of the guys working on the project was nick rodriguez. he had been taking my graduate class at uc best -- berkeley and in concrete design. he knew my background in such material and he may have suggested that i be brought in. if somebody is going to peer review the project, i would be a reasonable and knowledgeable
person for that purpose. >> but you don't have any history with mr. rhoda? >> no, that was the first i met him when i was brought into this project. >> you referred to this was an internal peer review process. what is an internal peer review process? i have never heard such a thing. >> those are my words. i made them up here. but it was simply the developer or the developer's representative wanting an extra level of reference that this project was moved forward exceptionally. i don't know if he had reasons to question anything or if there was a sense that thises the time for this project in terms of the market and just wanted to see that this project wasn't slowed down by simple things that could have been fixed going forward. he
wanted to see this happen. >> and you indicated that in the case of 80 natoma and other norn internal peer review processes, there are three peer reviewers in addition to yourself on the 301 mission street, how many other peer reviewers were there and what did they do? >> at the time this contract was written, i don't think there were any other peer reviewers. so i think the main concern that was expressed to me by scott patterson, the developer's representative was to focus on the concrete tower and make sure the structural system selected made sense and they wouldn't run into a dead-end. i think in his cover letter there is something to that effect. i have no idea whether
anybody contemplated alternative peer reviewers, additional peer reviewers, additional subject areas. it never came up. >> you are aware that this was the largest heaviest tallest concrete structure that had ever been proposed in the city and county of san francisco and actually for that matter, west of the mississippi? >> i was an aware that it was one of the bigger ones, biggest, i don't recall. >> so here is where i'm going, in so far as 80 natoma regardless of the issues having to do with transbay, there was clearly a series of, there were 13 splaet reports dealing with geotechnical issues. at 301 mission street where at first you were the only
peer reviewer and later on there was meadow brook and louie and panu, but no geo tech peer reviewer. why do you think that was? >> well, first, i don't know why that was, but why do i think as i stand here today, why do i think that was. one, i guess one needs to consider that the peer review is typically a seismic peer review. and the seismic peer review is concerned with issues related to the seismic design of the structural system, and in a typical performance based design, the seismic design also includes other parameters that have to be
incorporated into the design that would not be included in a prescriptive design. for example, it's necessary in the performance base design to develop a series of earthquake ground motion records by which to test the building. and it's also required to develop dynamic properties of the soils for analysis of how the soil respond to when subjected to the movement of the tower above it. and those kinds of things are not generally required in the prescriptive design world, and, i know the focus of much of the discussion and mainly the questions in these hearings and elsewhere has been about the settlement of millennium or the settlement that was projected for 80 natoma, but those settlement issues are things that are
happening under service loads and they are not things that are related to seismic effects. in my experience, all of the peer reviews for the tall buildings have had a scope of work very much like what is in this scope of work, except that they would also incorporate aspects of non-linear modeling of the building, the selection and scaling of ground motions and those kinds of things. but none were included here because it was a prescriptive design. the typical geotechnical engineering report for such a design is going to consider, it will typically have the sampling
of the soil and other kinds of penetration test to identify what the characteristics of the soil are. there would be a recommendation from the geotechnical report on the type of foundation to use. in some cases what are the allowable pressures to use and so forth. the main thing that was of interest for the seismic peer review of this tower was what was the geotechnical engineers assessment of what site class it was and given the site class and the location of the building, what are the seismic design parameters that have to go into the design of the system. and, those are fairly routine items that a geotechnical engineering company would recommend. this project, the peer review focused on what was going on
upstairs. >> professor, i find this to be a little bit troubling in so far as your letters are written to the department of building inspection. they are very clear, july 2005, says i have reviewed the design criteria prepared by the consulting engineers and find it acceptable for use on the project. later on, on 29, january, 2006, you say i have completed my peer review of the foundation system prepared by -- and go on to recommend that the department issue permits. but you said to me earlier, you said to this panel earlier that you were already very aware of dewatering issues. you knew that transbay was
coming as evidenced by all the interesting events of july 2004, as it related to 80 natoma, but yet you don't have any language in your letter saying that be forewarned that dewatering maybe a problem. you don't have anything in your language saying you may want the get a technical geo consultant. if you don't remember these documents, i will have staff bring them to you. do you remember a document by in situ tech in 2005 that talked about their indicator pile testing and how there was various data across the site and a number of uncertainties. was that document in your
possession, are you aware of that? >> i have heard about it recently, but i'm not aware of it from back then. and i wouldn't expect given my scope of work that this would have ever crossed my desk. >> from earlier hearings that you were not involved in, are hanson tom, from the department of building inspection relied very much on your involvement. as a matter of fact it was his representation and representation of tom huey the director of department of building inspection which he put in writing that in essence, the department of building inspection insisted on getting some level and wanted the peer review but could not
convince the geo technique ago -- geotechnicals to go along with it. why didn't you say, hey, millennium, hey city, i'm not going to take this job unless you have a real peer review panel and real geo tech peer review otherwise i cannot do my job because then you are looking at though these didn't exist, as though these friction piles are enough to support the matt. you are looking at it in total isolation, which i think that somebody in your business would say, hey, i'm not a geo tech expert, i can't do my job unless i have this other information. even if i took that job, i would probably have some to cover my behind language in my final
letter that says foundation design looks good, however, you do not have any geo tech peer review, however you have not dealt with -- panu does say in his letter, by the way, transbay is coming and i have never been asked to look at transbay, he makes that explicitly clear. you are the chair of the peer review panel a few feet away from 80 natoma, i understand times changes from 2004 to 2017 and these scripts didn't exist in those days, but you are a few of the guys a few years later the city was having
