Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  May 16, 2018 10:00am-11:01am PDT

10:00 am
10:01 am
10:02 am
10:03 am
10:04 am
10:05 am
. >> good morning and welcome to the government audit and over
10:06 am
sight committee. today is may 16, 2018. i am joined by supervisor aaron peskin and london breed. i also want to acknowledge our community clerk john caroll and sfgovtv for staffing our meeting and making sure our transcripts are available on-line. mr. clerk, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes. [agenda item read] >> thank you. mr. clerk, can you please call the first item? [agenda item read] >> vice president brandon: thank you today and this first
10:07 am
item is my item. this is for the purposes of providing capacity building and trauma inform systems at bessie carmichael k through 8 which has the highest density of youth and homeless families in san francisco. mayor's office of housing has selected ucsf trauma in schools to provide training to staff and workshops to caregivers as well as direct services via on-site psychotherapy for trauma impacted youth. we know this is a nexus in attendance to school performance, and we know that our teachers are doing far more than the teachers in the classrooms. we have to ensure that our city is providing wraparound services to our kids and to our families so that the kids can focus on learning in the
10:08 am
classroom. we have to move in the direction of treating our youth and our families have the vantage of a public health response. we have severin campbell from the budget and legislative analyst's committee if we have any questions. okay. we don't have any questions at this time, so we will open it up for public comment. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is michelle olivas, and i am a soma resident with united playas. i cannot support this enough. not only does bessie carmichael have the highest number of homelessness in the district, but the open drug use in the neighborhood, the mental health crisis, the crime of violence is just a lot for a five or six-year-old to bear, and so we
10:09 am
are so excited to this have happening and we appreciate your support. thank you. >> supervisor kim: thank you. any other members of the public? seeing none, public comment is kn now closed -- oh. >> these are good problems, but you're not looking at the economically disadvantaged after they get through these programs and they need housing, every building that offers housing, their income's not high enough to make the qualification to even apply for the position, and a good example was the measure that was heard yesterday where sheehy wants high priority for people who go through a rehabilitation program and they end up back on the street, and you can't get them housing and he's making it a number one priority. it's not going to do you no good because you don't have housing at the level for people that are most vulnerable.
10:10 am
you're actually defeating your purpose if you don't include the most vulnerable, very low-income and low-income bracket people that you're trying to help. that's why you have the cycle of going through your system, then getting reestablished, but then because you've got no housing, no place to go to, you're back on the street, and then, you go back into your bad habits and then getting back in the same program all over again. need to stop the constant repeat of the same mistake over and over and over again. it's a situation where's like you doing the opposite of robin hood, giving to the rich and stealing for the poor, but most of the programs are being used by people that are rich. that's why most people that are in those low-income brackets remain out in the streets as far as homeless centers are concerned. they need permanent housing,
10:11 am
just like you do. >> supervisor kim: thank you very much. any other members of the public would like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is now closed. i do just want to thank the soma stablization citizens advisory commission including claudine who has worked with them since its inception. i think this is a great use of ensuring that we are providing wraparound services to our communities, and i wish all of our schools had a fund like this to support our students. so colleagues, i'd like to make a motion to move this forward with a full recommendation. we can do that without objection. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor kim: mr. clerk, item number two. [agenda item read]
10:12 am
>> supervisor kim: thank you. and presenting, wie have elizabeth leona, and we also do have severin campbell if there are any questions. >> good morning, chair person women and supervisors. my name is elizabeth leon. hsa is requesting authorization to enter into contract with allied universal security services in a contract amount of $12,704,160 plus a 10% contingency for a total not to exceed amount of $13,974,576. this contract provides unarmed security guard services for 16 city sites, 13 of which are hsa, the other three are other
10:13 am
city departments that pay through work order to hsa. this is a brand-new contract. it will start july 1st, 2018, and there's a three year term. this contract was procured through rsp 86602, which was released through the office of contract administration. alice universal was the highest scoring bidder. the funding is a mix of general funds, state and federal funds, and my colleagues and i are available to answer any questions you may have. >> supervisor kim: thank you very much. i don't see any questions from committee members for either the bla or hsa. thank you very much. and at this time we'll open it up for public comment, seeing no public comment, public comment is now closed. all right. colleagues may we take a motion on item number two? >> supervisor peskin: so moved. >> supervisor kim: we have a motion made to move this forward to the full board, and that can be done without
