tv Special BOS Government Audits and Oversight Committee SFGTV January 10, 2022 6:00am-10:01am PST
>> good morning this meeting will come to order. welcome to the january 6th meeting. this is the first meeting of 2022. i wish you all a happy new year. i am supervisor dean preston, chair of the committee. joined by director co n nie pan committee member mandelman. the clerk is john carroll. thanks to the team at sfgovtv for staffing this meeting. do we have any announcements? >> clerk: the minutes will reflect the committee members are participating in the remote meeting through video conference
to the same extent as if present. the board recognizes that public access to city services is essential. first, public comment will be available on each item on the agenda. cable channel 26, 78 or 99 or sfgovtv. the number is on the screen. your opportunity to speak during the public comment is available by dialing 415-655-0001. the meeting id24820543764. after entering the id dial the pound symbol twice to be connected to the meeting. when you are connected you will hear the discussions but your line will be muted in a listening mode. when your item comes up dial
star 3 to be added to the speaker line. best practices call from quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and turn down your devices to access today's proceedings. you may submit the comment in writing. e-mailing them to me. john.carroll at sfgovtv. or send your written comments by u.s. post to our office at clerk's office 244, city hall, 1 dr. carlton b. goodlett place. the contact information is on the front page of the committee agenda. mr. chair, items acted upon today will be on the agenda
january 25, 2022. >> supervisor preston: call items 1 through 6 together. >> clerk: five resolutions receiving and approving the annual reports for the yerba buena district, ocean avenue district, castro district. noe valley district and discover polk district for 2019-2020. receiving and approving the annual reports for fiscal years 2018-19, 2019-2020. members who wish to comment on these six resolution call the number 415-655-0001. meeting id24820543764.
after you enter the id press pound twice and star 3 to speak. mr. chair. >> supervisor preston: thank you, mr. clerk. we have one of the busiest people in san francisco that morning. mr. chris coregis presenting on all of these various items along with the executive directors of each district. those are cathymopen of the yerba buena cbd and andrea from castro, deb and duncan lee of discover -- noe valley and
discover polk and chris from lower polk and i know that my colleagues both on the committee and we may have others with comments on this specific districts. for the purpose of efficiency with six of these before us i would ask colleagues to save remarks or questions until after the executive director for that cbd has an opportunity to present. we will start with mr. corgis for 10 minutes to address these together. then each director has three to five minutes and we will pause for comments after each one. the floor is yours. you have 10 minutes. happen me new year. -- happy new year.
>> mr. corgis, your line is muted, sir. we are not hearing you. >> technical difficulties. good morning. happy new year. chris corgis with the office of economic and work force development. before i start i would like to thank your staff, chair preston for working with me on consolidating these presentations in the interest of time. i have shared my screen. are you able to see that? >> clerk: yes. >> okay. as you know, community benefit districts are governed by two
pieces of legislation. california streets and highway code known as 1994 act and second the san francisco business and tax regulations code article 15. oewd is charged to ensure they are meeting management plans providing services as outlined in the plan and they are spending assessment funds accordingly. today i am providing the findings of the review conducted for fiscal years in question. in doing so oewd reviewed the annual report and cpa financial statement and present a summary memo to the board of supervisors part of the legislative packet. the six before you today are property based community benefit districts as opposed to business based districts which you heards in november. they were formed at various times and many renewed.
closest is ocean avenue. others will sunset in 29-203 with ex l exception of noe valvely for 2035. oewd staff reviewed each benchmarks. the budget amount for each category within 10% from the management plan. benchmark two. if it met the non assessment revenue source requirement. three. if the budget amount for each service category within 10% from the actual compared to fiscal year budget. four. if the cbd indicates funds carried from current fiscal year and upcoming year. i am going to go straight to the presentations. for the yerba buena they met benchmark one, not two, met three and four. they missed two in relation to
the covid-19 global pandemic. they have a strong history of meeting this benchmark. they did not meet the 5.08% nonassessment revenue source obligation. they hit approximately 3%. that was largely due to the covid-19 pandemic slowing down non assessment sources. in reviewing the annual report the findings and recommendations are the cbd awarded funds from community benefit fund to bolster nonprofits and businesses within the community benefit district area during the covid-19 pandemic. they worked with the planning department public works and community stakeholders to discuss long-term projects to connect yerba buena with the transit center. they stopped service early cove covid-19 pandemic after shelter-in-place. there was confusion based on the
supplemental nature. when they determined they needed to get back to work quickly, all cbds reinstated services. reconfigured the grants to defray operating costs due to covid-19. they adjusted focus of community guides to check on neighborhood businesses and merchants to assist during the incremental re-opening, increased high touch public services reported safety issues. they have a strong board and robust committee. the yerba buena is extremely well run. ocean avenue. they did not meet benchmark one. did meet two. did meet three. did not meet four. ocean avenue did not meet beverage mark one due to how -- benchmark one due to how the
board and previous director they have a new director july 1st, 2021. this is a previous reporting period. they did not take into account how their hours were spent by service category. they put all hours under staff allocations under the management and administration service which threw off the budget. they likely did meet this variant. oewd provided tools to address this in future years. benchmark four they did include carry forward only in financial statement in this fiscal year. state code is specific that it must be in the annual report as well. they did not meet this on a technicality. oewd has significant findings recommendation on the ocean
avenue cbd. they should look at short mid and long-term needs of district. in 19-20 they did likely violate brown act. executive director did not share meetings to go off agenda, change subject and not adhere to standard board behavior. at the time oewd perceived a problem. we recommend new board members to make applicants represent the diversity of the ocean avenue corridor. they should not be held in perpetuity. reinstatement. members with expiring terms should go through formal nomination and election. ladders to elevate members to leadership. they need to complete strategic plan and follow recommendations.
they should have a retreat to identify objectives and growth. hire outside legal counsel familiar with laws to advise rather than rely on board members and city for legal advice. set maximum term limit for board members they take a two year break away from the board may reapply to join after that period expires. need to spell out expectations for board members. need to create on boarding process for new board members. board members need to participate fully at board meetings not allow individuals to control. need perform evaluation and metrics for executive director. ensure rules are in place to awards of contracts and fiduciary management and overall direction to ensure the executive director is meeting tasks and responsibilities. the castro. did not meet one. they did meet two.
did meet three and did meet four. they spent 3.5% over the allowable right-of-way and sidewalk operation service area. that came at the expense of cbd administration anchorporate operation categories. they have little impact on determining specific benefit to identify parcels and did raise high amount of nonassessment dollars. unlikely they violated the special benefit of parcels. recommendations met throughout of four benchmarks. well on two. over 45% from non assessment sources. facilitated communication between covid community and community. completed renewal and expansion with 75% voting to re. expand for 15 year term.
initially stopped service when stay at home covid-19 issued. were back when they had guidance. numerous grants such as castro cares. they improved relationships with stakeholders and well-conditioned to carry out the mission. noe valley did not meet one. did meet other three benchmarks. they do not meet one due to change in guidance when they formed. rectified by renewal going to be seen in the fiscal year 2021 annual report. i do not anticipate them missing this going forward in the future. oewd's determination missing this did not adversely impact specific benefits to partners. findings recommendations. met three out of four benchmarks. did well on two.
over 30% of the budget non assessment sources. facilitated communication between covid command and noe community. renewal of district 75% of the weighted ballots to renew. partnered to implement activation of town square. programmed town square due to the covid-19 pandemic. improved relationship with stakeholders well positioned for the mission. >> just to let you know that was the 10 minute bell. >> go ahead and take up to five nor minutes. you are covering a lot of items. >> sorry. discover polk met all four benchmarks. they brought in that leadership, new street contractor facilitated communication between stakeholders and command
center and big belly program in the area and well positioned to carry out mission. lower polk. they met all four benchmarks in 18-19. did not meet one in 19-20. did meet other three. they did not turn-in annual reports and financial statements for 18-19 or 19-20 in timely manner. they did explain as part of the board packet. caused by staff turnover exacerbated by change in the financial professional. reports were difficult to access online. oew recommends west side changes -- website changes. we are working with them. suspended services due to covid-19. reinstated. partnered with command center to disseminate information to stakeholders in the area.
assisted oewd delivering ppd to other cbds in the city and logistics. i appreciate the team for that. they continue to be an as set to the community. they performed well in implementing the service plan. must improve on timing reporting. that concludes oewd's portion. >> supervisor preston: i have one general question. i noticed the range in reviewing benchmark two from 1% of revenue non assessment sources in ocean avenue. high end 5.5% for some of them. others 3%. how is that set? can you explain where that percentage is set? >> sure. i am going to try to make it as
simple as possible in the interest of time. it is relatively complicated due to article 13 of the state constitution and the cbd code. each property based community benefit district has to have engineer's report as part of the management plan. because of proposition 13, we are the only state in the union where we can't do a special assessment based off property value. we do it off special benefits contaberred. that is the engineer calculating how many folks or what percent are walking through the district angbenefitting from the district services not living there or owning property or patronizing the district. they don't pay into the district but benefit the services. 5.08 in yerba buena is
subtracted from the budget and they have to raise that. >> supervisor preston: that explains ocean with lower anticipated. >> correct. >> supervisor preston: thank you. why don't we move forward to hear from the directors in the order that these are on the agenda. that would be yerba buena cbd to start us off. you have up to five minutes. >> thank you. i am the executive director of the yerba buena community benefit district. i appreciate the opportunity be to speak to you briefly about the yb cbd. i will hit a few highlights. this is a map of the yerba buena
benefit district. it is colorful. we used colors to represent diverse composition of the neighborhood. we have very diverse neighborhood, a lot of different interests to make it challenging and a great opportunity to work here. we are home to the convention center. seven of the leading cultural institutions in the neighborhood, many hotels and restaurants, a lot of recreation opportunities including the yerba buena gardens and indoor aye skating rink, bowling alley. a lot of people don't realize it is home to a large senior population. we have well over 10,000 people that call yerba buena home. prior to the pandemic we had a very active and growing office environment and small business environment impacted by the pandemic, of course.
this is a slide that says what we do. in addition to what most community benefit districts do supplemental cleaning and safety services in the neighborhood. i want to highlight a few things different. we have an established grant plan since 2010 to support non-profits working to make improvements in the neighborhood. public art, community engagement, public safety as well as streetscape improvement projects. we have an improvement plan that guides all decisions on how we try to impact and improve the neighborhood. we also have a social service specialist on the staff that is primarily the responsibility to work with the street population to understand their current situation, their need and connect them more directly and appropriately with these services to help them change their living conditions.
next slide, please. for the purposes of this presentation, i divided stuff into preand post pandemic. pre-pandemic we held the free outdoor festival in the evenings in october to bring arts and culture to the public for free. we have 8 to 10,000 people attending this event. we worked with local artists pre-pandemic to design art that would go on the 21 big bellies in the neighborhood. these highlight the arts and culture of yerba buena. we do monthly walking tours that really talk about the history of the neighborhood. one of the unique elements is
live actors that pop-up at various parts of the tour that may being it more interactive. the other thing is the ybcd played a critical role in the entity to manage the gardens. because of the dissolution every development agency. i serve as the chair of that board. we have been instrumental in that particular formation. pandemic. after march 20th our neighborhood was hit hard. every neighborhood was hit hard. we were hit because of the cancellation of conventions and tourists not coming back to the neighborhood. we experienced the ripple effect on businesses in the neighborhood as a result of those and the impacts continue to be felt. on our website people can go and
find the latest public health orders, resources for small businesses. we acquired and distributed a large amount of p.p.e. including masks, hand sanitizer that we provided free to in and all businesses and nonprofits in the neighborhood that requested them. we changed the community benefit fund and focused on supporting those organizations in the neighborhood that we felt we have a significant impact by the pandemic and gave them pandemic-related grants to use for general operating funds. most of them used the funds to expand online offerings during the pandemic. we developed a framework and grant program for small businesses to give them some funds to help them adjust to the pandemic paying rent, staff, whatever the needs were. having our community guide
mr. owens in the picture is a community guide. they don't normally do cleaning. they focused on high touch services. we instituted new protocols to keep everyone safe when they were in the field. >> that was the five minute bell. >> this is very quick. fy20 we met the benchmarks except for fund-raising. we spent 74% of the budget on safety and security and streetscape improvements during that year. just fiscal year 2021 budget. that year ended. we did stay within our percentage requirements for this year as well. last slide. it is a pre-pandemic slide. in partnership with supervisor haney's office the event to
unveil the new arts on the new cans. i am sorry i went over. i am happy to answer any questions. >> supervisor preston: thank you. we appreciate the presentation and your work. this applies to all who will be presenting we know doing this work over the last couple years has been especially challenging. thank you for all your efforts. colleagues, i don't know if you have questions specific to this cbd. no one is on the roster. we will move forward and hear from director smith of the ocean avenue cbd. you have up to five minutes. >> good morning, chair preston and supervisor chan and mandelman. i am pierre smith executive director of the ocean avenue
cbd, association. the map shows the ocean avenue as the center of a quiet residential area. consists of 12 block retail corridor in the southern part of san francisco. next slide please. ocean avenue is quickly accessible by bart, muni, 280 freeway or 19th avenue. it is an alley for education institutions city college, frap state. high school and middle school. ocean avenue is temperature steps away from different neighborhoods and a place of unity to serve folks of all backgrounds. sidewalk cleaning, pressure washing and graffiti removal is part of the daily work. community cleanups and neighbors
bring amazing results. we maintain and water all planting area weekly. thanks to grants awarded to oaa. department of public works helps create sidewalk landscape gardens and helped plant trees on side streets to make it very beautiful. in 2019, ocean avenue developed an active business committee to offer assistance with business attraction and lease negotiation. ocean afassociation was awarded sf shine grant for improvement projects. the year 2020 needed a different approach. free legal clinic helped about 15 entrepreneurs.