this information because we we wanted to contract with you for the reasons that i don't think had anything to do with you or anybody else that contract didn't come through. i believe ethan canceled it and my recollection that you had a great quote in the san francisco weekly that said something to the effect that "developers have a great amount of muscle and are flexing it" referencing the department. i'm not going to say this that might regard some special language. in my document you a fixed a stamp? >> i don't think so. i hesitate to interrupt. but i don't think so. >> why don't you a fix your stamp? >> it's been my process over
the years to not stamp a document. if i was designing a facility, i would use a stamp, but i don't do design work. so i avoid using my stamp. >> my engineering stamp saw ink once on a navy or air force project in the philippines. my stamp has seen ink on an envelope for students so i can tell if it was opened. but i have not used my stamp except that one time. >> we have other matters on the calendar and a number of the public who want to testify. if i can ask my staff to bring you some documents. i'm trying to understand what
these bubbles are, this around your january 29, 2006, letter on the middle brook louie letter dated january 2005, revised january 2006. do you know what those bubbles are? >> they look like the kind of bubble that you can choose in a box or on a pdf. until these similar documents got back to me in the last 2 months or so, i have not ever seen these bubbles. i don't know what they are. >> so we don't know who put those bubbles on, do you want to hazard a guess? >> well, i didn't put these
bubbles on. these are a fixed to the structural drawings. i'm not sure, but that's my understanding about these. so somewhere in the process between where they arrived at the building department and they were a fixed to those drawings is when that probably happened. but i haven't looked to see if they are the bubbles or not. >> mr. tom, you seem like the most chief member of the department of building inspection. dower want to solve the bubble mystery. >> professor maile wrote these letters to the city saying the foundation system was find and at some point based on his testimony after he wrote those letters, somebody added these bubbles that have little notes with them which
according to professor maile, he's never seen before. that so somebody else came along and added stuff to his peer reviewer, internal peer reviewer, partial peer review. ron tom, the floor is yours. >> good morning, ron tom, building inspection. i took a glance at the document the professor had and i can explain what this is. first we don't use this process for letters. we haven't used it for quite a few years, but initially because this was the start of a process with no rules and recognizes of policies and procedures in place. this was scanned into the architects and engineers drawings. it was on the structural drawings. what you have on exhibit was provided to you and it was a
copy of that portion of the drawing. >> madam chair, i'm sorry to interrupt. but can we have a copy for point of reference? >> because these appeared on a drawing by convention, the designer identifies the iterations that they go through as the drawing evolves during the course of review. so, what you are missing here as you look at it, this is called a cloud, not a bubble, but we call it a cloud. you see there is a triangle there. this is delta one. so this maybe the first of a series of several deltas that you will see in the drawing, maybe 1, 2, 3, 4, how many numbers there are, it's related to a change in the drawing of the
original format. without completely abandoning the drawing itself. so each of these deltas represent an iteration of that plan. accompanying this, you will see a margin on the drawing a chart, the chart will have a delta, 1, 2, 3, 4, it will be initials identifying who is responsible for those changes or at least globally responsible that is probably the architectural or engineer record or their staff and then a date. so you may have six deltas with 6 inches, all the same, some maybe different, but also a date associated with each delta. that's what this represents. >> so, mr. tom, it has not been what? 6 months that we've been having these hearings and you have yet or your department has yet
to produce those plans with those delta? all we got is that piece of paper and we could not see what it references and i cannot tell whether mr. maile or mr. ruda or from miller brook and louie. i can't follow your cloud into the sky, if you will. >> i can appreciate that. the copyright walls for drawings by a design professional have a protection to them. and the ability for the public to view them is not restricted, but is controlled. so you can come to our department after you made a request, waited a period of time and management produces those. it might be a micro film or
role. we have different types of media which we rely for scanning purposes. in that case, you are not allowed to bring a camera or any recording device etc but you can view them under the supervision of our staff. if you have made a request for drawings, it must be made for a manner which we have codified in our department and you have to wait a minimum of 30 days to receive the drawings. during the 30 days, a design professional who maybe still be alive that will more than likely receive that request as a licensed architect have received those several drawings which i have received while in practice and were buildings still standing and someone else wanted to do alteration work i have always received them and signed them off and
give them permission to use them. at the end of the 30 days if the person is deceased or can't reach them at some point, then we are able to produce the document for the requester to take away from our department. that's a process we have. i'm not sure what has happened here with regards to the drawings themselves being requested by your office. i would have to consult our records management decision to find out how that would work. but i'm assuming what's in place for the public was typical for anybody including the arm of a public agency. >> you mean like this supervisor? >> like the supervisor? >> we would like to come down and get to the bottom of cloud. are you familiar with business code 23.5a, mr. tom? >> perhaps you can lengthen
me on the content? >> i'm trying to figure out whether or not professor maile or for that matter any peer reviewers are required as a matter of state law to an a fix their seal when they are working on a license structural or in this case, civil engineer. >> i think the operative word for architecture for the service for instruments of design, when you render opinion for somebody else's work and not the authority or the party that produced it, it would be something that i would interpret that is not a requirement because you are rendering and opinion, but you are not the party that produced the documents of service itself. now, the documents like the drawings, the calculations, anything else that goes into the
submittal, those are required to have it sealed from the design professional. >> thank you, mr. tom. professor maile, i sincerely want to thank you for providing the documents that you provided and coming to testify in front of this panel. >> would it be possible to return back to this item that relates to the foundation permit? >> yes, sir. >> i would like to return to that because i think there has been some miss characterization of what is going on with this especially in the newspapers. as part of any peer review, the seismic peer review is typically the last thing to be done, one of the last things in the review