10:14 am
opposition. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> supervisor kim: mr. clerk, can you please call items number three, four, and five together, please. [agenda item read] >> supervisor kim: thank you
10:15 am
very much. and i realize item three is slightly different from four and five, so my apologies, but why don't we start with item number three. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, chair kim and supervisor breed. when i first became a member of the board of supervisors in 2001, the western portion of my district was not really well represented by neighborhood organizations. the eastern part, the older part, russian hill, north beach, telegraph hill, all had organizations that went back decades, and a gentleman named john malloy actually started the lower polk neighbors which eventually led to the lower polk community benefit district, and then a woman named dawn and her husband frank strike thatted the middle polk trainers late 2000's, and eventually, that robust organization found its way to
10:16 am
suzanne markel-fox. today, to say that they're seeing the culmination of ms. markel-fox's work, but this is just the beginning. [inaudible] >> supervisor peskin: -- we've seen the fruits of your neighbor to the south. mr. christian martin is here from the lower polk cbd, which is acting as the fiscal sponsor for discover polk. i just want to thank you. when you first started this effort, you didn't go to the 30% threshold, but rather than tent and go home, you guys have regrouped and gotten to that magic number so that we can vote on it in july. and i want to mention that you've managed to get the
10:17 am
support of the four largest property owners that represent over 15% of the assessments, and they've endorsed the formation of the discover polk cbd, as have a plurality of small businesses in the area and condos have been supportives. so after we hear about the presentation and get public comment, i will ask my colleagues to support this resolution of intent. >> supervisor kim: great. thank you. >> this project started in 2015 and 16, and the lower -- on the middle polk community worked to -- with outreach to determine the appropriate services to deliver appropriate costs to deliver those services. the district budget is going to be approximately $625,000 annually which approximately $604,000 will come from special assessments. the district has approximately 536 parcels. the services will benefit property owners, business
10:18 am
owners, and the neighborhood as a whole. they reach 30.33% of weighted support, which is above the 30% requisite, and the district's term would be 11.5 years, and it would expire on december 31st, 2029 to coincide with lower polk sunset date. if the iri is passed and moves to the full board for aful pro, then the district will mail ballots on june 8s. ballots will be counted on july 24th. if the majority is in favor, then they can count the ballots to establish the district. i'd like to thank everyone for their invaluable support on this project. i'd like to turn this over to suzanne markel-fox if there are no questions for oewd. >> thank you. i'm not seeing the slides.
10:19 am
[inaudible] >> thank you very much. first of all i'd like to thank supervisor peskin who has been supportive of our efforts through the three years that we've been working on this as well as the lower polk community benefit district who has served, as peskin said, as our fiscal sponsor as well as our mentor. also, chris schulman and his employer who have provided us with a generous and unsolicited donation to support many of our activities. some of my committee members are here in the room, and i thank them for participating in today's presentation. as the supervisor said, we have 536 parcels in our district, and 80% of these are condominiums. it's an unusual district, mixed use with a number of apartment buildings, as well. we have a very dedicated steering committee who have met almost monthly since 2015, and
10:20 am
have been totally energyized by the project as it stands now with the approval of our neighbors. we have one city park and six nonprofits in our neighborhood, as well. initially, we were a larger neighborhood, but when we did not achieve the 30% in our last round, we restricted the neighborhood to something that is more cohesive and consistent with middle polk. our proposed services are pretty standard. we believe that they will, in fact, have a major impact on our community. we sever, as many do, from the effect of impaired and sometimes aggressive homeless individuals, and we believe that as we take care of the sidewalks, have a visible presence of safety ambassadors, and elimination of vacant storefronts that will help us address some of those issues. we also want to vitalize our
10:21 am
business community. as i said, decreasing the number of vacant storefronts. our budget is a modest one. we're able to take advantage of participating with lower polk cbd, reducing capital investments, and streamlining personnel costs. we will have a dedicated coordinator to oversee all of operations. $21,000 of the budget will not be collected through assessments, they will be general benefit. thank you very much. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, suzanne. mr. corgis, anything you want to add or should we open it up to mr. schulman. >> i am a little confused as all items were called together. would you like to move onto the annual reports.