the association helped three application processes for legacy business status. thanks to a grant from the council on district merchant association, guide code called discover engle side was printed. the cbd is to be renewed by 2025. early renewal including expansion of cbd started being considered. the map shows in green the cbd. in red the targeted expansion for 2023. with the development of the reservoir we hope to see new investment on ocean avenue a retail corridor with great potential growth.
the fiscal year 2019-20 brought in a successful lunar new year celebration, promotion of community events and of the sf turkey drive where all proceeds are delivered to the foundation in the tenderloin. the first stage of public life survey was started to lead to set of recommendations for improvement of the avenue. ocean avenue association worked on the mural of the theatre and other vacant storefronts. ocean avenue association got the approval to proceed with the mural of the p.g.e. substation and the engle side library. i would like to thank chair preston and supervisor chan and mandelman. and i want to thank everyone for
assistance. this concludes the ocean avenue presentation. i will be glad to answer any questions. >> supervisor preston: i did want to hear extensive recommendation from oewd, about a dozen of them, and i wanted to find out from mr. corgis or the director or both whether these recommendations some of this work has been under taken or commitments made. what is the status of the various recommendations put forward related to the governance now with the new director leading the cbd? >> this presentation was 2019-20. this is about over a year prior
to my arrival. i have been going through many different items in my first six months to face those recommendations and i have been able to complete most of them. >> chair preston, if i may chime in. in the fiscal year 2021 annual report you will hear they did undertake strategic plan. once pierre came on board they started going through the recommendations from the strategic plan and pierre is doing his best to go through those. he made it clear to me he agrees with the recommendations. there has been a significant amount of board change over the pascalder -- the pascalder year to march of 2021. i think the board is now in a place to better represent the
vibrancy and diversity of the community. >> thank you. we are looking at a snapshot in time before he took over. i appreciate the work to address these issues. one other thing on that. the recommendations that were made and thank you for the thorough memo explaining those. was this the first time that these recommendations were being made or has oewd made similar recommendations in the past and if they were made previously i am trying to figure out if these are new issues coming up around governance or if they are ongoing issues that you are flagging for the cbd? >> from oe wd perspective if i
hear a complaint i will look into it. this was the first year in 1920 we heard it from other members of the community to get yous into looking into what was going on with everything. we had support from folks. that is why it is as extensive as it is. oewd since the 19-20 report is working closely with the ocean avenue association to make sure they follow the recommendations and best practices of other cbds. i thank other cbds that have provided mentorship to make sure they get to that level. >> seeing no other comments or questions from colleagues, thank you, director, we will move on to hear from the castro cbd.
you have up to five minutes. welcome. >> good morning, supervisors, chair preston, special hello to our district 8 supervisor mandelman. thank you for hosting us this morning. i would like to just quickly go through the castro upper market community benefit district. our map is very long. unlike a lot of cbds squares or rectangles, we were kind of going all the way up market start at octavia and go up market to castro. drown castro to 19th. including 18th street where the bars are from hartford to
diamond. then we also include church street to 15th on the south side. where the commercial district is. then around be the library and the health center on 16th and 17th street. it is a little rambling trying to capture the commercial districts on either the north or south sides of market street as well as the heart of the commercial district castro on the 18th street area. we have a lot of committees. we have our executive and finance committee, district streetscape committee beautification committee to
oversee all landscaping and live entertainment. we have been working -- in 19-20 we worked closely with m.t.a. on the bicycle improvement project they are implementing now. you will see some public space markers and that sort of thing that we worked very closely with m.t.a. on. we also have the up lighting of the palm tree on market street as m.t.a. implements that project. we have a services committee that oversees our largest contracts which are cleaning and public safety contracts. land use committee weighs in on
mental illness issues and untreated substance abuse disorders that are spending their days on the streets and sometimes nights. we steam clean now much more than monthly. in 19-20 we were steam cleaning monthly. sweep every day. we picked up 87 pounds of trash, almost 3,000 dirty needles and 5,000 incidents of human feces
removed from the sidewalks and public spaces. in 19-20 we did hire the patrol special police. with collaboration with all of the other nighttime businesses in the castro and we for us they did foot patrols focusing on the streets and did vehicle patrols covering the rest of the district including the bikeway behind safe way where there is a lot of encampments. this is the last slide. we have had since 2013 grants from oewd to help fund activation in jane warner plaza. we were instrumental when gavin
newsom was mayor in developing the plaza from a hazardous intersection into a public space. since 2013 we have had regular live performances in that space every saturday and sunday between may and october. these photos are from the summer of 2019. the program was call live in the castro. it ended with the pandemic. we also had a large reduction in our grant from oewd that used to fund these. we are not getting those funds any more. we are now working with the castro cultural district to try to figure out how to work together to bring back live performances into this public
space. that is it. thank you very much. >> thank you, director. i appreciate your presentation. supervisor. thank you. i don't have questions. i would not want to allow this opportunity to go by without thanking andrea and her tavand board and volunteers for all of the work they do for one of america's most iconic neighborhoods. it has challenges and a lot of magic. andrea and the cbd is essential in managing the challenges and making the magic. thank you very, very much. >> thank you, supervisor.
>> we will go to the next presentation. >> supervisor preston: thank you for the comments. thank you. we will move to the noe valley community benefit district. i believe we have director here for this presentation. you have up to five minutes. welcome. >> good morning, supervisors and special shout out to our supervisor. during covid 19-20 we continued to work. we didn't miss a day of work when people were told to stay home. they still came down to the district to hang out on the 90 plus seating arrangements we have in the 12 block district we manage. in january 2020 we were renewed.
we had one management change. the cbd was formed in 2005. one of first of four to form. the new change had to do with maps. initially we eliminated the properties at diamond. those are residential. if we made the district smaller. we have very active committees clean and green. they clean the public space. first to have the baskets. 27 flower baskets every six months. the sidewalks are open at eight different places. 24 planter boxes. we do a lot of community
marketings. the final is haymarket with the merchants. on the right is the reindeer we bring out in christmas. 24 holidays on 24th street on christmas to bring people to 24th street to promote shop local. who we work with is the noe professional association and the residential group. then those who work on the town square. we received a grant from the city and from the supervisors office to activate the noe valley town square. we produced 16-20 major events at the square and smaller events. the photo on your left is the performance. middle is improvements to the
town square initially developed for the farmers market. the only neighborhood community-run farmers market in the city. it is a large open space. what we wanted to do was soften that up. we brought in umbrellas, planter boxes and we have a part time guard and partnership with rec and park. the police, sheriff, fire department. we put out tables and chairs in candlelight and have a band. that is a very popular event. one feature i want to point out. we are the only cbd that washes the sidewalks nine times per year. it took two years to get rid of all of the gum on the sidewalk.
we continued to do many more power washings. two full-time street porters, one part-time gardner. the rest you know about. next slide, please. opportunities to continue toward the activation which is really critical as we move out of covid to help merchants on 24th street come to life. all supervisors have been supportive of this effort. so is chris corgis. he delivered p.p.e. to us and when we needed it he would call. he continues to be encouraging during covid. that is it. there you go. three minutes.
>> thank you, director. we appreciate the presentation. supervisor mandelman. >> supervisor mandelman: as i did with andrewia. debra has been an essential institution along with the noe valley association for two decades. i know each of us has benefited from working with deb and the association. i am grateful for the work they do and looking forward to continue to support it. a million thanks, deb.
>> we will hear from the next cbd in order. discover polk. we may have two folks. duncan lee and lemon. a combined five minutes. >> thank you for having us. discover polk is one of the smallest cbds, maybe the smallest. we are mighty. we could be kind of formally the middle polk neighborhood. essentially five blocks down polk street and five blocks on van ness from california to bod way. that central area. there are exceptions. we have the helen wills park that is part of our district. there are some lots across van
ness on the western side that are part. for the sake of the cbd it is those five blocks. next slide, please. fiscal year that we are discussing is the year of transitions for the district. quite a few transitions. the previous executive director with the organization basically from the beginning departed before my tenure there. we switched cleaning service providers from lower polk to independent street cleaning services. they hired that year the board hired the public affairs and management firm that i run called ton nick nightlife group with my partner to share the duties of executive management for the district.
when we read -- they reached out to find a director. when we read the job description i was like a lightning bolt. it read like day-to-day duties of things we have been doing on the streets with multiple businesses on polk street for 13 years. we have very highly involved in the community. we sat on the communities. duncan was president of polk street merchants and we were getting to know people. when we read that description we said why don't we apply for the job? we did and we got it. in this year so our fiscal year is on the offset with the city. we were not there for the first half of the fiscal year in question. that was mostly time that the board was putting in to get
running. the first item that we had to do which was very pressing was to find a home for the street plus workers and gear they had. we did not have a local warehouse and previous board members had been unable to find that. we were fairly quickly to find a perfect space in an auto body shop in the district, kind of a beloved old auto body shop that had extra space and we were able to share that with them. for the latter half of the year we were focused on covid-19.
we were able to be the command center. we were getting information much faster to make sure the merchants were knowledgeable. i don't know if you remember that time, but it was a crazy time. you can skip a couple of slides. financial notes. there wasn't too much -- if you go back one slide, sorry about that. there wasn't too much to report on the financial side. we're very fortunate that our assessments came in over what we expected for that year. most of this is is because our cbd is unique that we have so many condos located -- condo owners located in the cbd and we're not on office and tourism, so we didn't see a huge hit. the other thing that is
important to note because a huge part of the budget goes to cleaning, when they're unable to meet their full staffing levels, we operate under budget. that said, they did not struggle to meet their goals in cleaning. so they really ramped up their efforts and the people there did extra jobs. we came in under budget for the year overall and the lion's share of that was from the lack of expenses on the street plus contract that we had. that's about all i have. maybe switch to the next slide. you know, in the previous years since then, which i'm looking forward to reporting on, we've had tremendous successes, but that's the rundown of what we did. and i'm happy to answer any questions and i thank you for having me. >> chair preston: thank you, director, and congratulations on meeting all of the benchmarks over this period. and thank you for your work and
seeing no one on the roster with questions or comments on this cbd, we will move on to the next one. last but not least in our list is lower polk cbd and executive director chris shulman. the floor is yours up to five minutes. >> thank you, chair. also thank you to chris of oewd for his continued support. we are doing a combined annual report for fiscal year 18-19 and 19-20. as chris mentioned, there was staff turnover. i took over. we hit the pandemic and we're really focused on supporting our district and we are catching up and getting in the presentation done today. we've submitted our reports and look forward to a timely report this cycle with our forth coming
2021 annual report. next slide, please. our district boundaries, lower polk serves as a bridge. we have the tenderloin neighborhoods to the south, kind of lower nob hill to the north and there is a bridge. some of our neighborhoods, parts of our district share similarities and challenges and some of the diversity and culture that the tenderloin has. and then our northern part of the district has more characteristics of lower nob hill and so we have really a diverse neighborhood filled with mixed use, businesses and rldz. a lot of low-income tenants. seniors.
almost 500 parcels and the alley just north of farrell to the south, california to the north and van ness to the east. and we have additional parcels, the medical center and we're pleased we have sergeant john mcaulay park. i'm going to be brief and cover basic things. we have a robust cleaning program. sweeping, pressure washing, maintenance services. through the reporting period, we staffed adjacent restroom at sgt. mcaulay park. we have a safety program.
we deploy an ambassador focused on community social outreach at the park and then starting this year, we're deploying ambassadors throughout the district to address safety and community concerns. we have beautification and improvement activations for the alley. we partnered with lower polk neighbors. the pandemic, we worked with businesses. thank you, chris core gis, for recognizing our work. with your excellent efforts to keep us supplied and informed of pandemic-related things, we really shifted from activations and keeping our alleys active to shifting staff resources to assisting businesses. next slide, please. i'd like to highlight one of our programs i think that is something we're very proud of and is unique for our cbd and
that's our lower polk landlord clinic. this was started with supervisor peskin. we operate the lower polk landlord clinic, which helps tenants and small businesses resolve issues that may lead to displacement and other issues. we do outreach, education all through dispute resolution such as mediation. the primary partner we work with is the bar association of san francisco. we have other partners we work with as well. and we have hundreds of residential and small business clients we serve annually. we also work with landlords, for instance, we've had landlords approach us with tenants that have issues such as hoarding and
other things that they're having challenges working with. they want to work with in good faith and we can engage in those areas. our client demographics are really unique and diverse. they range from teenagers to the 80s with most clients middle-aged or senior citizens. they're split to identify male and female with additional clients being transgender or nonconforming. only 50% of the clients identify with choosing not to identify. and the vast majority of clients are low-income. white makes up less than 30% of our clients. so really proud of the program. wanted to highlight it because it's something that is unique nor our cbd and that's a grant funded to the city. so thank you to support from the city for that. next slide, please.