process, and the developers typically is trying to get the project started so that they can sell the building, get it into market, and of course one of the first things that has to be constructed in the building is the foundation. so there is always a request to an appear review panel. i think it's been in every project that i have done, a peer review for a request to write a letter related to approval of the foundation permit. and that letter is generally written as soon as, but not before, as soon as the design of the super structure, the tower has stabilized sufficiently that we know what the structure looks like. we know how big the elements are. we know what they weigh,
how many kilo pounds. we know what the strength of those elements is. i mentioned earlier the outrigger idea. when those things are known, then the structural engineer of record can size the foundation elements to be appropriate for those weights, those forces, and it's generally at that time that there is a request that comes in to write a foundation only permit letter. and, i wish i had many more words that would clarify that in this letter, but this is the interim part of this process. and, in this case, my opinion that is expressed here is that the foundation design in compliance with the building code. the building code requires that a registered engineer do an
evaluation of the foundation, carry out test, make recommendations on what the appropriate foundation elements would be. those things were done. as required by the code. >> i get that, but you as the peer reviewer, for instance, i think you just said you have not read the institute tech letter, why would you say the foundation system is okay? i understand that mr. ruda is hired to do that, but why would you do that? >> i'm writing here that the foundation design is compliant with the requirements of the code. and i'm not saying the foundation design has been reviewed by me and that i have determined that the foundation is going to be work and etc. it doesn't say that. i'm not qualified to do that.
there is an interesting development going on today in southern california. and of course southern california is a very different place, but here you question why there wouldn't be a geotechnical involved in the peer review here. today, in san francisco, a seismic peer review is done by one structural engineer, period. and i suspect that's coming as a result of pressure from developers in southern california. i'm not sure about that, but it's the common practice today to have a single structural engineer peer reviewer. and this project here, because of it's being a prescriptive design, it's not altogether surprising that there isn't a geo tech and it really wasn't my place to demand that there be one.
i was hired under a specific scope and was operating under that scope. that was the basis of my work. >> i appreciate that testimony, professor maile, and but you did say to the daily cal, "i expressed some concerns since i was working with the developer engineer, i expressed myself on that work". do you want to elaborate on that? >> supervisor, as soon as you believe any writer puts down on print, i will step down from my work and give up. >> fair response. >> colleagues, i know we have members of the public for
in the letters written to dbi. the only thing they find is the letters say they were fine. this continues to be a problem. in a report from mr. hamburger. if you look at the report, it says the foundation was safe. mr. haira characterizes the building was safe. the electrical system and they summarize that the building was safe. if you read page 7 from the city, it says these are based on whether or not the building can be stabilized and the building has not been stabilized. >> i'm going to ask you to wrap up. >> okay, i want to say that this city knew at the time
the building was being permitted that we lied between two major faults and they know there are other earthquake faults surrounding us. mr. maile didn't talk about the soil, he didn't talk about the piling going down to 80 feet. the word "bedrock" hasn't been mentioned. >> thank you very much. your time is up. you can submit your comments via writing. i'm sorry, i have to be fair to all members of the public. >> i understand that. public speaker: suing the city for conspiracy to fraud. we have a letter signed for that. >> you are done. >> your time is up and i asked you to wrap up.
i realize 2 minutes is not sufficient time. you can submit your comments to the board of supervisors. public speaker: my name is minna. thank you supervisor kim and peskin for your availability to all of us. the last time i testified before this body i asked for a rapid resolution for the descendible and life safety issues. it's clear there are serious issues with the foundation. all you have to do is look at the bloomberg record that has the horrific pictures of the state of our foundation. the building, the most recent comments is that the building is safe for the time being. what does that mean? these assurances come from the city, the mayor and from the millennium
partners and the developers. tht tantamount to the world saying come on in, you are safe. we want an independent coming in for our safety. we don't want people telling us the building is safe when it's not. thank you. >>supervisor jane kim: is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. are there any closing comments from community members? supervisor peskin? >>supervisor aaron peskin: thank you madam chair, supervisor breed. i'm more disturbed about this process. this field is really not that long and i'm not picking on professor maile. i
know the department of building inspection is trying to right this and we will have the contract with the peer reviewers, we will do the scope of work, but the way it's gone on with the developer being in charge of the peer reviewer, here we have peer review light. why the department insisted on half a loaf is disturbing to me and why they write on a letter that it complies with your code but he tells me he did not make any representations as to the geotechnical conditions. it kind of makes a mockery out of what peer review is supposed to be which is a third set of eyes on top of the developers eyes and the structural engineer and the director's eyes.
this is a third set of eyes, it looks like an mediocre process that clearly did not do on 301 mission street what it was designed to do which is to perform. with all due respect, professor maile, concrete is your specialty, and in so far as this is the heaviest building built in san francisco and as roada wrote in 2007 that the fact that it's converted from steel to concrete, it seems to me that the role of peer reviewer would sound some alarms instead of saying it complies with your code and it's fine. it's the reality. it's not fine and we don't have that
independent peer review. the department is very honest with us. they are out gunned. they don't have the expertise to model these kind of buildings and so we rely on third parties and what we are hearing from these parties is i didn't have to get a geo tech for the review, okay, maybe you should have had this on the bottom line that said, this opinion is only good as what i can look at in a vacuum without any third party geotechnical peer review. this is only as good as the fact that we know that transbay is coming and there is additional ground dewatering and we analyze it and that is given with the
opinion without that analysis. the city hides behind the peer review letter which the peer review believes it's only for the benefit of the developer, but in reality, the developer is using to justify it in front of the city and no one is responsible and now we are trying to do what's right for 24 individuals in a tough spot relative to having a building in our downtown core. i'm not one saying it's seismically safe and going to perform in a large magnitude seismic and due to his words in last sunday's chronicle, the department repeatedly said it's out gunned and don't have the expertise.