10:22 am
>> supervisor kim: well, is this public comment? >> supervisor peskin: i forgot that all three were called together. >> supervisor kim: it's my mistake that i called all three together. we'll do public comment for all three together. >> sounds great. >> supervisor kim: i see that helen mar is here from oewd to present on this item. >> good morning chair kim, supervisor peskin, supervisor breed, we're here for the fisk of year 2016-2017 annual report for the noe valley benefit district this resolution covers the annual report for 2016-2017 and ensures that all cbd's are meeting their management plans.
10:23 am
oewd staff also conducts an annual review of the cpa reports and financial reviews, and we provide the board of supervisors with a summary memo. the noe valley cbd is comprised of approximately 218 parcels. it was originally formed in 2005 and will set to expire on june 30, 2020. it's the property based district with an initial assessment budget of approximately $230,000. the noe valley cbd is headed by executive director debra new man, and their sites of operations are rites of way and sidewalk improvements, district improvements and operations. oewd is charged with reviewing the following four benchmarks for noe valley cbd, whether the variance between the budget amounts for each category was within 10 percentage points
10:24 am
from the management pln, when 5% of noe valley's actuals came from other than assessment revenue. three, whether budget amounts from each category was within 10% of the actuals, and whether cbd is designated projects to be spent in the up coming fiscal year. for benchmark one noe valley cbd did not meet this benchmark. benchmark two, assessment revenue and other income, noe valley cbd met this benchmark and was able to raise around 8% in nonassessment revenue which exceeded their 5% requirement. for budget versus actuals, they also met this requirement, and they indicated their variover and spend down in their annual report. in conclusion, the cbd will sunset in 2020.
10:25 am
oewd is working with the cbd to prepare for their renewal campaign. they did not meet benchmark one. the cbd improved in meeting benchmark two and was able to raise more in nonassessment revenues compared to the previous fiscal year. although the cbd did not meet one benchmark it overall has performed well in implementing its service plan, has an active board and has sponsored various events including the activation of noe valley town square, and we will continue to work with noe valley cbd to meet their requirements. do you do any questions for staff? >> supervisor peskin: it seems like the category in benchmark one that is out of whack for 2016-17 as well as 2015-16 is the administrative operations
10:26 am
category. but in 2014-15, it was actually consistent with the management plan. so that's kind of crept over time, so i'm not sure what the structural weakness is. >> there were additional city requirements that were not anticipated in the formation of this district, including the financial statement requirement from the know owe valley cbd that added to their administration component of their budget. >> supervisor peskin: so that is the quote -- >> that is the anomaly. >> aaron, remember, we're the first cbd, so our management plan did not include an account review which cost between 5 and $7,000, so that's the missing component and what caused administration expenses to go up as much as they did. >> supervisor peskin: but just was that -- >> but the reason it wasn't in the other years, to your other points, financial statements are when you take a picture of a certain year over time. sometimes we pay our taxes at
10:27 am
the end of the fiscal year, sometimes we don't. in that year, we didn't. it occurred more in july. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. >> you're welcome. okay. time for show and tell. good morning, supervisors. i run the smallest by the miyest cbd, but we're the first and thanks to aaron, we even came to be, so we appreciate his efforts to make cbd's happen with marco. let's go through this quickly. you've seen the map. we have a green committee, we open sidewalks, we put benches in, we are very active with the merchants and with the community, and we put on lots of different events. we have 24 holidays on 24th street, and we have line reindeer in our parklet.