>> director shulman, we reached the five-minute presentation time. >> sorry about that. this is just financials, if you have questions, we can go back to them. >> if you need another minute -- >> i don't have detail on the financials. i would just note we missed one benchmark during the covid year. and that was just, you know, totally caught up to everything. we had less street beautification and streetscape stuff and i think we're going to be back on track. >> chair preston: thank you, director shulman. appreciate the presentation. and seeing no colleagues on the roster to specifically address this one, why don't we move on, mr. clerk, to public comment. i just wanted to suggest -- it's certainly not required -- but suggest since we are hearing six
items together to the public, if you're addressing a particular one, you may want to let us know in the outset of our comments. mr. clerk, let's open up for public comment. >> thank you, mr. chair, we're checking to see if we have any callers in the queue. for those watching our meeting on cable 26 or through sfgovtv or elsewhere, if you wish to speak on these six resolutions, please call in by following the instructions on your screen. you would dial 1-415-655-0001. enter the meeting i.d. of 2482 054 3764 # #. and when you have entered that, followed by star and 3 if you
want to be entered into the queue to speak. wait until the prompt says you're unmuted. that will be the opportunity to begin your comments. do we have any callers in the queue to provide public comment on these six items? >> we have one caller in the queue. >> connect us, please. is there a caller on the line? caller, if you have heard your line has been unmuted, that means it is now your opportunity to provide your comments. mr. chair, please hang on for a moment while we make sure we're connecting to this caller. we have a caller unmuted, but they are not responding. and that is the only listener
that we have on the line. do we have any callers on the line? >> no, no more callers. >> thank you. >> chair preston: thank you, mr. clerk. so with no other callers on the line to make public comment, public comment on these six items is now closed. supervisor mandelman? >> member mandelman: so many people in the hearing, i also did just want to echo your kind remarks about chris, who i know has been enormsly helpful to cbds in my district and goes above and beyond in all sorts of way. i appreciate him and i think we all appreciate him quite a lot. thank you. >> chair preston: thank you,
supervisor mandelman and absolutely would second those remarks and thank all of the executive directors and mr. core gis, not just for all the work, but also in doing this review, the detailed reports provided both by the directors of the cbds as well as the memos from oewd that we all have the benefit of reviewing before these hearings. thank you, all, for that work and i do want to thank my legislative aide who has been in the weeds with mr. core gis on each of these items and the details of new cbds. thank you to her for her work. so with that, colleagues, do we have -- does anyone want to make a motion on items 1 through 6 with recommendation to the full board? so moved by supervisor
mandelman. thank you. mr. clerk, please call the roll. >> on the motion by supervisor mandelman. >> member chan: aye. >> member mandelman: aye. >> chair preston: aye. >> mr. chair, there are three ayes. thank you, mr. clerk, the motion passes. and mr. clerk, let's go ahead and call item 7. >> item 7 hearing to discuss the processes by which the city notifies residents of infrastructure projects that will impede access to their streets and walks. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this hearing should call 1-415-655-0001. the meeting i.d. for today's meeting is 2482 054 3764 # #.
then press the star key followed by the number 3 if you wish toen entered into the queue to speak. wait until the system indicates you've been unmuted and then you may begin your comments. mr. chair? >> chair preston: thank you, mr. clerk. and i want to welcome the folks from p.u.c. and the department of public works who will be presenting. each department has up to 10 minutes for their presentations. i want to thank supervisor mandelman for bringing this forward and sponsoring this item. supervisor mandelman, the floor is yours. >> member mandelman: it's a little unusual to have a hearing about the impacts of a city project on a few blocks in a particular neighborhood, but i wanted to have this hearing because those impacts struck me
as so outrageous that i certainly felt like those impacted neighbors had the right to have a little bit of a public conversation about it. but also because i think that the issues that are raised by the city's sewer and water main replacement projects in district 8 and -- although it's been experienced painfully along 26th street as well, but mainly between 26th street, i think that project and what went down there actually may have implications for -- especially the p.u.c.'s notification of neighbors when these kinds of projects are happening. so i want to, you know -- yes, i want to have a conversation about what happened in my district to these residents, but i also want to have a conversation about how the p.u.c. lets folks know when projects like this are going to
happen and what the impacts are likely to be. i think it also raises issues that we have discussed here before about low-bid contracts and about the city's ability to factor in prior performance into the future award of contracts which came up in the civil grand jury report. but i keep sort of tripping over as i see how the city operates. anyway, as i said, this hearing is the result of numerous concerning reports i received from the constituents about the city's sewer and water main replacement project, particularly on castro between 19 and 26th. on september 17, 2021, a public notice districted stated that concrete roadway work would restrict access to some garages and driveways along castro street, but also stated that
steel plates would be installed and that the contractor would prioritize minimizing disruption. this led residents to believe while there may be some disruptions and delays, they would still have access to their driveways and sidewalks throughout the duration of the project. well, that is actually the opposite of what happened. as work commenced, numerous residents were cut off from their driveways, in some cases up to 10 days. for those who parked in their driveways and garages, this meant 10 days drive to medical appointments, drop kids off at school and complete other day-to-day tasks. this was a significant burden for the use on households who were caught off guard to the p.u.c.'s failure to send adequate notice and had to spend time and money making
alternative arrangements. and so just to reiterate. the issue isn't that notice wasn't sent in advance of the project. it's that the notice complained completely inaccurate information about how the project would affect street access and nobody at p.u.c. caught this mistake until our office let them know i was considering holding a hearing. it seems to me, as i said, that the issues with this project likely reflect a systemic failure or at least weakness by the public utilities commission in identifying and communicating the impact of major construction work, with similar issues arising during a previous water main replacement project i became familiar with on 22nd street during which residents' water was shut off without required 24-hour notice. i am concerned that the p.u.c. and the city do not have adequate policies in place to
penalize problem contractors and reduce their chances of securing future city contracts. this was an issue with the 22nd street project. i think it's an issue with the castro street project. and i don't see why it won't continue to be an issue unless we have a legislative fix. i want to thank the residents of castro street who have been affected by this project for bringing it to my attention. i want to apologize on behalf of the city for what happened to them. and i look forward to learning more about how this particular debacle unfolded and what steps the p.u.c. will take from it ever happening again. so, unless -- for our first presenter, i believe it's jeremie spitz on behalf of the public utilities commission. they were the lead for the
project and the notice that went out. >> good morning, chair preston. good morning, supervisors. thank you for giving us the opportunity to present on this project and we are certainly looking forward to having a good conversation with you this morning. let me try and share my screen. can everyone see it? yep, okay. great. so, again, thank you. i'm jeremie spitz with the p.u.c. i'm going to give a brief overview of the project and get into the neighborhood impacts and the mitigation. so the goal of the project is to replace water and sewer pipes approaching the end of their useful life. the existing pipes were installed in the 1880s to 1930s.
the project also includes restoration of the roadway with new asphalt or concrete and some new sidewalks and curb ramps. the notice to proceed was issued to the contractor in august 2020 and the anticipated final completion is in the summer of 2022. here are visuals, just pictures of the old damaged pipes on the left compared with the brand new pipes on the right. and old cracked concrete and nice new fresh concrete. i'm happy to report that the project is almost complete. all the water mains have been installed and the majority are in service. all the sewer mains have been installed and are all in service currently. as far as remaining work, we have some remaining concrete repair and asphalt paving that will be taking place over the
first quart other of this year. we're partnering with the sfmta to repave the parking lot in noe valley in march. all right, so kind of getting into the specifics of what happened back in september. so, first, i want to say construction is inherently disruptive and as we work to make these important improvements, our goal is to mitigate the disruption and clearly communicate about any unavoidable access issues. so the way we do that is during the planning phase, the project manager, construction manager and p.u.c. communications coordinate to identify and communicate the mrakts to the public. -- impacts to the public. we were asked to outline the administrative policies that guide our outreach and the excavation work. the regulations are codified in public 2.4, which is titled the
excavation in the right-of-way. and further detailed in public works order 187005. contract specifications generally follow these two documents. the excavation code and p.u.c. contract specifications require notice that can be mailed or hand delivered. it requires the contractor to vet the mailing list with p.u.c. construction manager and p.u.c. communications. we also get the order out online via next door and regular updates so that residents can find information about sfpuc projects in the neighborhood. one new process improvement we implemented last september was for p.u.c. communications and contractor to directly issue an additional two-week notice and 24-hour notice on top of the 10-day and 30-day when there was
going to be driveway restrictions for a significant such as over one day. so, as supervisor mandelman mentioned, the reason we're here, all the processes didn't work as planned. on september 17th our contractor mailed out a 10-day notice for concrete pour on castro between 21st and hill. this was not submitted to the p.u.c. for review and contained language that was vague about the impacts to the driveway access as you've heard. the following monday, p.u.c. communications saw the notice and posted it on next door to get the word out as best as we could. on monday the 27th, we received complaints from residents that they didn't realize that access to driveways was going to be restricted. on wednesday, 29th, they met on
site to discuss potential mitigations to see what we could do to improve the situation. at that meeting we discovered that the contractor was, i would say, overly ambitious is a nice way to put it. they demolished a large part of the roadway and sidewalk at the same time. they didn't send the notice to the p.u.c. for review. every effort was made to expedite the concrete work. concrete normally needs to cure for 7 to 10 days, but we did take a risk to open the street after one to two days to mitigate the impact on the residents and to give them access. we itch implement -- implemented a new concrete power and granted by request during working hours with those pipes we discussed. so, this is just a diagram that
shows the original pour sequence that the contractor proceeded with. originally they poured the red and orange sections at once. given the large area, access was impacted because the area was too wide to fit a steel plate. the coordinating with public works we developed and approved the new work plan for te contractor to complete the new section first. so that access is maintained with steel later except for a 24-hour period to allow the green section of the concrete to cure, which just means harden. and here's a photo of the new improved and approved work sequence we implemented. you can see the steel plates on the right. since september and since we implemented this new procedure, we haven't gotten additional
complaints. as i mentioned earlier, we also instituted that new two-week and 24-hour notice which is sent by p.u.c. communications in addition to the 30-day notice and 10-day notice sent by the contractor. we informed the contractor they could not proceed without plans and following that new dating sequence that i mentioned. and then lessons learned that we're considering to include in future project specifications are focused on improving communications between the contractors, subcontractors and the p.u.c. construction team. we're considering a requirement that contractors submit a paving plan for approval in advance, placing emphasis on local access and accommodation and we're going to coordinate with public works to ensure we're adopting best practices and their specs that might allow us to avoid
situations in the future. that wraps up my presentation. thank you, again, for giving us the opportunity to present. i'm joined today by a few members of the p.u.c. staff, catie miller, the director of infrastructure capital improvements and my colleague bessie rhodes, who is the communications manager for water and eugene shoe, the construction manager. and we are available for any questions. >> thank you, mr. spitz. appreciate the presentation. i believe next we're going to hear from department of public works for up to 10 minutes. sorry, supervisor mandelman, i believe i jumped ahead. so go right ahead. >> and i don't know that mr. dahl is going to take the full 10 minutes, so i'm going to take some of his time just to ask
questions of mr. spitz. sorry, mr. dahl. so, you know, it's sort of trying to parse out the things that should have been done differently here. it seems like it's a mix of there weren't protocols and processes in place in the way that there probably should have been. and it also seems like the contractor didn't do some of the things that the contractor was supposed to do even under the prior kind of, you know, standard protocols that were in place when the project began. so, the content of the notice, the fact that none of these notices that went out had any content that would have indicated that folks may not be able to access their driveways
for some period of time, i mean, your fix to that has been to add a new -- to add a new requirement for an additional notice where there is concrete roadway, that is the thing that triggers this potential for prolonged -- a prolonged access problem. so that's a change. and how does that change get -- i mean, how is that -- how do we know that's going to be the case for every concrete road repair, sewer replacement thing that happens going forward? where does that requirement live and how does it survive beyond in project? -- this project? >> thank you, supervisor, for the question. i believe we had made the commitment internally to place that into future contract specifications when doing work on areas with concrete streets that might require that extra
notice. and, so did that need to get put into some internal document? if i wanted to check back in, in six months and see if things had changed, how would i know if things have changed? >> um, yeah, i'm not exactly sure if it gets -- so i think we have a contract template that we use. i think we would add it to that. and then it would be included and we could potentially add it to every contract and just say, if there are concrete streets, we need to do this additional level -- or you need to coordinate with the p.u.c. to do these additional notices. >> so probably whatever else comes out of the hearing, we probably should follow up with p.u.c. to make sure that has gone into the contract with some reasonable period of time. so we will. but the notice, it is possible that if -- i mean, there is a
requirement for p.u.c. to review the notices that go out, right? and it's not for sure the p.u.c. would have caught this problem that, in fact, this notice was inadequate, but it would have been good if someone in the p.u.c. had taken a look at the notice and that didn't happen here, right? >> correct. my understanding is that the contractor sent it out to the neighbors directly. >> okay. and then the contractor also pursued a particularly aggressive, as you were describing it, you can describe it again, because i'm not familiar with how these projects, you know, what it means, my understanding from our prior conversation is that the contractor moved forward with the work in the road on the sidewalk in a way that was aggressive and might move the timeline ahead, but was actually creating more impacts or neighbors.