whether you said it at face value whether it's mr. maile's or mr. hamburger's report. that doesn't let me sleep at night. with that, i would like to continue to the call of the chair. >>supervisor jane kim: thank you, supervisor peskin for your words. i appreciate the hearings on this item we had on 301 mission and continue to be concerned about the approval of this project. but better understanding the linkages from the lessons learned from the 80 natoma project and how it proceeded and how the peer review project occurred for 301 mission certainly raises some questions. so looking forward to continuing discussion on this item. i want to thank the residents and homeowners on 301 mission who continue to stay engaged with
us through this process. i can imagine the anxiety that homeowners are experiencing. i do appreciate you coming here today. we have another item. so without further adieu, can we take this motion without opposition. thank you very much. madam clerk, can we hear item no. 2. >>clerk: yes. hearing on the transition plans for the units of below market rate housing pending the february 2017 termination of the sequoia equities' participation in the low income housing program; and requesting the mayor's office of housing and community development and the private owners of 737 post street, sequoia equities, to report. hearing on the transition plans for the units of below market rate housing pending the february 2017 termination of the sequoia equities' participation in the low income housing program; and requesting the mayor's office of housing and community development and the private owners of 737 post street, sequoia hearing on the transition plans for the units of below market rate housing pending the february 2017 termination of the sequoia equities' participation in the low income housing program; and requesting the mayor's office of housing and community development and the private owners of 737
post street, sequoia equities, to report. >>supervisor jane kim: thank you, madam clerk, this is a hearing by supervisor vice-chair peskin in preserving more units in developing agreements once the affordability requirements do expire. this is something that our office has worked on with two buildings in our district with south beach harbor marina as well as villages which we have both thankfully resolved and going to be maintaining long-term affordability foremost of these units that lifetime affordability for current tennants. i look forward to hearing more on this item. supervisor peskin has requested that we start with public comment before we do the presentation because many of the members did come closer to 9:30 a.m. and waited patiently. for this moment, we will take public comment on this item. so i do have some cards in front of me. i will call the first ten names. ( calling names )
public speaker: good morning, madam chair. i'm an attorney representing the owner. would this be considered public comment or should i wait until later. >> you can do public comment and i will have some questions for you later. >> okay, shall i give my comment right now? okay, well, apparently there is no legal faction or dispute that the units are exempt from this point. i think the only thing to be discussed here today is the equities and i will be very happy to do that when the time comes. >> thank you very much. >> i did call up a number of speaker cards, are none of those individuals in the room? if
you are not in the room, i will call the next set of speaker cards. please lineup on the side of the chamber so i know and it will help us run public comment. thank you very much. public speaker: thank you very much. i'm windsor of tower. i want to thank those from the tower and my church for being here to support us. twice in my lifetime i have been told that i have less than 6 months to live. through the miracle of medical advances i have beaten the prognosis and continue to fight. 10 years ago with the last miracle of medications, i have taken the opportunity of living the lifetime dream of living in san francisco. upon arriving i quickly found my life's purpose working for the human rights campaign in the historic castro district.
through this, i'm able to affect will change in our nation, cities and individuals citizens lives for striving for equality for the lgbtqi community. and being a liaison for the human rights campaign for the aids community i have been able to assist other organizations achieve goals and for safety issues and medical care and discrimination. now i find my life threatened again because of the determination of the below market rate at the tower apartments. medical benefits do not allow an income for me to afford the market rate rent in san francisco. which approximately $700 rent increases that the affect my
rent after april 1st. rent programs in the city or surrounding areas are closed or the wait list are several years long. to be able to bring my home to a market rate. >> thank you, mr. windsor. public speaker: good morning, my name is charlie roddy. i'm a previous tenant, partner of windsor. and shayne martin in apartment 315 who will be affected by this. i'm here to implore you to really take a long hard look at what's going to be happening to the 54 residents in this building. mr. windsor, particularly i
can speak directly to because of my relationship with him in the last 10 years. it's remarkable what the city has. he's a member of the castro ambassador that welcomes thousands of people to the castro in years. in many years working with him, i have had individuals come to me from across the country to speak to about the remarkable ways of the city of san francisco and which he makes a dramatic increase in the way people enjoy it. he's also here as a remarkable contribution. to lose someone like this in the city of san francisco and me personally would be a dramatic loss for the sfef city of san francisco.