10:28 am
the neighbor raised.5 million, and sf park bought the property. we had grants for additional seating, we put in additional tables and chairs at two parklets, and we have activated the noe town square which has seen numerous events this past year. we move a lot of trash, a lot of graffiti. we're the only cbd that annually washes their sidewalks ten times a year. flower baskets are always a big hit, garbage cans were pointed annually, but we're trying to get mohamed to give us the new ones. even though he hates the big bellies, we would love them. planter boxes, you can read all about it. i know you guys want me to go quickly. we work with sf rec and park to activate the noe town square, which is difficult to do. i'll talk about that in a minute. the best thing we ever did was
10:29 am
a long-term strategic plan, which -- with the community, where we asked, what do you want to see on this street, and we have used this plan to write every grant so that all of our capital improvements on 24 street have been generated by grants so we can maintain them because of the cbd. we'd love to do more murals on large walls, we'd love to improve the greening on the town squares, we'd love to have intersection count downs at the two intersections of church and castro and 24 street. advocacy based, work with the community and the merchants to modify the planning code for 24 street. this is not true, this is an issue facing every commercial district in san francisco, and i think oewd did a great job of consolidating what the issues are in presenting them. so i think the planning code
10:30 am
for 24 street needs to change, and that's going to be a lot of heavy lifting. advocacy, we continue to act at fiscal agent for the town square. this is what it used to look like, and this is what it looks like now, which i think is pretty dramatic and pretty cool. the problem we have is working with sf rec and park. when we want to have an event and serve ice cream, sf park and rec tells us we can't have ice cream because it will stain the pafrs in the town square, to which i say there's a hose and there's water, and we can wash it down. i'm advocating that sf rec and park give us a permit for this space to do small events and activities as opposed to doing the paperwork every time we want to have a tai chi class or
10:31 am
have a petting zoo come in there. they're difficult to work with. questions. >> supervisor kim: no, but i do appreciate the input how we can stream line the process with oewd. >> they're a pain in the butt, that's all i can tell you. >> supervisor kim: we appreciate the honesty back. >> i'm known for that. >> supervisor kim: miss mar? >> hi, again, supervisors. helen mar. office of workforce development. >> supervisor kim: before you begin on the next district, i'm going to give the supervisor to make opening remarks. seeing none, miss mar, thank you. >> today we're here for the top of broadway fiscal year 2016-17 annual report, and i'll just run through a few slides because they're the same presentation. the top of broadway cbd is
10:32 am
comprised of 39 parcels. it is a property based district with an initial assessment budget of $106,000. it was established on june 30, 2013 and is set to expire on june 30, 2021. their service areas are district identity, street operations, buttefication and order, administration and organization and corporate operations. we reviewed the following four benchmarks for the top of broadway cbd. one whether the variance between the budget amounts for each service category was within 10 percentage points from the management plan, whether 1% of top of broadway's actuals came from sources other than assessment revenue, whether variance between the budget amounts in each category was within 10% of the actuals, and whether cbd is indicating the amount of fund carried over
10:33 am
from the current fiscal year and designating the projects to be spent in the current fiscal year. for benchmark one, top of broad cbd met this requirement. they also met the requirement for assessment revenue and other income, and they raised approximately 49% in nonassessment revenue, which greatly exceeds their 1% requirement? they also met their budget versus actuals benchmark three requirements, and they indicated their carry over and spend down in the annual reports. in conconclusion, top of broadway cbd successfully met all their benchmarks and has performed well in implementing the service plan in the district. for oewd's recommendation, top of broadway cbd found and addressed webpage issues found in early 2016-17, and their website has been in compliance. the cbd also maintained an active board of directors and community members. are there any questions for
10:34 am
staff? i'd like to -- >> supervisor kim: no questions. >> -- bring up dominick. >> thank you chair kim and supervisor peskin, supervisor breed. i'm the director for top of broad convey cbd. it was formed in november 2013 and began services in january 2014. as mentioned, we have over 39 parcels with over 100 businesses. $110,000 of our annual budget was spent on sidewalk cleaning and last fiscal year we upped our sidewalk cleaning frequency from five days a week to seven days a week to provide comprehensive coverage, so that's something we're proud of. like many of the cbd's in the city, we continue to collaborate with others in the community to provide the most effective service possible.