again, did that on their own, without consulting with the p.u.c. or anyone. can you say what i'm saying inartfully? >> sure. thank you, supervisor. yeah, the contractors generally are interested in getting the work done as quickly and efficiently as possible. that is their overriding goal. so in this case, i think they really operated without sufficient consideration for local access and they were really just laser focused on, all right, what is going to get this done fastest? take out all the concrete, put in all the concrete and let it cure. and that was problematic for letting people in and out of their garages. >> member mandelman: okay. so it seems like, you know, in this very impactful for these neighborhoods, these neighbors screw-up. there is blame to go around.
there was some policies that were not in place that would have been helpful to have requirements in place. but this contractor did some things that made it worse. and at least two. so, does this contractor have a record of previously -- or does the sub or the contractor have a pattern of doing things that create problems? and do we look at that when we were awarding contracts? so, for example, the next time this contractor, who picked this sub, or this sub comes forward to try to get a city contract with this kind of work. as we evaluate who it should be awarded to, do we look at, you know, oh, gosh, this project that they did on castro street, they created a whole bunch of negative impacts for these neighbors. wow that got the p.u.c. in trouble and generated a hearing
that poor chair preston and supervisor chan had to sit through. don't want do that again. let's not use that. does that happen? >> so from what i've been told about this contractor and this incident, so the contract is awarded to the prime contractor. in our experience with the prime contractor, generally has been really positive so far. so, if we were to kind of have them come up for another contract, we have a lot of experience working with them and they have had a pretty good record with us. the subcontractor in this case, i'm not sure if they have a particular history of doing this, but we don't choose the subcontractors. the prime contractor does. so that's another aspect there. i will see -- i mean i'm not
sure if my colleagues katy or eugene have any particular history with this contractor or any way that they are able to kind of internalize and then communicate back out that feedback, but i know that i've talked to our construction managers before and one thing they have said is that they do a lessons learned after every contract -- or every project. and if they're working with that same contract, they review the lessons learned with the subcontractor. so i think it was r & s, who is an lle and if we were working with them, if they were added as a sub on another contract, our construction manager would be, hey, have a pre-construction meeting with them and go over the lessons learned and there would be something there about not making the same mistake again. >> member mandelman: was this a low-bid contract? >> yes, it was a low-bid
contract. >> member mandelman: in a low-bid, you're saying this is a generally good contractor, so even if you were weighing other factors, you might still have selected this contractor for this project. but something like this wouldn't be considered, right? -- in the award of the contract? i mean, you can bring it up, when the team is in place, come on, guys, you screwed it up last time, can we not do it again this time? but my understanding is that the screw-up would not figure at all in a low-bid contract situation? >> thank you. as you know, construction -- public construction contracting is strictly regulated by chapter 6 of the public works code. and for the most part, most of our construction -- i believe all of the construction
contracts are awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. that's the standard for public works contracting and is in the general public interest. we can't pick and choose the contractors directly for obvious ethical reasons. we can play a small role on qualifications. i know chapter 6 was updated to include safety. and since then we've implemented a safety prequalification program for the contracts that gives us a method that only contractors with a clean safety record can bid for the jobs. we can't -- it's difficult to subjectively judge a contractor. we have to find objective means to score bids before they come in. >> member mandelman: this was not a cmgc contract, was it?
>> no. it is not cmgc contract. >> member mandelman: so, well, cmgc contracts -- that came up -- this was the situation on van ness, it had been low-bid and was apparently required to be low-bid and so we are, you know, currently the b.l.a. is working on a report looking at amending the administrative code around low-bid contracts in that context. and i take your point about not wanting, you know, personal favoritism and relationships to be deciding who gets to do contracting, but it also strikes me as pretty troubling that past
performance doesn't factor more into the award -- or doesn't factor at all i think into the award of contracts. and sometimes pretty big contracts. so, that will be something that i think after we have a look at the b.l.a. report that comes out. it may not have any relevance to a project like this, but it is interesting to be tripping over these projects where it seems like the low-bid requirement or the low-bid award contracts doesn't seem to make, at least a ton of sense to me initially. so anyway, i think one of my colleagues has a comment or questions. i'll get out of the way. >> vice chair chan? >> member chan: thank you, chair preston. i think supervisor mandelman may have access already to discuss. i wasn't sure if i actually missed the point.
so an incident like this or a contract like this, obviously, there is an oversight. were there any penalties addressing these issues or no? >> there are a range of penalties, i believe, supervisor, thank you for the question. there are a range of penalties assessed. i don't have the exact details off the top of my head. i think they're generally reserved for egregious violations, so i might have to get back to you on that one unless one of my colleagues has that at their finger tips and wants to chime in. yeah, we can get back to you with that. i'm not sure what the penalties is. >> member chan: i total agree with the sentiment that we want to continue to work with
partners that can, you know, with all these capital improvement projects that provide quality service. this one is pretty serious oversight. i mean it seems so minor, but the impact to constituents or the community is significant. i would think that for a lay person, it's not obvious, but it kind of is. don't people need to use their driveway? it seems there is a lack of commonsense or consideration of really the people who like they're surfacing. and that has a mindset of a partner or contractor maybe should be something we should consider is this someone we want to do business with? we think about a lot of contractors in terms of we provide a lot of safeguards or policy direction that is
consistent with san francisco values. i would say this is not san francisco values. it was a lack of commonsense. and lack of consideration for community. but, with that, i, you know, same thing with some of the stuff that i have seen with central subway or even van ness construction, some other construction. it will be interesting -- or better understand for me at least, you know, what are, like, what are the recourse and what are the penalties in these type of contracts? what is the range? and what is the threshold? so i would really like that information, thank you. >> yeah, absolutely, supervisor, i'll get back to you on that. i do want to note, too, that we generally try -- our first approach when there is an incident like this, we try to work with the contractor to work out the problems and have a win-win situation so we can continue to work with them. especially when it's a small contractor, lde, as it was in
this case. there is a shortage of lbe and there is a local hire requirement on the contracts, so the big prime contractors have to meet a certain threshold and they have to bring local business into their project. so, yeah, it's really in everyone's best interest to work it out in a mutually beneficial way before we come down hard on them and fine them a thousand dollars per day or something. we had there incident in september -- this incident in september and we were able to work with them on a mutually agreeable situation and haven't had the situation going forward. >> thank you, supervisor chan. >> member mandelman: thank you, chair preston. so, now i think it would be good to hear from public works. and the reason we invited public works is not because we believe there was a failure here by
public works. we don't. but in the collection, different things are done different in different places. they have procedures in place for times when they're chopping up the streets and sidewalks. so we thought -- i thought it would be useful to give public works just a little bit of air time and, again, would encourage them to focus their presentation, but, you know, just to hear a little bit about how they do it and perhaps how their processes may be a little bit different from p.u.c.? >> thank you, supervisor mandelman. and welcome, brian dahl from public works. the floor is yours for up to 10 minutes, but i understand you may have a shorter presentation than that, which is always welcome. go ahead. >> all right.
let me get my full screen on. hello, supervisors preston, chan and mandelman. i'm government affairs liaison with san francisco public works. thank you, supervisor mandelman, for calling this hearing today. as supervisor mandelman just mentioned, i'm going to share with you some processes and best practices for construction outreach in regard to access of homes and businesses in a construction project. so, public works identifies impact that may impose on the community during both the design and construction phases. during the design phase, public works conducts reviews at various levels of completion. quality assurance and quality control review occurs at 95 and
96% completion and constructability occurs at 95% completion. we also work with the sfmta to determine traffic-control requirements and any impacts that will affect traffic and transit services. during the construction phase, public works conducts pre-construction meetings and site visits to assess pre-identified impacts and anything that may have come into consideration after the design phase has been completed. we also conduct weekly progress meetings at the public works team, contractor and subcontractor. so public works notifies residents of restricted access on the department website and mailed notices. the public works communication staff will create a detailed web page at least one to two months before the construction begins. when the page is on the public
website and includes all project details, including but not limited to, the scope of work, the project timeline, the limited access if any. the project manager, designated pio and any supporting documents that may include design reviews and renderings. similar to what jeremie mentioned, we send a 30-day notice mailed by the contractor and that is sent to all addresses within the project limit. and at the 14-day mark before construction begins, public works will send their own notice to the addresses within the project limits in addition to at least one block in all directions. this is just because if you're restricted access to the project limit, residents may park outside of the project scope and
that may impact residents outside of the initial project limits, like a trickle effect. we want to make sure we notify as many people as possible. then 10 days prior to construction, the contractor will send another notice. and public works makes sure to carefully review all notices sent by the contractor prior to their distribution. just to ensure that nothing is sent to merchants or residents that is inaccurate or misleading. so this is an example of one of the 14-day notices that public works will send via usps postal mail. the notice lays out all pernt information that can be found on the project-specific page on the department website. i've called out a few of the most important elements of the
notice. and then below, we call out which blocks will be developed and then on the right-hand side, as i said, is additional information such as contact information, the contractor, the project manager, the p.i.o. and where to find more information online. in addition to the notices that i mentioned previously, public works informs affected parties through having a designated p.i.o. on each project. this designated p.i.o. will post on social media, twitter and next door about construction
updates. we also send updates to those who opt in. we can't send e-mails to anyone without their permission. we need them to opt in. we list that on the web page where people can submit a form to get the notifications. we conduct outreach, like going door to door, talking to the business owners about what is going on, when the construction will begin and what access may be restricted. and for immediate restricted access, public works also does three-day door notices, where again we go door-to-door, or doorknob hangers to let everyone know if they're access to their home or driveway will be impacted. on left is an example of a next door posting that we posted
actually in december. it's alerting anyone who follows this construction that is going to begin that week. it includes a detailed schedule and then halfway through the shaded area in yellow calls out what access may be restricted. in this instance, it's restricted access to driveways. so, that's there for anyone who follows on next door. and then on the right, is the e-mail opt-in that i mentioned on the previous slide, where you just submit the form for your e-mail, your first name, last name and then you'll receive more frequent updates than the three notices for people who want to receive more information in realtime.