i implore you to find a way for them to continue to live in these apartments. thank you. public speaker: good morning, madam chair, madam president. it's nice to say the words, madam president. my name is david perry. i have lived in san francisco for 41 years. i have the president and the cofounder for the lgbtq heroines. i'm not a politician. i'm a citizen of san francisco and in very broad terms i want to thank you for hearing us today. i don't know all the details of this legislation, but i do know that colton winds and many of the people that depend on the san francisco values are dependent upon your wisdom. not to be too dramatic, but we are living
in a time when san francisco is under attack. if san francisco does not previous the values of this city, to previous affordable housing for people like colton who have made it possible not only on the rain bow walk, but the education in our historic of castro, tens of thousands of visitors everyday come to our city to learn how we have helped most of our vulnerable citizens. then we will have failed. i'm not here to speak to the details of this legislation, but i am here to say, if we could not keep someone like colton windsor, we will fail. i came here sleeping on a couch, then a renter and now i own my own home. no one is going to kick
me out. public speaker: thank you for letting me address this issue. my name is j t lock, this is my wife amanda. my wife and i moved here 5 years ago. we are in the music community that has been in san francisco for 45 years. the original school of rock music. we were here to help music educators and one of their programs which is an all-star program which deals with a lot of teenagers from different backgrounds, ethnicity and cultures and gives them a chance to perform music. we do one show a year at the fillmore here in san francisco. this gives the children and teenagers who normally don't have an opportunity to do this a chance to enhance their music and their art. with this rent increase going up, we will not be able to afford that and will be forced out
of san francisco. they don't have a place for us. they hired us because of our skills. i'm 13 years sober and i help a lot of teens and not only to be a musician but to help them stay out of sobriety and education. this is something we are proud to do and we enjoy doing. without this program, we could not live here any longer. we could not afford to be here. we will be losing over 100 students which we have and we will be displaced. san francisco has always been the forefront of innovation whether it be technology, design, art, culture. for the record it's not going to be the innovator of this forefront of replacing
artist, teachers, communicators. i would like the rest of the nation to know that it's not going to expand the people simply for a profit. >> thank you. i'm a big fan of your program. i was excited to connect them with elementary school. thank you for your work in my district. public speaker: my name is popsky. i'm a
my daughter and i have given to society and san francisco. and i believe we have made a difference. for 10 years my daughter has worked with children with special needs. i know she made a difference in their lives, and i have worked as a legal secretary seamstress for seniors. when i became a single parent, we pay our taxes and we contribute. we love this city. we gave to it and it's been good to us. we don't want to leave. i know what corporate is saying. don't take it so personally, it's just business. wrong, it's very very personal. so i'm going to ask for myself, for my daughter and for the rest bmr tennants at 737. please reconsider your position and give us a break.
public speaker: hi, good morning. my name is amy gordon. i am with my husband caregiver. he is outside right now. he fell down the stairs. he is in tremendous stress. he would be here right now, but he's on the way to the hospital. and all his doctor is here in this city and my two children are also in school. so, i hope you consider us to stay-at-home. thank you. >> thank you for being here today.
>> hi, my name is jamie, i have been a student, a cook, a chef in this city and happy to call it home. san francisco has been the leader in north america. a drive for success, drive for innovation and for a local california produce. this place is an amazing place for anybody in the food industry from a chef to the local culinary school of academy. i went to san francisco 3 years ago to attend culinary school. i began my studies in san francisco and attended their highly respected program. this program was intense, but the purpose was to prepare us for the realities of the hospitality industry today. the unfortunate reality of my
industry is the compensation for the work is extremely low. an average cook wage is currently between $13-16 per hour. my job is only $16 per hour. with a city that is so expensive, it can be extremely difficult to live comfortably or even save money. which means many of my colleagues work multiple jobs myself included. there is not enough to live and work in this city. this allows me to live in this city to achieve my dreams and continue to the restaurant and hospitality that san francisco is famous for. with the removal of it, i will have to find a third job and look for a more affordable place
to live in. thank you for your time. >> thank you very much for your time. public speaker: hi. my name is andrea. i have lived here at this place for 4 1/2 years. i was born and raced -- raised in san francisco. my family has been here as long as i know. my family moved in the downtown and north beach area. my mother worked at the school district for 40 years and my dad was a city champion at galileo high school. my family loves this city. it is my home. i remember the ferryboat, the
'89 earthquake. and remember when south beach was a dilapidated warehouse. the city has changed so much in my short lifetime, however there is this rapid economic prosperity. the most notable issue is affordability. san francisco is known for is culture and diversity. yet this city is suffering housing crisis. my rent increases by almost $500 next month and 9 months later it will increase by another $500. basically $1,000 increase this year. i'm not a techie. i don't make six figures. just a regular middle income worker. i work as a finance analyst for 3 years.
i work for habitat for humanity and been building houses for those homeless. i'm being pushed out of my home. you have to make the residents happy. second i -- sequoia wants money. >> you can finish your sentence. >> okay, i understand that sequoia needs to make their investors happy and want money. it's my understanding that the city has made an offer. >> i meant to wrap up. >> i'm on my last sentence. do what you want to do, but let people like me live in this 737 community. >> thank you.