10:35 am
we do have great success in fund raising to complete the other half of our budget from some benevolent property owners in the block. the mission of the top of broadway as many other cbd's is to improve the quality of life and economic vitality for the businesses in our district as well as the residents. we have a mixed use district, and we have to tailor our operatives to function through residents and businesses. federal operations, some of the highlights from our last fiscal year, as i mentioned we increased our sidewalk cleaning frequency from five days to seven days a week, so we have an uptick in the amount of days we were able to provide
10:36 am
coverage, 349 days of the year. we picked up over 8700 pounds of trash. we moved over 1,000 instances of graffiti, we reported over 400 incidents in our cbd. i credit that both to the cbd as well as dpw for being on top of their game. they have a -- about two hour turnaround, which is fabulous when you have a couch or a mattress or a speaker on broadway. the district was pressure washed 13 times throughout the whole year. we want to increase that because we are a night life districts, and the clean will
10:37 am
iness of our sidewalks often -- cleanliness of our community offense is over shadowed by our night life community. [inaudible] we conceptualize and contracted with an led contractor to illuminate the kearny steps in the heart of our district. we also developed new branding strategies for expansion bid to try to cater to the differing identity that we have within that broadway columbus corridor. vision and plan, as i mentioned, to expand the district to become more financially solvent, to further integrate surrounding the community members and coordinate resources amongst the various industries or agencies. promote the diversity of the district to identity projects like the historical marker
10:38 am
project. [inaudible] >> this is some of the district challenges that we see. they're very common to other cbd's in the city. homelessness remained a major challenge for us, as well as enforcing no trespassing signs, and illegal dumping, as i mentioned, we've seen great improvements, but it continues to be an issue, and i find that education is the most effective solution to potential dumping. i mentioned the kearny steps lighting project, that is something that we have just recently installed back in april 1, 2018. when we did the ribbon cutting for the historical marker project, a bunch of community members came forward and expressed their desire to see plaques placed to commemorate other north beach will you jets and dignitiaries. north beach banner program,
10:39 am
that's something that we're interested in in telling the story of the district with a banner program. pertinent organizations, oewd has been tremendous in terms of assisting our cbd and finding grant funding as well as shepherding us through the auditing process. sfpd they've definitely upped their game in our district. they've been an instrumental partner in helping us reign in the problem businesses on broadway. [inaudible] >> thank you for your time. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, dominick, for your work and for the work of your board
10:40 am
members. >> supervisor kim: we will open it up for public comments for items three, four, and five. seeing -- >> supervisor peskin: don't be shy, mr. schulman. >> supervisor kim: if people don't walk up, i will close public comment. >> good morning, chair person kim and supervisors. my name is christopher blus, i'm a husband, father, property owner, and i'm also on the steering committee with suzanne and marco fox. i'm here to support the community benefit district to ensure that my family, neighbors, and visitors to my neighborhood have a great experience with clean and safe streets, a voice to city hall, and a vibrant and growing business community to ensure the long-term viability of our neighborhood. i have recently moved from chicago.
10:41 am
i've had the great experience of working with a cbd out there. the impacts are far reaching and truly get to the roots of the community. they represent the interests of the community members and definitely take a longer term view which most communities and cities these days are severely lacking. so i ask that you establish the cbd as we move forward through this progress. i'd also like to give a huge thanks to my steering committee members as well as the office of oewd. thank you very much. >> supervisor kim: thank you. >> supervisors, chris schulman, resident of the lower polk community benefit district. i'd like to just extend our full support on behalf of the board, and we look forward to working with the discover polk cbd and hopefully see them
10:42 am
through fruition. i'd like to thank suzanne and their board for all their efforts and everybody else who's worked with the group organizing this cbd, and i wish them well. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, chris. >> chair kim, supervisors breed and peskin, thank you for the opportunity to support suzanne and discover polk. we have worked with them over the past couple of years to come to this. >> supervisor kim: seeing no other public comment, we are now closing public comment on item three, four, and five. >> supervisor peskin: chair kim, president breed, it is my
10:43 am
absolute pleasure to recommend item number three be sent to the full board with a very positive recommendation, as well as items four and five. >> supervisor kim: thank you very much, supervisor peskin. we have a motion to move forward all three items, and we can do that without opposition. thank you very much. mr. clerk, can you please call the next item. [agenda item read] >> supervisor kim: thank you so much, and i want to thank and acknowledge my colleague and sponsor of the hearing aaron peskin for your continued determination in continuing our discussion on this topic. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, chair kim and thank you, president breed for your continued indulgence as this is now hour ninth hearing on the subject of tall building seismic safety standards after we learned a couple of years ago about the millennium tower
10:44 am
differentially settling much more than we predicted than the four to 6 inches that was originally projected for uniform settlement over the course of its entire life. and of course the will i limmium building is actually in supervisor kim's district, so i want to thank her for allowing me to continuing to get to the bottom of why it is sinking and tilting and what we can do about it. when it was completed a decade ago on a very tight and expedited building, it was the tallest concrete building situated in a seismic zone four region in the country. it was the fourth tallest building in the city and county of san francisco, and the tallest residential building in the united states west of chicago. the significance of the building's setting, design, construction continues to
10:45 am
reverberate through city policy and the city skyline, and san francisco now has 160 buildings that tower over 240 feet, and a dozen more that are evntitled r under construction, almost all within this seismically vulnerable downtown core, which almost all sits on fill. if you read the report that is part of the record, the revised geotechnical report of 301 mission street, you'll see the first 23 feet of this site is rubble largely from the 1906 earthquake. ultimately as policy makers, we really have to grapple with the question of the culture of streamlining, cost cutting, permanent expediting in the modern gold rush era that we are in, and i do want to say i think these hearings have led to some positive developments.