and that's the presentation. thank you for your time. myself and my colleague grace moore, who is public affairs officer with the public works construction outreach team are available to answer any questions. thank you. >> chair preston: thank you, mr. dahl. >> member mandelman: thank you. can you -- and this may -- i might have just missed it, but can you describe what the public affairs review that happens 95% of project planning and what that consists of and who is involved in that process? >> yeah. so, that's the point where the contract document and specifications are sent to the outreach manager and they look for impacts to the community that need special coordination, such as schools, fire departments and local businesses. it also allows the public
affairs team the opportunity to add any language to the contract document. pretty much it highlights community impact. >> member mandelman: it's not like there is a specific point in your process where the people who are working on designing and planning and the logistics and all the technical stuff about how the project is going to work, before they're completely done, the public affairs people who know they're going to have to communicate with neighbors and now they're going to be hearing from irate neighbors have to be brought in and everybody is looking at the same stuff and identifying, well, is there anything about this project that might require some additional kind of communication or public affairs kind of stuff? am i basically getting that? that is part of what that 95% review is? >> yeah, exactly, that's correct. >> all right, thank you. and public works, if my colleagues don't have questions
for you, i would like to bring back mr. spits. >> thank you, supervisor. >> chair preston: go right ahead. >> member mandelman: so, mr. spitz, it sounds like public works has a particular point in their process where they get everybody together and they have, as i said, the people who are going to do the work and overseeing the work, contractor and the public works staff along with the public affairs people, like all look at the same stuff and the public affairs people looking at it particularly through the lens of okay what might we need to communicate with neighbors about? do you -- does p.u.c. have that process? is there something analogous? that seems a little different
from just p.u.c. has to review all notices. that doesn't quite -- you know, that's a different thing. it seems like public works has the community engagement kind of function embedded in the project review function before the project starts. >> so, thank you, supervisor, for the question. i don't think that we do the exact same thing. i think currently our process is that our communications folks review after the project is bid and awarded. and they do walk the site with the contractor and the construction manager, but i do not believe that we have that pre-bid review where the project is still under design, where we'd be able to influence the contract document. my colleague -- yes, i think that's right. >> member mandelman: was that --
was that moment where the p.u.c.'s communications people walk around fully understand the project, understand all of the impacts, and think about what needs to be communicated with neighbors, did that happen on the castro street project? >> yes. i believe it did. but there was -- but no one at that point noted the -- we're on a concrete street. we're not going to be able to do this work as we've traditionally done it in a day. that means people are going to have access cut off to their driveways. that light bulb never went off for anyway. >> i believe the initial project walk happened in summer of 2020. and the following year in september was when we ended up pouring this section of the concrete. so i think that it probably was just a long duration between the
project walk and when that notice got sent out by the contractor without sending it to review that led us to miss it. but i would defer to my colleague. >> member mandelman: if the person that goes out and does that walk, i mean, is there any process for noting or thinking, woo, we have issues here, better make sure we get these covered and taken care of and that gets marked down or noted? because conceivably, very possibly it's not the same person doing the walk who would be asked to review six months later, or a year later, to review a notice, right? >> conceivably, i think in this case it was the same person, but if -- if there are -- so, an example would be, we have another project -- i can't remember the exact street -- but it's one of those streets with kind of a wide landscaped area
in between the street and the sidewalk and it's up a hill. and the water line actually goes underneath the sidewalk there. so that's something that when the project was in design, the project manager brought it to public affairs early on in the process and noted specifically, like, okay, there is no way to avoid digging up this area, because we need to replace this water line, so there is something that is going to require extra outreach. i'm not sure what happened in this case when the project walk happened versus when the notice was not reviewed, but we do -- if something is particularly noteworthy, it is usually flagged early. >> member mandelman: okay. and that flagging just seems to have not happened here? it might not have made any difference at all if the contractor provided the notice -- i mean, they should have, but there wasn't anything in particular that p.u.c. would have been looking for around the
concrete street and the access issue? okay. >> i think that we -- i was going to say, i think we would have flagged it was vague about the impacts. >> member mandelman: okay. other question. i think this is my last one. you know, in this castro situation we started hearing e-mails, we compiled a list of the e-mail addresses of effected residents, sent them to p.u.c. staff and employed provided. it was interesting to see that public works has an option for people to opt in to e-mail communication and join the late 20th century. and so is that -- is that something p.u.c. does, or no? >> can you answer that question?
that's my colleague who will help us. she's the communication manager. >> good almost afternoon, supervisors. communications managers for p.u.c. thank you for the opportunity to speak today. although we do not have the same program on our website as public works does, we're beholden to the same issues they are, and we cannot e-mail people until they gave us their addresses regarding projects. if you would like to receive updates about the project, please contact us here and we collect the e-mail addresses that way. and perhaps it's a credit to you that during this project we heard complaints not directly from residents, but through your office, so they felt they could reach out to you first. so in that case, i think that's how the e-mail addresses came through. >> member mandelman: so all of the letters that go out all have a place to opt in for e-mail communication? >> yes.
we say for further updates contact us here and on the project signage and website, we have who to contact easily accessible. as we receive contacts, we collect the e-mail addresses and reach out to people through the project as the project continues. >> member mandelman: we'll want to look a little further into, you know, what public works looks like versus what p.u.c. does, so all right. i think there may be members of the public who would like to make themselves heard. so we should probably do that. >> thank you, supervisor mandelman. mr. clerk, let's open up public comment on this item. >> thank you, mr. chair. we're checking now with maria from the department of technology who is checking to see if we have public comment in the queue who are waiting to provide public comment on item 7. for those watching our meeting
on channel 26 or streaming link or elsewhere, if you wish to speak on this hearing matter, please call in now by following the instructions displaying on your screen. dial 1-415-655-0001. then enter today's meeting i.d., which is 2482 054 3764 # #. then press the star key followed by the number 3 if you wish to be entered into the queue to speak. please wait until the system indicates you've been unmuted. could you please connect us to our first caller? >> so, thank you so much, supervisors. when we're looking at all these projects, you all need to make a list of the primes.
let's focus on the primes. once you focus on the primes, we need to make a determination why would the primes have only certain type of subs that do the work? that's the fundamental issue that you have to look at. now, if you have anything about infrastructure projects and you're beating around the bush here, there, everywhere, it doesn't happen. who are the primes that are doing this work? why do only certain primes have the ability to get the projects? [indiscernible] end of the story. thank you very much. >> thank you for sharing your comments with the committee. next caller, please. >> we have no more callers in the queue. >> thank you.
>> chair preston: thank you. with no callers in the queue, public comment on this item is now closed. supervisor mandelman, any further comments, questions? >> member mandelman: no, i want to thank both of you for your time this morning. i want to thank the staff at p.u.c. and public works for engaging with my office and my office jackie, for both engaging with neighbors and helping think through some of the issues that have come up at today's hearing. i do remain, you know -- i'm glad the p.u.c. is it sounds like looking at the project and drawing lessons learned and i will continue to be interested in seeing if that project actually somehow taking those lessons and actually building them into the standard operating
procedures actually happens. i think there remains issues around that i'm uncertain about. i'm not sure that what public works -- p.u.c. does in terms of allowing e-mail notification is as easy and as what public works does. i'm not sure that kind of -- the engagement of the communications people on the p.u.c. side is as robust as it ought to be and seems to be on the public works side. so those are things that i would love to delve deeper into offline with p.u.c. and then i think we're going to -- as you know, as a committee and then as a board maybe have more conversations about how we award contracts in different contexts and ways which we do actually want to think about prior performance in the award
of future contracts. so, with that, i will move that we having heard this hearing, that we file it. >> chair preston: thank you, supervisor mandelman. and let me just thank you for bringing this forward. and i think sometimes these individual cases are actually a good window into what the practices of departments are, so i appreciate learning more and the ongoing engagement around how residents are engaged on this. thank you for bringing this forward and let's call the roll on supervisor mandelman's motion to file? >> on the motion offered by member mandelman that the hearing be filed? >> member chan: aye. >> member mandelman: aye. >> chair preston: aye. >> mr. chair, there are three ayes. >> chair preston: thank you, the motion passes and, mr. clerk,
let's call item 8 on the agenda. >> agenda item 8 is a hearing to receive progress updates on the seismic retrofit plans for 301 mission, known as the millennium tower, based on public documents obtained by board of supervisors. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this hearing, should call in the public comment call in number, 1-415-655-0001. today's meeting i.d. is 2482 054 3764 # #. then press star followed by the number 3 if you wish to be entered into the queue to speak. a system prompt will say you have raised your hand. please wait until your unmuted to begin your comments. >> i want to welcome to the committee, supervisor peskin, who sponsored this item on top
of all of the details. things have been evolving before he takes the mic here for a minute, i want to recognize and welcome the folks who i believe are presenting today and those are neville pereira, department of building inspection, donald hamburger, senior principal, and dr. gregory deer lein, chair of the edrt. they will each have ten minutes to present after supervisor peskin kicks us off, if he has any opening remarks. supervisor peskin? >> member peskin: thank you, if i can start with housekeeping and ask mr. pike to turn his camera off. we will call -- i will call upon him a little later in this afternoon's hearing.
chair preston, and members of the government audience and oversight committee, thank you for hearing this. again, you last heard this on november 4th. hold quite a number of hearings in 2016 when the revelations about the differential settlement 301 mission street first came to the fore. we start this new year, 2022, as we ended last year and many other years with the millennium tower continuing to sink and tilt. i know that the title of this hearing is about progress, but progress has been going the opposite direction with the perimeter pile, quote, unquote, fix, which was originally going to consist of 52 24-inch piles
of bedrock, which we heard in the last hearing on november 4, there was talk about reducing the perimeter piles to 42 in number. and you will hear in the presentation today they are now suggesting be reduced to 18 perimeter piles. one-third of that which was originally envisioned for the fix. i have a series of questions relating to technical issues having to do with delay in the insertion of grouting materials. the overexcavation of soil that is thought to be one of the primary exacerbaters of sinking and tilting, as well as to hear about the current 18-pile
perimeter fix, where each one of those piles obviously is going to have to bear significantly more weight, a thousand kips as opposed to 800 kilometers per hour. we'll hear about that. i would like to ask questions about dan brown and associates, which has been historically represented by mr. ben turner, who i have found out and am somewhat troubled -- want to hear from him, i have not heard from him -- has been asked to no longer be on site during the installation of the remaining piles. with that, i understand that we are joined by the structural engineer of record. mr. hamburger, who we heard from at our november 4th meeting, he
wrote a letter to building inspection dated december 28, which was revised on january 4th, which i think gives a good historical compilation of what happened between 2009. remember, at the very beginning as a matter of fact in the original environmental impact report for this project, they predicted that over the life of this project, there would be approximately one half of one foot of uniform sediment for this very heavy building constructed of concrete as opposed to steel. and again, if there has been any progress here, it's progress in the wrong direction. that six inches became 18 inches and now has exceeded 24 inches
of tilt to the west. 8 inches of tilt to the north. but with that, i will turn it over to mr. hamburger. and then we will hear from our department of building inspection, which is reviewing the revised plans for reduction in scope from 52 perimeter piles to 18 perimeter piles. and then i thought we might want to hear, colleagues, from an external expert who does not have a horse in this race and is not paid and he is an engineer of -- with good bona fide, mr. robert pike, who you saw just a moment ago, who has been engaged in this matter. we'll hear from him. we'll also hear from the engineering design review team
panel from professor deerline and with that, mr. chairman, i turn it back over to you to hear from mr. hamburger. >> chair preston: thank you, supervisor peskin. and welcome, mr. hamburger. just a reminder because it sounds like we have three -- potentially four presentations and i'm sure questions from the committee and supervisor peskin as well, in your presentations, please keep them to 10 minutes. welcome, mr. hamburger. >> good afternoon, members of the committee and mr. peskin. i have a very brief presentation. it's just going to provide a very brief update on project status, since i last presented in november. if possible, i would like to share that presentation. thank you.
>> mr. hamburger, you should have presenter access now if you want to share your slides. i'll pause your time as you're calling them up. >> i have only a single slide to present. that is to state that as i stated in november and august 22, the project initiated a voluntary moratorium on construction activity and that was at my direction. in the period basically no work occurred from august 22 through october 12. in the period of october 12 through december 13, with the permission of the department of building inspections, we installed three casings and three piles using improved techniques. these new piles and casings have caused no additional settlement or tilting of the building, using these new techniques. however, the building does continue to settle at a rate of
about one half inch per year and to tilt at a rate of about three inches per year. it is doing this whether we are conducting work at the site or not. the building remains safe, but although the building remains safe, we believe the project needs to resume construction and complete this construction quickly. to allow us recovery of the tilt as originally planned. supervisor peskin noted, we have now submitted to the city's review panel the reduced scope for the project which includes 18 piles with more loads per pile. we have submitted this reduced build because we believe it's important to stop the tilting which is ongoing to do this quickly. we believe we can complete this reduced-scope project this year, stop the building from tilting and allow the residents to
return to normal life. i'd like to conclude my remarks by noting that i believe the building remains safe and, in fact, can tilt more without becoming a safety issue or serviceability issue. i stated that in my letter to the department of building inspection. i still believe it is in everyone's best interest that the project is completed quickly. thank you. >> chair preston: thank you, mr. hamburger. >> member peskin: mr. hamburger, can you explain why the plan went from the original submitted plan of 52 36-inch casings and 24-inch piles to what you contemplated when you were before us in november, which is a potential reduction to 42 piles, to what you have just mentioned and i mentioned early, 18 piles, how those will be
spaced and why we should -- i assume you originally designed this to be as optimal as possible and did not overdesign it. and that the exacerbated rate of differential settlement is what moved you toward a 42-pile solution. why should we believe that removing two-thirds of your original fix is going to be safe and effective? >> well, your assumption that i had optimized the original design is unfortunately incorrect. the original design of 52 piles was selected because i felt that i could safely add new piles at six foot on center around two sides of the building and take 800 kips of loads without jeopardizing the building safety.