>> the gentleman in the front, we are going to ask you to stop applauding. public speaker: public my name is michael parker. i have lived in san francisco since 1997. i have a roommate. we have lived at post street 737 post street together ever since we have been in this city, 20 years next month. i work for a number of entities you have recognized always in this service for the betterment for the greater good in this city. i fear that unless we are helped i'm going to be homeless and i'm going to die on the streets. i'm uncomfortable with the fairly recent designation of
myself as disabled. i'm not good at asking people for things. i'm not something i want to become used to. i really need your help here. thank you for your time. >> thank you, mr. parker. public speaker: good morning. i'm don, i have lived in the city for 25 years and i live in the castro. i thank you for your public service. your job is not easy. you deal with problems daily that the city faces.. some meetings like these are very long and open dialogue and i hope you find solutions. those are huge problems but this is not one today. this is basically from right and wrong. a small group of individuals are facing the market rate
and ramp up to those market rates. the advocate for the national human rights campaign. he holds a solid commitment to civic responsibility, to the lgbtq community. if we see today as the intervention of this city and private excuse for special privileges. we ask the city to allow these people to live here. the recent decision by the owner to raise those significantly effective subjects them not only from their home but from
san francisco. please make the right decision. please do not let this happen. please let them contribute to the city i love. >> thank you for being here. public speaker: hi, my name is treata. i don't live in san francisco anymore because i have been priced out. i live in oakland. i am now being priced out. i have a small business and i provide for staff so they can contribute. i understand that sequoia is running a business. as i sat here in these chambers, this is my first time here. i am horrified and i think that you should be ashamed because
these are people. i heard from someone who is sick, i heard from someone who is a senior citizen. i heard stories that make me want to cry. like, i get this is your job everyday, but this is people's homes. people who have lived there for 17 years. seriously? even if they are late 1 month. these are people. so i came to support colton because i'm new on the rainbow honor walk and they are doing it to preserve history. i feel this is very important.. as i sat here in this room, i am horrified and as i look at the landscape and looking at san francisco suing for this
sanctuary city. sanctuary who? >> there is no applause allowed. >> i just wanted to put some heart in this discussion. what if that were your mother, what if that were your son or brother? what about you? are you going home tonight? because 6 months from now, colton might not be. i think that's my time. >> thank you very much. public speaker: good to see you. thank you all three of you for your support for public education. i'm susan, the president of the united for education in san francisco. these are moving stories, these speakers who live in that apartment complex are
the heart of san francisco and we need to keep them here. my comments will focus on don and public educators in san francisco. focus on san francisco public education, we have come here to talk about how housing is affecting the educators of san francisco. as mr. pop lisa pointed out he spends many hours with the students he loves. we have heard so many stories over the last few years. as we were coming to chambers, he told me about a coworker, dedicated person, she was a mentor for him. last summer she left for santa rosa because she couldn't afford to stay here. not only are our students moving out, but also the educators who plan to stay here. i do hope
that you will be able to continue the good work that you are doing and keep these educators and their neighbors where they currently are. thank you very much. >> hello. the director of housing rights committee. i am so sick of coming here as you are probably sick of us. i prepared a whole bunch, but as i see people coming here and beg this corporation. pinnacle is one of the largest developers in the area. they are upholding well in the bay. they can afford to let this rest. we keep that you talking
about how much affordable housing we need to build be we keep doing this on so many levels and we end up with a situation where tennants have to come and beg about how they are worthy to be in this city. long-term residents have to come out here over and over to city hall and to their landlords and to their landlord's lawyers and
>> how do we do that. one needed a paramedic in the lobby because it was too much for him. when are we going to stop this? when are we going to hold these accountable. when are we not going to lose anymore units. >> thank you. >> thank you for your advocacy and your work. we appreciate seeing you. >> thank you, supervisors for having this hearing. i want to reiterate those thoughts. steven, the attorneys of the landlord says this is about the equities. damn right it's about the equities. it's about all of these people who have brought heart wrenching stories about how they are going to lose their home in
their communities and how irreparable harm is going to be done to their lives and how this company wants to make as much money as possible. the city is trying to come up with a solution that works for people, but my understanding is that the company has blown us off and not trying to work with the tennants. it's like the city is trying to come up with a solution. right now we are asking ourselves is it about what you can get away with or about what's right, because, things are shifting really quickly in this country and you are asking what you can get away with quickly or what is right. this is san francisco, this is our first line of defense. we need to protect our tennants, we need to protect this city. thank you.
>> thank you. public speaker: hi, i'm born and raised san franciscan. i was here to speak at the urban shield comment for the finance committee. noticing the similarities between what we need to do in this age of trump where we are seeing deportations and my colleague and this new era of restaurant spent all weekend fighting deportation at the airport and making the connection between deportation and displacement and evictions in san francisco. as a born and raised san franciscan, as fred said having to come here over and over and beg for our ability to stay in this city is something that we are going to need to keep fighting and we are going to keep fighting and we urge you to find
solutions for the tenants. as you try to find solutions to prevent immigrants from being deported from this city. >> thank you. mr. robles? public speaker: good morning, committee members. i feel anger and outrage about what's happening. i want to echo what the wife of mr. cone an amy said earlier. i did speak with mr. cone an who was on his way to this committee hearing was not able to make it because of his physical condition. the stress of this ordeal is causing him a great amount of stress. the fire department was here and he'sen route right now to san
francisco general. that's the degree how an eviction situation can hurt particularly a senior. it turns his world upside down and now he's going to the hospital. we have to be with his wife so she can be with her husband. he's 74 years old. he has lived there for 70 years. i keep talking about these unethical people, unethical business. every time the landlord says jump, it seems we have to jump. whenever it becomes this rent increase it becomes this trump like executive order and we have to bow down and obey. this is the anniversary of the hotel evictions. much of this is unethical. we have seen the effect of this on seniors. i'm here to say that it's wrong and we should not
have to fight this hard to keep what it is that we have. we need to do a much better job as a city. it's shameful that we've had to endure, our seniors and other people with disabilities have endured unethical behavior by the real estate folks that have no conscious whatsoever. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. robles. public speaker: i didn't fill out a card. is that okay? i myself went through an ellis eviction and saw one of my upstairs neighbors died in the process because of the stress after living there for 25 years. and so i know what that is to be forced out of my immediate committee. i'm one of the lucky ones that was able to remain in my
neighborhood, but my immediate community, i miss dearly because mr. jongz who lived across the street because he knew that i would call him if his light didn't go on at a certain time. another elderly woman knew i would stop by on a daily basis. i can't do that right now. i would like you to work with the city to find a way to allow these people to stay in their homes with affordable rents. they have contributed their hearts and their wisdom to this community. for the greater san francisco community to not destabilize
the community. please find a way for these people to stay in their homes. >> thank you. if you have not signed a speaker card, you are still welcome to speak. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. if you have already spoken, there is no more speaking time. please come up to the mic and speak. >> sony, the legislative staff is here to provide answers to any questions. please step up to the mic, sir. if you would like to speak, please come to the mic.