10:46 am
i want to acknowledge that the board authorized funding for a seismic evaluation of the city's buildings, and i want to acknowledge, naomi kelley, our city administrator who has now convened that committee who is now meeting and working some policy regulations that will hopefully come before the board of supervisors. yesterday, we had a little 3.5 earthquake over in the east bay that many of us, including myself, felt here. we all know it's not a question of if, but when, and i think we really need to start carefully examining some of the tradeoffs we've been asked to make. today we are joined by the original geotechnical engineer for the millennium tower, and i want to thank you for joining us, and i'll ask the clerk of the board of supervisors to administer the oath at this
10:47 am
time. >> chair kim, members of the committee, president breed, angela calvillo, i am here to administer the oath. please present your name for the record. >> my name is ramel golersarki. >> just repeat "i do" after i finish. you do solemnly state that the testimony you may give now pending before this government and audit oversight committee of the san francisco board of supervisors in the city and county of san francisco shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> into the microphone. >> i do. >> thank you very much, sir. >> chair kim and supervisor's breed and peskin, if i may, my name is steve matis.
10:48 am
we represent the doctor in connection with these proceedings, and he's, of course, grateful and welcomes the opportunity to speak with you this morning about issues of seismic safety and building standards in san francisco. i do need to point out that as i'm sure the committee and the board knows, there is substantial litigation pending with this building. i think at my last count, there is some 23 lawsuits that have been filed. the city is a part of the lawsuit directly and indirectly through the tjpa. it wouldn't surprise me if some of the people here are lawyers involved in the case. the doctor may need to be measured in part of his responses, and there has been a substantial mediation process that's been underway that's been ordered by the judge, and
10:49 am
there was a mediation privilege in connection with a number of the mediation presentations and the like. so i would ask your understanding with regard to those issues, should any come up. the doctor recently gave a full day of deposition testimony. i expect that -- and i'll stand a ways away from me so i can't kick me when i say this. i don't think that'll be the last day. unfortunately he has more days of deposition in his future. there's a protective order that's in place by the court about certain information in the case and the like, so we just want to be respectful of this committee and the board and careful in our responses. the only other thing i'd just mention for the record is we did produce two documents, one of which you've already cited, supervisor peskin, and that was the investigation of 301 mission. there was some correspondence that we also produced in connection with that. the subpoena was directed to the doctor individually. he formerly was with the form of treadwell and rollo, which
10:50 am
was the geotechnical design firm on the building. he now is with the firm of langel engineering, which in 2010, acquired the assets but not liabilities of treadwell and rollo, and so the documents -- additional documents that the committee may seek may be in the possession of treadwell and rollo, which actually now is a dissolved entity, or their lawyers, or possibly langen. we certainly want to cooperate. if there are more documents you need, let us know, certainly subject to all the constraints imposed by the judge and litigation. the last thing i want to mention, langen, the firm in which the doctor is a senior engineer had no role in the design or construction of the millennium tower, so thank you very much for the time.
10:51 am
>> supervisor peskin: thank you very much counselor for putting all of those things on the record. so maybe we can just start by saying your giving us some brief background on your bona fide qualifications, and maybe you can actually help because insofar as all of us are lay people, and we have interviewed, for instance professor jack maili who was the peer review on the instruct we right lane system -- structural system, maybe you can tell us the difference between a structural engineer and a geotechnical engineer. that might just be helpful for us. >> sure. good morning, chair person kim, supervisors peskin and breed.
10:52 am
i got my bachelor's of science in civil engineering in 1981 from tufts university in medford massachusetts, and i got my master's degree in civil engineering in 1983. then i came here to go to u.c. berkeley, and i got my geotechnical in geotechnical engineering from u.c. berkeley in 1989. in 1989, i started my career with the firm of danes and moore in the city until 1995, where -- when i moved to treadwell and rollo, and i was with them until 2010, when it was purchased -- the assets were purchased by langen, and i've been with langen since.