i gave that to the technical engineer, who i believe is present at this meeting, and asked him if this would be sufficient, 52 piles with 800 kips per pile? if this would be sufficient to stop the settling and allow recovery of the tilting that has occurred at that time? they went off and did analyses for a period of several months and came back after that and said, yes, that will be sufficient to stop the tilting and the settlement. we never asked the question, can we install fewer piles? frankly, we were so happy that the 52-pile solution would work, when he came back and said that will work, we said, good, and we prepared our construction documents and submitted them to the city. the reason we proposed an alternative of 42 piles was because as the contractor got into doing the work, the first
thing they did, they did what was called indicator pile program, which is a procedure of installing piles using the techniques they were proposing to use. and then testing them to demonstrate that they could develop the capacity that we need in order to take off the building's weight. installing those piles, the contractor found that the original technique they were going to use would not work. they had to use a revised technique. ultimately, they found that the revised technique would develop the capacity we need and could work, while it would cost more money than we originally. allowed the project to be completed using fewer piles. again, i asked mr. egan if a reduction of 20% in the number
of piles could still accomplish the project's objectives? mr. egan and his team went off and did the geotechnical analyses and responded again, yes, this will work. and, again, i never asked the question, how many fewer piles can we install and still accomplish the project objectives? in august of this year, when it became evident that the building was tilting more with the installation of each pile and while we were exploring techniques that would allow to us install piles without negative impact on the building, i went back to the geotechnical, mr. egan and his colleagues, and asked the question, how few piles can we actually install and accomplish the project objectives? can we look at a number of alternatives ranging from the six piles that had been installed as of august of last year, through to the original 52
piles? we determined that by installing as few as 18 piles, which we know propose, and by increasing the load per pile, we could still accomplish the project objective. so it now appears to us to be an optimal design. this is the first time we ever attempted to optimize the design. >> member peskin: i'm not sure i know how to respond that you all did not ask that question at the beginning. it just seems -- i never have put myself out as a structural engineer, but as someone who does all sorts of different projects, generally, isn't that a question we ask in the beginning? doesn't the client say, well, gee, you could do 100, you could
do 18. it just is rather mind boggling that in the midst of this thing, in reaction to the fact that the fix was exacerbated, the cure was worse than the disease, that all of a sudden you started asking the questions of what was the optimal fix to begin with. you don't have to respond to that. it is what it is, that you didn't ask the questions until after the unfortunate fact. i would -- and we'll get to mr. egan, i would like him to represent that the 18-pile fix is going to arrest, if not reverse the differential settlement in the same way that the 52-pile fix was intended to do so. what was the rate of settlement prior to the fix being implemented? >> prior to the fix being
implemented, records show that from july of 2018 through july of 2020, the building was settling at a rate of about 3/8 of an inch per year. after we called the moratorium on construction in august of this year, the rate of settlement returned to approximately 1/2 inch per year. so slightly more now than it was prior to the initiation of construction. >> member peskin: why on your graph at page 9 of your december 28th letter revised on january 4th does that red line show three inches of settlement per year as those -- >> that's not actually settlement. that is tilting to the west. >> member peskin: i'm sorry. so we're -- yes, you're right. for every bit of differential settlement at the bottom, there
is -- right. so in the beginning, up until the fix, it was tilting at -- sorry, go ahead. >> i'm sorry, i was motioning to someone else who was coming into my office. >> member peskin: no worries. so, the rate of tilt prior to the fix was how many inches of tilt per an um? >> again, in the period july of 2018 through 2020, the measured tilt was about 3/8 of an inch per year, to the west, and a little less than that to the north, is my recollection. >> member peskin: and then starting with the fix in approximately early 2001, that rate -- that tilt jumps to 3 inches per year, is that correct?
>> well, actually there is data from later in july of 2020 that suggests that the tilt rate had increased before any construction activity occurred. in the period from january through may, 2021, when construction activity was negligible, the building was recorded as tilting to the west at a rate of about 2.5 inches per year. tilted much more than that during the active installation of piles in june through august. and again returned to a rate of a little bit more than a 2.5 inches per year now. >> member peskin: and at what point -- you originally said -- this is kind a little bit like your pile answer -- that the building could tilt 40 inches
before it was unsafe. later on you changed that to 79 inches. at the rate of 2.5 or 3 inches a year, when do we hit that 40 or 79 inches of tilt? >> we're currently at 24, three inches per year. you would hit 40 inches in about six years. you would reach 80 inches in about 20 something years. >> member peskin: and relative to the pile spacing -- and maybe we can here from mr. egan, but these were six feet on center as originally proposed with a 52-pile solution, how are the remaining -- you installed nine of the 24 piles rather and you have nine more to install. your mission street and freemont
street frontages are 125 on fremont and 120 on mission, how are those going to be spaced? >> the original design and the present design includes a dual pile system which consists of a 36-inch casing and a 24-inch structural pile. nearly all of the 36-inch casings had been installed by august. are we going to install the remaining piles within the casings that have already been installed. those casings are spaced at 6 foot on center around the building. we're selecting strategic locations where there are existing casings present to install the additional pile. concentrating the new pile that will be installed along fremont street and mission street near the corner of mission and fremont since that's where the settlement is worse.
>> member peskin: got it. and when you check on to the new -- assuming that the d.b.i. and approve this thing, which we'll hear from them in a little bit, you offload all of that weight on to these nine corner piles, can you tell us a little bit about that? >> well, we've done first of all, there has been test offing the piles and mr. egan and his team are convinced that the piles will be capable of with standing the increased load of a million pounds with a factor of say at least 2. i'll allow him to speak to that more. and we've done structural analyses of the existing building and foundation, where we have simulated the effect of
jacking the loads. we've also simulated the effect of the -- [indiscernible] -- as defined by the building code. with that jacking load present. we've demonstrated to our satisfaction and hopefully to the others as well, that the building will remain safe. that it will stop tilting and it will begin recovering tilt under that scenario. >> member peskin: all right. we'll hear from mr. egan in a moment. but let's get to means and methods for just a moment. you write in december 28, revised january 4 letter, that the contractor did not use drilling fluid, that the auger bucket may have been moving too quickly, but there is no data on that. and you speak to the oversized drill bit. can you address the committee on those three matters that have to
do with overexcavation? >> overexcavation, very simply is removing more material from the ground than you are filling with new structure, in this case, piles. we're now convinced based on the research done and the piles, using improved techniques, that overexcavation was the principle cause of the increase in settlement and tilting that occurred in the summer of last year when we were installing the piles. the procedures for installing piles were basically the contractor's prerogative. we did not tell them how to install the piles. we specified we needed piles at a given diameter and strength and he basically did those as a
design-build to install the piles in which he determined the methods by which he would have installed them. we determined that the methods he was using were resulting in overexcavation and this was resulting in more tilting and settlement of the building. we stopped the work. we worked with him to develop and improve procedures and those have proven successful. >> member peskin: and relative to the allegations that there was a relative to the most recent test installations a 1 to 4-day gap in the installation of grout, would you address that? >> the procedure for installing the piles takes three days to actually sink the 24-inch pile down 270 feet from ground level to the tip. once the pile is sunk down to
the ground takes a day to remove the drill string from the pile. takes a day to inspect the pile and insert reinforcing steel into the pile. and then on the next day, grout is inserted into the pile to basically bond the pile to the ground. i believe the allegations you're referring to is a four-day gap, the installation of a pile that occurred in august, just before we had terminated the work. we were not aware that that delay in placement of the grout had occurred. we're not aware of it until the contractors logs were presented to us some days after. in the -- under the new procedures that have been put in place as part of the pilot programs and demonstrated as successful, we're watching the
timing of the grout much more carefully and making sure it's placed properly. i will note and mr. egan will probably note this as well, that the requirement to place grout rapidly after the pile was drilled was put into these specifications before we knew that a case pile socketed into the bedrock. and that's specification, when it was written, it was under the original installation procedure proposed by the contractor that was drilled into the rock without a casing. under that scenario, it is important to place the grout quickly so the hole doesn't collapse while you're waiting to place the grout. using the newer procedure developed by the contractor during the indicator pile program that rock socket remained cased with a steel casing, 24-inch diameter steel
casing, until such time as the casing is pulled only until the ground has been placed. so it's critical the amount of time the hole remains open, so it cannot collapse. the casing is keeping it open. >> member peskin: appreciate that explanation. and relative to the dan brown and associates involvement in the test wells and their in-person monitoring of that during the test, i am aware and mention that they have been asked to not be there or we'll hear from the representative from dan brown and associates, but any comments on why they have been asked not to be there in person as the remaining piles are installed? >>, in fact, they've never been told not to attend. following the installation of
the first successful casings and piles, as we proposed to install more and that was improved, they volunteered that they did not need to be present at the site or wanted to see daily reports and logs taken by the project engineer. and we have been furnishing that. it was at their recommendation that they have not been attending. they are free to attend during any construction operation they wish to. >> member peskin: thank you for that clarification. and then you mentioned the august drilling logs that the contractor had. i have asked for those logs. the department of building inspection has told me that they have never been furnished with the august logs. can you shed any light on that? >> there is no requirement they be furnished to the department of building inspection. there was a submittal made to me as engineer of record.
i would return it to the contractor as approved. >> member peskin: i am under the impression -- not under the impression -- the department building inspection has logs for other months, not that one, but we can ask d.b.i. why they have not asked for august. >> i can clarify why they have the late ones. they specifically asked to be copied on them, so i furnished them. >> member peskin: understood. thank you for that clarification. i don't know if you have questions for mr. hamburger, maybe we can have mr. egan speak to his comfort with the 18-pile proposed fix and why he didn't mention that the 52-pile proposed fix was more than necessary. but i will turn it over to you, chair preston. >> chair preston: thank you, supervisor peskin.
well, mr. egan, up to 10 minutes to present. >> well, actually, i have not prepared a presentation having been only invited yesterday afternoon. but i will address some of the issues that mr. peskin has raised. ron actually gave a very good explanation of why the original design has been changed from 52 piles to 42 piles to 18 piles. and those 18 piles are strategically located along fremont street and mission near the corner of fremont and mission street, so that the load-carrying -- or the jacking of the forces into those piles achieves the most benefit of the
-- the settlement arrest along in that corner. and the recovery of tilt. and i will remind everyone that the original objective of this project was to arrest settlement at the corner of mission and fremont streets and as a side benefit to allow some recovery of the tilt toward the south and east. it was not to arrest the settlement of the entire building. so the positioning of those 18 piles with the addition of load from 800 kips to a thousand kips, although it doesn't reduce the weight of the building transmitted to the piles to the full extent that the original
plan did, it does reduce the weight sufficiently that those original objectives of the project will be achieved and the positioning of those piles will arrest the settlement of the building, you know, at that northwest corner. and by the positioning -- by removing the piles along mission street toward the eastern end of the building and to a lesser extent some on the southern end of fremont street, there will be perhaps additional settlement that occurs towards the southeast portion of the building. and we may actually achieve some additional tilt recovery that we were originally anticipating. with regard to the ability of the piles to carry a thousand
kips rather than 800 kip, the original pile load tests were run and did not achieve ultimate capacity and what we found was that the capacities that were measured corresponded to a lower bound of capacities that we observed from, you know, tests at nearby sites at ocean-wide, at other sites in san francisco that were tested for similar construction of piles, you know, rock sockets into san franciscan formation. so combining all of that information, i feel comfortable that we can achieve about 30% more capacity on average, you
know, in the piles as they are -- have been constructed -- will be constructed, you know, which easily gets us to the thousand kips and beyond for each individual pile. with a factor of safety of at least two. >> member peskin: and mr. egan -- and maybe this is a structural question, not a geotechnical question, but do you have concerns about the additional stresses on the foundation? >> that's a structural question. i'll let ron address that one. >> mr. hamburger, do you have any concerns about additional stresses on the foundation? >> no, i do not. in part of our original design, detailed analyses to determine how much load we could put on each pile before we would cause problems for the existing foundation.
we can put as much as 1.5 million pounds without causing failure. there is a very adequate margin of safety. >> member peskin: it just seems odd and convenient that as you face the problem of increased differential settlement as a result of the pile installation, that the pile installation reduced by two-thirds in number now seems to do the trick and it just begs the question as to why that wasn't what you all decided at the very beginning, but i will -- i've asked that and you've answered it as best you can. if there are no questions from committee members, i would suggest that we move on to the department of building inspection and subsequently the engineering design review team.
good afternoon. >> chair preston: before we go to d.b.i., supervisor mandelman? >> member mandelman: yeah. i guess i want to follow up a little bit on that sort of optimizing-pile question. i mean, is there something that is lost or potentially lost in reducing the number of piles? i mean, i would assume -- well, i have no idea, i'm not an engineer, you know, more support in more places in the absence of anything -- any other constraint might be better and then you discover that there is a constraint pushing in the other direction and you start looking for, all right, well -- was -- isn't there some trade-off in going from 42 to 18? or because if not, then it does sort of -- then supervisor peskin's question, it does seem odd to do more just for the sake of doing more.