public speaker: this is very serious. very, very serious. my name is jeffrey amen and i live in the tenderloin, 10th district. i will support the honorable mr. louis -- fair con. this is the paper. he's a black muslim. for us it's very strange because for 37 years iran has been so completely demonized to be a world military threat which it is not. expression about one lopsided media that i don't think anyone has confronted the united states media like this.
i also support the jewish federation, jewish family and children's services. the organization of america, my -- i'm very angry. i encountered four policemen . one of them was giving a citation to a homeless man who cannot afford it and they were laughing about it. i came to the city attorney's office to ask for the firing of that police officer and the captain of the tenderloin police station, she's go to to go and so does that police officer. this is the san francisco of saint francis, it is not. it is not.
thank you. >>supervisor jane kim: thank you very much. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. before i hand over the hearing to supervisor peskin, i just want to thank all the members of the public for coming out. we in our district also had two major developments which many moon ago we had negotiated a percentage of affordable units within those developments but with an expired affordability requirement. i know there is one development in president breed's district and i want to acknowledge the mayor's office of housing for working so closely with our office of tennants. we were able to come up with a resolution on south beach harbor marina and bayside villages in order to keep all of those tennants there with lifetime leases and also the city did purchase a portion
to remain permanently affordable in the future. at this time we no longer negotiate those deals anymore because decades later which felt like a long time, we have found that we have many long-term and short-term residents with expired units that are facing eviction because they can not afford the increased prices. working with the mayor's office, i know they have done in credible work to work with the owner. i have not called on this item and neither has president breed. i'm really looking forward to hear from sequoia as to why there is so much difficulty in coming to an agreement in saving the homes of so many teachers, residents that contribute greatly to this city. even if you don't, you should be able to stay here in your home, here in san francisco. i want to acknowledge the work of the mayor's office of
housing. i know they made several offers to purchase these units. with no further comments, i would like to call supervisor peskin who is the chair of this district. >>supervisor aaron peskin: thank you, you took the words out of my mouth. this is an outmoded way of doing exempt bond. we don't do them anymore. there are only two in san francisco especially with the south beach marina apartment issues. it's down to this building and the fillmore center, and what supervisor kim said is just right. this is the only instance where the owner is not being cooperative and i want to again thank olson lee and his staff and his previous staff, sophie hayward who have been willing to put our
money where our mouth is, maybe not as much as equity would like. i mean, it's just horrible that at the dawn of the 21st century we are looking at a scene out of a charles dickens novel a hundred or more years ago. we are better than that, sequoia is better than, mr. carter is better than that, ms. mccheery is better than that. quite frankly while there is no disagreement as mr. mcdonnell, counsel for the owner says about the rights, there is something that i have to say for the record and that is relative to the investment in so far as 80% of the units have been at market rate from the beginning of that investment and given what's happened in this real estate market, your
client, sir, ms. mccherry, you have done extraordinarily well. when i hear about these 20% of the units which are occupied by seniors and disabled and musicians and the teachers who are educating our students. when i hear that they are "bond loss". respectfully, it makes me want to throw up. so, ms. mccherry, i would like to ask you a few questions truly in the spirit of wanting to do a deal with you. a year ago, mr. lee and his organization offered a substantial amount of the taxpayers money in order to safe guard these 50 units with over 50 human
beings in them. for a long-term, your organization countered that and subsequently we have made another offer that your organization has refused to even respond to. we are talking about real people's lives. i don't know how you sleep at night, but can we get a deal done, ma'am? >> we have some thoughts, some things that were willing to do. >> please speak into the mic, man. and i have yourself. >> my name is cynthia mccherry at sequoia. we have some thoughts on what we are willing to do, but because of some proposals is not something that the ownership is interested in due to the fact that the bond financing is gone and our credit is no longer there, the cost of the financing has gone up significantly. >> i suspect that you and mr. lee or donald here can walk
out in the hallway and talk about ways we can help refinance your project. we would be more than happy to help. we have financial resources and most importantly we have human resources count at 54 of them who by golly we need to work together to save so they can go home tonight and sleep in peace, and that is what we have to do. i don't want to spend the next several years of my life trying to figure out every deal that you or any of your investors or the other llc's have other interest in san francisco. i don't want to spend the rest of my year this year trying to figure out how you are going to take permits out to do additional work on that building or the alcatraz theatre, but i will do that if we could not solve this
issue where we are willing to adequately and fairly compensate your organization. we must get this deal done. i can ask you a million questions about who rider construction is and who rider post street llc is and who the real estate is and the apartments is, let's save that for another day because i would like to finish this morning's hearings knowing that you are going to sit down with mr. lee where mr. mcdonnell has by the way, represented tennants in the past who is a practicing buddhist and cares about people wants to get it done. we are going to continue this hearing. you guys are going to come back with a beautiful wonderful deal and my tennants are going to be taken care of and they will live happily ever after. >> i'm not in a position.