10:53 am
and i'm a principal with langen, and the director of earthquake engineering for langen. as i said i'm a geotechnical engineer, which means soil and foundations, and i also -- my subspecialty is in earthquake ground motions, basically, estimating how hard the earth, ground shakes during particular earthquakes so then those kinds of information and criteria can be used in seismic designs of structures. >> supervisor peskin: looking at those p waves and s waves. >> yes. >> supervisor peskin: and relative to my question about understanding the difference between a structural engineering and geotechnical engineer particularly in relative to vetting and recommending design standards for buildings which should be resilient in a major earthquake, what's the difference between those two subspecialties?
10:54 am
>> well, the standards or whatever the governing codes are, building codes at the time any particular structure is -- is being designed and constructed, so those -- those are whatever standards you follow at the time that you're working on a particular project. from our perspective, the geotechnical engineers develop criteria for foundations and, like you said, estimating filliments, estimating pressures on walls, and capacities. we also develop earthquake ground motion criteria for design. >> supervisor peskin: and you were also on the 80 natoma project, is that true? >> i only developed earthquake
10:55 am
ground motions for that project. >> supervisor peskin: and with regard to 350 mission on the other side of the street? >> yes, i was the principal in charge for that project. >> supervisor peskin: and how did you augment the work of disimone engineers? did you assess the work of theirs or was your work complete independent? >> it's somewhat separate and somewhat interactive. separate in the context of developing the criteria, like i said, but, for example, when we are estimating filaments, we are getting samples from the structural engineers, for example, from disimone for the 350 mission project. >> supervisor peskin: so in reading the revised geotechnical investigation dated january 13 of 2005 -- let me interrupt myself.
10:56 am
what did it revise? i've never seen the earlier version? >> there was an earlier report. i believe it was 2001. i don't remember the exact date, but the structure was somewhat different in terms of basement, and i don't remember right now all the differences, so this -- this -- this particular report that you are looking at is for the structure that is currently here. >> supervisor peskin: and there has been some conversations along the way. and some of the, there was actually something that was written in a structural engineering document or trade magazine about the tower originally being designed in structural steel and later on moving to the concrete that is -- that was ultimately
10:57 am
built. did this analyze steel or concrete? >> that is concrete. >> supervisor peskin: okay. and then, i was reading the report. and on page 15 -- i should start with, on page 14, the report indicates that we estimate settlements on the order of four to 6 inches could occur under the tower. and of course you do answer this in some ways many years later in 2009 in your february 18 letter which you already produced and which we already had. but to what do you attribute -- it's obviously now sunk 1.5 feet, which is 18 inches, far more than four to six. to what do you attribute that additional settlement that you didn't anticipate in the four to six-inch settlement? >> you mean, what was revised in the 2009 letter? >> supervisor peskin: well, in 2005, you say we think it's
10:58 am
going to sing four to 6 inches. in 2009, you say extensive, longer than anticipated ground rewater and other factors may have contributed to this. >> the major--in my view, the major factor that contributed to this more than estimated settlement was the dewatering that was happening as part of the 301 mission project. as you know, there's a tower and there is a midrise portion next to it. so they are separate from each other, but the dewatering for the midrise was much more extensive and much longer than was anticipated, and that, in my opinion, was the ramain rean why the settlements were exceeded -- at least estimates were exceeded. >> supervisor peskin: okay. and you actually in the report even speak to the potential
10:59 am
need for groundwater recharging. do you know if any of that happened? >> no, there was no recharge. >> supervisor peskin: there was no recharging. and on page 15 of the report, speaking to the midrise structure, the podium structure, where the estimate in 2005 was settlement ranging from about one to 3 inches, it says that these settlements were calculated using foundation pressures provided by disimone dated 17 june 2004. do you believe today that those foundation pressures provided by disimone were correct? >> i have no way of -- of questioning a structural engineer's estimate of pressures which comes from the weight of the structure.
11:00 am
that is their design, and they know how heavy the structure is, and they know their structural elements. so you know, from a geotechnical engineer's perspective, we take whatever the structural engineer's estimate as far as the weight and pressures on the foundations are concerned can he -- >> supervisor peskin: understood. and then in your response to ray louie's letter of february 2, 2009, that's the letter where mr. louie who first came before this committee and didn't remember, but they be at his second remembered a lot more than he did at his first interview. on february 18 -- and i'm trying to find the letter here in my stack -- treadwell and rollo, with your signature on it, responded, and response number five -- and this is with regard to the reasons for the larger than expec