>> there are obviously trade-offs and i will talk about in a moment. but i think it's important to understand the context under which the 52-pile design was originally developed. at the time we developed that original design, there was a proposed alternative design by another engineer in which he was proposing to install 400 piles beneath the building. and so when we determined that we could do the same thing with 50 piles, that was viewed as so far superior to what had been previously proposed, that we did not attempt to look any further. with regards to the reduced number of piles, the more piles we install, the -- you could say -- as mr. egan has responded, in fact, by installing fewer piles,
we will likely get more tilt recovery than had been proposed under the original design. under the original design of 52 piles, as we jacked the building, we actually expected not only that would we arrest settlement at the northwest corner, but we would actually recover some of the settlement, as much as an inch and a half or so that had already occurred in that corner. by going to fewer piles, we're losing that benefit. so rather than recoverying some of the settlement that has occurred, which was never really the project objective, we will not be doing that. we will be stopping the settlement at the northwest corner and jacking the building out of the ground as we were with the 52 piles. also, as another trade-off, there is a benefit in installing fewer piles that we are
providing less stress on the existing foundation where we're doing a less intrusive retrofit, with i is -- which is actually beneficial. i stated earlier, the 52-pile design was based on the maximum i thought i could do given the geometry of the project. not so much that it was, but close to that point. by putting in fewer piles, i'm backing off and getting less close to that point where i would be concerned. >> thank you, mr. hamburger. supervisor mandelman, anything further? >> member mandelman: nope, i'm
good. >> chair preston: let's go ahead with the department of building inspection. mr. pereira, welcome. >> thank you, chair preston. good afternoon to the rest of the supervisors on this call. i have a brief five-slide presentation for you. i wanted to start by reiterating d.b.i.'s position on this project and projects in general. our role from the department standpoint is primarily to review the proposals and plans provided to us by the project sponsors and their design professionals. as a result of our reviews, we issue corrections along the way
and issue permits to allow the construction to go ahead. in addition, we investigate complaints along the way that may result prior to construction or along the way of construction as is the case with this particular project. in this particular case, we have instituted a more of an oversight as far as having regular quarterly habitability inspections as we send out on a basis. at any time in between those inspections, the homeowners association can alert us as to concerns and we'll respond immediately to those concerns. and along the way of construction, during
construction, the actual installation of the piles, we also send out a senior building inspector on the date of construction to inspect the site, make sure that things are working the way we expect to and, you know, continue on. additionally, we manage engineering design review team, which is comprised of our own staff. i oversee two senior engineers that are part of this management of the engineering design and review team. and we have the engineering design review team which is comprised of private specialists in the area as well as we oversee dan brown and associates who has been hired by the homeowners association, but reports to the department of building inspection. next slide, please.
so, the letter that we received essentially requests permission from our department to move forward out of the pilot program into production and d.b.i. supports resuming construction as was requested in that letter. the intent is to continue along the lines of the approved plans, which is the 52-pile solution and there is no indication, you know, to deviate from that. construction has been moving along the lines of those approved plans even though the construction means the methods have changed. >> member peskin: i realize that you might not have been working for the san francisco department of building inspection at the time, but mr. hamburger said earlier that the contractor was basically just told to do the
job, but were not given any parameters around means and methods and that led to overexcavation, a drill bit too large, not using drilling fluid, auger bucket that was allegedly moving too quickly and sucking out too much material all of which exacerbated the sinking and tilting. does that give you any concern? shouldn't d.b.i. be monitoring that? >> supervisor peskin, thank you for that question. it's actually normal practice to allow the contractor to determine the means and methods. and it's only until alarms go off as they did in this particular case. and they do continuously under regular circumstances. just last week we sent out an engineer to determine what had gone wrong with a project in our jurisdiction. but this is normally the way construction occurs.
>> member peskin: i would submit to you respectfully, this is not a normal case. the margin for error here is much different. this is not, you know, stick construction and the avenues or north beach. this is a 50-plus story, very heavy building in the middle of our downtown that is precipitously tilting over two feet. but i don't think there is a lot of room here for on-the-job learning. >> understood. >> member peskin: please proceed. >> the piles that were approved in concept during our three-pile installation during the program and continue to monitor the construction logs and the survey logs of the settlement and tilt of the building.
d.b.i. and edrt and d.b.a. continue to analyze the data as given as indicated by mr. hamburger earlier. we get this pretty much in realtime. that is part of the modified installation procedures to ensure that the data flows pretty much in realtime from the field to the edrt and the review team. >> member peskin: this may also be before your time, but the most precipitous drop in the beginning, that's the red line on page 9 of mr. hamburger's letter began in -- with the casing installation and led to the quote, unquote, voluntary -- although d.b.i. should have found it sooner -- halt on august 23rd. why is d.b.i. not curious and did not ask for the august drilling logs?
>> as was stated earlier, supervisor peskin, those -- those weren't a requirement of the procedures at that time. it's expected that the design professional and as mr. hamburger stated, that they review these anomalies and alert the team if there was any concern. so that process or that mechanism was cleared up as we looked at the installation procedures and the increase of the oversight project going forward. >> member peskin: okay. >> so during the three-pile installation, the three 36s and the three 24s all the way down to bedrock, the results were very promising as stated earlier. about a 10th of an inch, a
thousandth of a foot on each installation, some even less. and so those -- that procedure and hopefully those results will continue on the continuation of the production piles with a-stop still in place -- hard-stop in place if it meets the quarter inch per pile. we have a hard-stop agreement with the field crews. next slide, please. so, we will continue to oversee this project as you've heard earlier. we just received a revised proposal for the installation from the 52 piles down to 18. we've just received that
information, so we have almost no comment on it, just because we barely broke into the report. the engineering review and design team is actively engaged in that review. and so we are -- we are waiting. we have some outstanding comments that we've placed on the analysis of the -- the projected settlement and the team is moving forward at analyzing their projected settlement as you heard mr. hamburger earlier on. we asked for a total projection to the end of construction and we received that, too. one of the things that is still outstanding from the design engineer is a very detailed analysis of the settlement of the building, a projection of the way the building is going to
react to this installation. we've asked that they provide this detailed analysis and it will take us approximately a month, for weeks or so, to review that. what we know is that the 3d analysis of the building. so going forward, we'll continue to monitor the building and provide feedback to the design engineer and have this active discourse that we have been on a weekly basis. we'll continue to send out a senior inspector on a daily basis when there is construction going on to monitor the site. and we will look to review this proposal that has been recently submitted to us and expect results back to the team by about the end of february.
>> member peskin: thank you. >> so with that, i'll hand it over to, i believe, dr. ben turner. >> member peskin: that works. >> yes, thank you. i'm ben turner. i'm a geotechnical career with dan brown and associates. i think it will be helpful to go back to the beginning and tell about how we began on the project. we were brought on board to bring insight into the drilling procedures and aspects that may have been contributing to what we've all seen was apparent increase in the race of settlement and tilt attributable to the set of piles. we started engage in conversations with all of the players of the project. to gain an understand offing the
drilling procedures. we offered our hypotheses about the aspects of the drilling program that might be contributors to the settlement. and we attempted to be all encompassing. we didn't know which ones report more applicable versus less. we offered up that list to everyone for consideration. as you heard, the design team led by mr. hamburger, then went back and revised the specifications for the pilot program and the contractor revised the design and the pilot commenced. so three 36-inch casings were installed. i observed the drilling for number 32 and 33. and the 24-inch pile number 231. -- 31. as part of my time on site, i
worked closely with the drillers and the personnel from slate geotechnical there full-time to observe the construction, to make sure that everyone was aware of the things we wanted to be paying attention to as they might retain to the increases in the settlement. and so that things were logged and recorded so we could capture the data that would give us insight into the mechanisms contributing to the settlement. we have been involved on a continuous basis. we review the logs in realtime of all installation activity and the way they're recorded by the contractor and the slate geotechnical personnel on site. some of the key things changed are summarized on this slide. the drill-bit diameter was reduced and the way that data is recorded. the plots that we have seen in
the letter submitted by mr. hamburger show that the rates of building tilt and settlement during the so-called moratorium are approximately the same as since the pilot program commenced and has not finished at the -- now finished at the end of december. the objective at the outset to minimize the amount of settlement and tilt has been achieved. that's not to say there is not local variation in the plots. there is some attributable to the installation of the piles, but on average, it's the same for the period of construction. i think we can all acknowledge that it's been a successful program to minimize the amount of settlement occurring during construction, which was the goal at the outset. and i'll just also reiterate the point that was made that these revised procedures, through the different specifications and the new means and methods of the contractor and importantly, the
new monitoring requirements and data recording by the personnel that are on site for that purpose will all be applied going forward for the production piles. so the new successful techniques will be used going forward. and that's all i've got. i believe professor greg deerline is going to speak next. >> mr. turner, thank you for the your comments and involvement. it does give me some comfort that d.b.a. is there. first of all, how would you characterize your no longer being on site going forward? >> sure. as i said, i was on site and viewed with my own eyes all the revised drilling procedures and worked side-by-side with the personnel from slate geotechnical who are mandated to be there. so that person understood what
we were interesting and i have full confidence they were documenting it in a way that we desired. that has been the case since. those personnel know they're obliged to contact myself if anything seems out of the ordinary, by has not happened since the pilot program has commenced. so we're comfortable with the way we've been operating from the onset. >> member peskin: okay, great. so you are -- you would characterize -- i don't want to put words in your mouth -- voluntary as your no longer needing to be on site, you were not asked to not be on site? >> that is correct. at no time have i been barred from going on the site or told i am not allowed to go on site. >> member peskin: were you asked to not attend future installations or was that your
suggestion? >> that was our suggestion. we did not feel it was necessary given the observations of the onsite personnel. >> member peskin: got it. thank you for that candid response. and then relative to the reasons for settlement during the previous process and you wrote about this a little bit, namely unintentional ground-mining along -- can you speak to unintentional ground-mining and how that has exacerbated settlement? >> well, in part, to be frank, no, i can't. i wasn't there observing any of the construction we weren't involved prior to october. you know, the procedures that we recommended that they consider revising appear to have been successful in minimizing the ground loss.
i'd rather not speculate on what caused the settlement, per se. i don't think that can be determined definitively. what we know is that all the various procedures we modified and the changes to the way it's observed and documented appear to have been successful. >> member peskin: but you did speak to the unintentional removal of some five cubic yards of material, would you like to amplify on that? >> that was misquoted and taken out of context. at no point did i say 5 cukic yards was excavated. the amount of grout placed into the pile exceeds the theoretical volume of the pile. this is typical in drilled pile foundation construction, simply because some of the grout penetrates into the ground. the ground is not a solid mass.