i'm not the owner. >> i understand that. but would you start to negotiate with our folks? donald can you do that? >> yes, sir. >> thank you, counselor. mr. lee, thank you for your efforts. anything you want to tell us before i have a heart attack? >> i think this hearing again demonstrates the richness of this city and the need to preserve our economic diversity. measures, goals that the board and the mayor jointly share. we were very successful in negotiating agreements with south beach and bayside where it was a win win for everybody. and we hope that
with the spirit of trying to get to a deal that we will come to a resolution that will also be a win win. and, again, let me just describe again, what we did for those other two transactions. we basically preserved the long-term affordability for all the units at south beach and as they saw it were able to negotiate lifetime leases for all the existing tennants, for the units on turnover will be 70 units of the 172 will be preserved ultimately at middle income levels. and, so we can reach a deal. the folks that we negotiated were also for profit corporations who also had investors, who also in some cases had shareholders and they also had a fiduciary responsibility but were able
to make a deal. i hope we are able to make a deal and preserve the homes for all of these wonderful people. >> thank you. i don't know if there is anything you want to add, but the floor is yours. i appreciate the work that you have done and that of your predecessor. sophie hayward. i was going to call her middle brook, that shows how well i have known her. >> thank you, supervisor. i have been working in affordable housing for 20 years mostly as a developer for non-profit organizations and these sort of hearings are heart wrenching and important and i want to thank you all for your support and our efforts for this really important work that we do. i am confident if we have a partner on the other side of the table that is willing to negotiate with us, we can come to a fair and reasonable agreement for the owner and the residents. thank you.
>> so, why don't we continue this to our next meeting. i'm sorry. >>supervisor jane kim: president breed? >>supervisor london breed: thank you, i wanted to thank supervisor peskin for his comments and for holding this hearing. one of the conversations that oftentimes is ignored is a conversation around preservation of our existing affordable housing stock. we have those discussions on a regular basis primarily because we have so many affordable housing units developed specifically in district 5 through the redevelopment agency that are falling apart, but we also have as was mentioned as supervisor kim and supervisor peskin, the fillmore center. the expiration of units that will potentially lose their affordability and i know we
have been working on that for over 2 years to try to come to a specific agreement around those particular units to protect the affordability for the people who are counting on us to do so. i mean, i don't know about you, even with the decent salary of the member of the board of supervisors, not only do i have a roommate, but if my rent went up $500 basically i would have to figure out something and end up with bad credit. it's not fair to expect someone to pay a ridiculous amount of money and more importantly what i appreciate about the mayor's office of housing is their willingness to say, we are not asking you to put up any money, we are just asking you to work with us to figure out an appropriate dollar amount so that we can do all we can to preserve these units as affordable. i don't think that's an unreasonable request.
i also appreciate supervisor peskin bringing up the refinancing and the bonding capacity and how the city with our decent bond rating could lend support in this particular matter. this is not something that is impossible to do, but, the folks who are at the table have to have the willingness to want to do it. so, i am committed just like supervisor peskin to try to bring a resolution to this particular matter so the individuals who are just really probably living day-to-day in fear of what's going to happen to their homes, their livelihood so that they can sleep peacefully at night. i just want to thank all the members of the public who have come out in support of them, but more importantly i appreciate the desire to come to the table finally to try to come up with some sort of solution, and i am committed to being as supportive as i can to a resolution. i know
mr. lee will do a great job at that. thank you all again, and we really appreciate the fact that we are finally getting some where on this particular issue and will continue to watch it closely. >>supervisor jane kim: thank you, president breed. i think we are all committed to this project since it's all in our district. i want to reiterate to the owner of this property. it was very disappointing that we had to call on this item and i understand that you are no longer legally mandated to keep the units affordable. the city is offering to purchase these units from you. we are not asking you for a charitable contribution. i really hope we can work something out. there is a long term relationship to be had with the city. i'm
very confident with the mayor's housing that working on larger developments for our office and district 6. without one of our property owners, there was a pension fund for public employees and they felt that by judiciary duty to ensure maximum profitability in terms of their assets. but many of our developers are doing quite well. this is really a small way to give back attend sure vibrancy of our city. supervisor peskin, any comments? >>supervisor aaron peskin: yes, i would like to say i really appreciate those who are here on the board as i said the other day in some film that i prefer to enter the arena with honey,
but if you are going to enter with vinegar, you should get the large bottle out. i hope that we are able to enter this arena with honey and i understand that parts of sequoia equity's thinking in this that you don't have other properties in san francisco or you don't contemplate having them in san francisco, so you can be my words, not yours, reckless and unaccountable in your behavior because you have nothing to lose, how far that maybe true because that's how it's reported to me. let me say something about that which i am going to ask the city attorney if we can't come to some equitable resolution to explore doing precisely what we did in the millennium case which is bringing suit for failure to disclose to these individuals
that their bmr units would go to market rate at some point and the fact that that is not according to my knowledge in any written instrument, i believe maybe, i'm not a lawyer, but i have got one down the hall which we can litigate which is something we can resolve to the parties. think about that. i have that amount of leverage, but why don't we get this deal done and let the people sleep at night. thank you all for coming and thank you for testifying and sorry you have to go through this. >> >>supervisor jane kim: thank you, supervisor peskin. we will accept this without opposition. we would like to thank the public for coming and sharing your testimony and we are looking for closure on this agreement and the successful announcement for all of our residents.