there are voids between the soil particles and granulars. we expect that some grout will penetrate into the formation. and so after extensive discussions with the contractor and among all the players here, we believe that is the most likely explanation for why there is more grout going into the hole than the theoretical volume of the pile. again, i want to reiterate that is fairly typical in drilled foundation construction. >> member peskin: thank you, mr. turner. very much appreciate your response and involvement. and why don't we go to professor deerline. >> welcome. >> i'm reporting on behalf of
the engineers, structural engineers and myself. november 4th when we met, our role on the project, we were originally brought on to review the original permit and then also to retain through construction, but that was really focused on looking at design issues that come up with construction. testing of the indicator pile that establishes the final socket ranks for the building shaft or for the piles. revisions to the design. and also to monitor progress. and, of course, the settlement and tilt that's come up to then delve into some of the reasons and talk to the design team about how they're going to address that. i would point out that the way we operate, we've been since last august pretty much been meeting weekly with the design team, together with d.b.i. and ourselves. and we've also e.d.r.t. meets on
its own along with d.b.i. to discuss things we hear from the design team and documents we've reviewed. and also as ben mentioned since last october, really, both ben and dan brown himself have effectively been part of our review. in other words meeting regularly with us. so next slide. i have kind of three slides i wanted to go through. first, i wanted to talk about the construction settlement. and one point i'd like to make here is that the issues that have come up over the last nine months on the accelerated settlement and tilt of the building and so forth are really construction-related issues. they're not related to the design of the retrofit itself. the retrofit, until the piles are in place and the mat expansion and the piles are jacked, we don't expect any arrest of the settlement. that is we have to get to the
completion of the construction for that to take place. but the three bullet points here recap what we heard earlier today. i think of the accelerated settlement that occurred during the initial installations from roughly may to august, that's been attributed to disturbance of soil during construction. second bullet point, the modified construction procedures for the casings and the 24-inch piles and ben spoke nicely to those, have been successful as reducing -- at reducing these accelerated settlements. and the current settlements, while significantly reduced from what happened last summer are still a concern until such time they could be arrested by the completion of the retrofit. a key thing that especially comes up in the news, but on
behalf of the people in the millennium tower, is looking at the safety of the building and the effect of this tilt on the building. the two-feet tilt to the west, that's a significant number, but i wanted to say a couple of things. the first two bullet points i have are to put the tilt in context. two feet of tilt over a 600-foot tall building, it's about a 1 to 3 ratio. that number is in the bounds of some construction tolerances for maximum out of plumb when buildings are underbuilt. earthquakes, there is guidelines. that tilt is in the same range. moreover, when buildings are designed for such as this building and every other in san francisco, for earthquakes, there is a large lateral force put on to mimic the effect of
the earthquake. and that basically results in the structure and foundation being able to resist large overturning moments. that is the tendency for this thing to tip if you will. so the amount of tilt that is on it now is about 6% of the design earthquake moment. those are first two points. but what's most important is the third bullet point here. that is that the design team led by s.g.h. and hamburger are doing detailed analyses and we're continuing to review those. we're revisiting those in light of the current situation here to look at the safety of the building under the combined effects of gravity along with the so-called maximum considered earthquake, a very extreme earthquake. and everything we reviewed today shows that the current tilt has
24 inches negligible impact on the earthquake safety. and hamburger and his team have conducted analyses and we're reviewing it. we have a number of questions back to them, looking at three times that tilt, but we expect to kind of resolve any questions we have with the design team shortly on that. finally, we're keeping track of looking at serviceability. that is the mechanical systems, elevator systems, also floor-levelness and gap. as we've heard from ron hamburger and homeowners, those are things that they're monitoring and things that are not directly jeopardizing safety. if left unattended, they have consequences, but -- corrective action is being taken. so then the key technical
aspects we're working on is this revised tilt. the reduced number of piles from 52. we looked at from 52 to 42 and now looking at 18. we're not prepared to comment on that. we're reviewing that now and asking a number of questions of the design team. but a few aspects of that, the increase in the piles strength going up from 800 kips to 1 thousand kips, that's based on the pile tests and edrt is generally in agreement that thousand kip load can be substantiated. a key thing is that we're currently looking at the analyses that have done for short and long-term tilt to the building as related to the reduced number of piles that are put in. and looking at this so-called
computer program, a very detailed analyses to make sure that any reduced number of piles, say down to 18, that those are sufficient to arrest the tilt to the west and the north of the building. and then as continued settlement of the rest of the building happens to, in fact, have tilt recovery. the other thing, second to last item here, the earthquake safety. looking at the detailed analyses under the current condition of the building without the retrofit piles. once the retrofit piles are in and anticipating what future condition of the building in terms of any additional tilt that happens, say, through construction, to make sure that the building is safe throughout that entire time. and then the last item here, when the piles are atamped to the building -- attached to the building, the safety of that. i would point out that one
feature of the design they have is the additional piles that will be attached. there is a fuse in them that limits the amount of load they could put into the mat extension and therefore the mat. we've also recently gone back over a number of calculations and looked carefully. and all of the tilting of the mat or the deformation and tilting of the mat since 2009, which was the point at which the surveys of the mat were first taken, that evidence indicates that the mat is rotating at a rigid body. so there has been discussion of the dishing of the mat, but that was present in 2009 and has not changed from then to the present. so its rigid body rotation which is reassuring it's not putting additional deformation into the mat. with that, i'll wrap it up and i'm sure there are questions. >> member peskin: thank you. i don't have many questions, but
we know the mat is dishing. do your analyses take that into account? >> well, let me say that the mat has dished again as i just mentioned. the surveys that began in 2009, survey points along the mat that established in 2009 that there was a dishing to the mat at that point, that the amount of dishing has not changed depreciateably from then until now. so that the settlement this is occurring, it's as if it's a rigid body motion. there is speculation of various ports that could have occurred during the initial construction of the building, when the mat was first cast and so forth. but the important thing is it's not -- there is no dishing that occurred since that point until now. but in terms of checking that, as ron hamburger described, a key part of his analyses is
doing modelling of the mat itself to make sure that under the current condition and with the additional piles that the mat will not be overstressed. >> member peskin: professor deierlein, do we know there is no evidence of cracking in the mat? >> well, there is no evidence -- well, on the top of the mat, in the basement, and early on in this project, i visited that and walked through with mark and others. there is no evidence of any stress to the mat up at the surface of the mat. you know, one could speculate what is happening at the base of the mat. there was a comment, in fact, one of the public commenters in our last hearing that we had with you back in november raised concerns about cracking at the bottom of the mat and corrosion. we have no evidence that the amount of dishing there to have caused large cracking, moreover the conditions of the soil down there and that is not exposed to
the air, would minimize the chemical reactions that can affect the concrete and lead to corrosion. >> member peskin: okay. i have no questions. thank you, mr. deierlein. we look forward to hearing your results of the 18-pile, one-third of what was originally proposed scheme. and with that, for a totally new and different view, if there are no questions from committee members -- >> just wanted to -- and maybe this is for mr. pereira. i'm just -- i am curious when from d.b.i.'s perspective any determination is going to be made as to the total tilt that is safe? when i hear the projections that mr. hamburger is saying, at the current rate, we reached that in six years or 20 years. i mean that to me seems like a
pretty huge determination to make that guides a lot of this. obviously, we want to get it to little or no to minimize the tilt. but at what part of the process is the d.b.i. or if at all determine this is what we believe to be the safe amount of tilt for this building? or is that not a determination that d.b.i. can make? >> thank you for that question, supervisor preston. it's a joint decision or a very view the edrt or the d.b.i. are doing. the information has been provided to us by the design team. and we had some questions about that. the number 79 inches, you know, you may remember that from the
last hearing that we had has been proposed. and you got to understand that the 79 inches that was part of that analysis is considering not the static stability of the building, it's the ability to withstand the maximum considered earthquake, so it's an extreme situation. it is something we've been presented with and we are still reviewing it and it should be, you know -- it should be just a matter of weeks actually. one of the -- i mean, the primary concern right now seems to be the revised proposal, but we are -- we are actively reviewing that right now. >> chair preston: thank you. supervisor peskin? are you ready for the final presenter, or did you have any additional questions?
>> member peskin: i'm ready for alternative view from mr. pike. >> mr. pike, you have up to ten minutes, welcome. >> good afternoon. my name is robert pike. i have a ph.d. in geotechnical engineering and i'm registered to practice as a geotechnical engineer in california. prompted by what i had heard in the press conference announcing the perimeter pile upgrade that really surprised me, back in 2019, i wrote an article titled the proposed millennium tower fixes of past. i was and still am mostly concerned about floors in the overall concept, but i also noted that the proposed requires complex and difficult construction. although i did not know it at
the time, mr. hamburger, the leader of the design team, was asked to respond to the plights i made in my article. in his response to -- which i saw several months ago, mr. hamburger said we believe our design evaluations have addressed all of his technical concerns. he also claimed that the required construction is neither complex nor unusual. neither of those statements was true. one of mr. hamburger's supporters said on tv that the underpinnings of this sort is done in san francisco all the time, yes. but not with over 200 foot long piles under a 600 foot building. this is both complex and unusual. when installation of the casings and piles began in may, it was quickly apparent that additional settlement was triggered, but it
was not until august 22 that the installation was put on hold. i believe this resulted from pressure by edrt who recommended a firm with more experience be brought in. which were two good moves on their part. subsequently three test casings and pilot piles have been installed. the design team is given changing explanations of the causes of the additional settlement and has made claims about the success of the changes made and the methods of the installation, which i don't think is supported by the facts. i'm going to skip over my written remarks to save a little bit of time. i'll just go to one might have thought that for a building that already had a settlement problem, that the design team would have done the necessary research regarding minimizing additional settlement before beginning production and installation rather than during
construction. having saved a little time, i'll add one additional point. several people have talked about indicative piles, plural. there were two indicative piles. the first one failed to take a load which resulted in the method of installation being changed. so only one indicator pile was ever tested. mr. hamburger said at various times the additional settlement caused by the installation of test casings using modified procedures was negligible and the settlements had returned to naturally occurring rates, whatever that is. that is not true in my opinion. it's true that the overall settlement in the period of the installations, the test runs, was lower between may and august, but there were greater intervals between installing the individual recent test casings
and piles than there was during the production installation. my interpretation is that there was little if any reduction in the amount of settlement caused by individual casings or piles. certainly the monitoring improved thanks to ben turner's efforts, but no significant changes were really made to the installation procedures. in the long run, this might not matter. as mr. hamburger has suggested as various times. once the north and west sides of the tower are underpinned, settlement will be greatly reduced. however the settlement will continue and the direction will be reversed. all might be well, but the continuing settlement will be largely due to secondary consolidation which can go on forever. i'll explain that if you want to
know the precise definition of forever. so it may tilt to the southeast. the discussion about future settlements assumes that this asymmetric fix is otherwise fine, which it is not. nonetheless, mr. hamburger who has reversed course, has accepted the settlement caused by pile installations are not negligible and suggesting that as few as 18 piles should be installed, rather than the 52 as called for in the settlement agreements that brought the various lawsuits to a close. writing in a q&a section to the homeowner, we judged that the pile solution offers an optimal solution between additional settlement and benefit gained. in spite of the previous conversation between supervisor peskin and mr. hamburger, i don't think this passes the
smell test. what is more likely is the design team is panicking because they're out of time and money provided under the settlement agreements. this judgment that 18 piles is as effective as 52 cannot be supported by engineering arguments, so you have to look for some other explanation of it. i say that in spite of having friends testify today. i agree with some of the points that greg made, but i'm skeptical about their continuing dismissal of significant questions. there is always been a hint of this in mr. hamburger's non-responses to good questions asked by edrt.
again, compliments to the edrt, they've been asking good questions, but frequently, they only get incomplete answers or they don't get any answers at all. ron is always seemed to me to be answering questions in such a way as to maintain the narrative that was settled on during the mediation proceedings that led to the settlement of the lawsuits, rather than fully addressing the actual questions. my technical concerns are documented in more detail in a 29-page document and several follow-up documents which are included in the public file for this meeting. i'll just briefly note two big issues about long-term -- if the perimeter pile upgrade is completed in any fashion. these have had more structural than geotechnical issues, but you can't separate those things. the mat which is already dished
and i say likely cracked. greg spoke accurately to that. but there are knowledgeable people who continue to think that the tops of the piles and the mat itself might well be cracked. how are they going to respond to the transfer of load to the new perimeter piles? and the second one is how the mat -- particularly the outrigger is going to behave in a major earthquake. ron hadn't gone into the detail which is appropriate, but his advanced analyses which he says ensure adequate performance at certain levels of tilt actually show significant deformations in the outriggers and there is a question about whether they exceed the design capacity. i'm going to skip a big paragraph that i have on the limitations on the advanced
analyses. you can read this in the text that is being provided to you. and go to, although mr. hamburger suggest that the optimal solution is reduce from 52 to 18. i would suggest that it's to reduce the number of piles actually connected to the tower to zero. i believe that zero perimeter piles would offer a better, although not completely satisfactory performance. i added a little praise. it says in lectures given at the universe of kansas, university of minnesota, ron has said something like the building is fine. we really don't need to do anything, except for show to restore the real estate values. i'm not making this up. you can find those presentations on the internet.
supervisor peskin has previously suggested a complete review of this matter needs to be undertaken to see if there is a better long-term solution to the original problem which is continuing settlement of the old mat. the fact that the existing design team, no matter qualifications, education, nice people, has so badly mismanaged the pile installation gives no confidence in their solution that the perimeter pile solution can still work. this might be complicated by the existing legal agreements, but the city needs to spell out what is acceptable and what is not. >> that was the 10-minute [bell ringing] -- bell for the presentation. >> i appreciate you sharing your wisdom with this committee and
the public. we are going to continue to monitor this as the edrt wrestles with the 18-pile revised plan. and i certainly encourage edrt to work with mr. pike and seek his input as well. i do want to ask professor deierlein one question, which is in the intervening time between when he spoke, i was able to look back at a 2017 report that mr. deierlein produced, wherein he said that the maximum tolerance is 1/600th times the building height as compared to the 1/300th that was presented in the slide earlier. i just wanted to get
clarification on that while i've got you. and thank you again, mr. pike. you can turn your camera off. >> well, in the slide that i showed, i was quoting from the american concrete institute, their specification 117 for construction tolerance, i had the point -- .1% to .3%. depending on the floor, it's either 1/1000 or 1/300. my point is not to justify the existing tilt of the building, but rather to put it in perspective. i'd have to look back to the 1/600, exactly which document we were referring to. if one looks at criteria -- it varies for structural steel buildings. the criteria is 1/500. so i'd have to look back. but my point in raising that
today, it's not justification that any of this tilt is okay, but just to put it into perspective. again, for the lay person to understand -- to help understand that while the tilt is significant and we're concerned about it, on its own, it's not alarming. >> member peskin: thank you, professor deierlein. that's it for me, colleagues. i respectfully request we continue this to the call of the chair. i hope there is only good news going forward. but i'm not holding my breath based on the last decade. >> chair preston: thank you, supervisor peskin. let's open this item up for public comment. >> thank you, mr. chair. we continue to work with maria who is checking to see if there are callers in the queue. if you're watching the meeting on cable or via streaming link
or www.sfgovtv.org. if you wish to speak on the item, call in now by following the instructions displaying on your screen. dial 1-415-655-0001. enter today's meeting i.d., which is 2482 054 3764 # #. press the pound symbol twice. for those already on hold in the queue, please continue to wait until you're prompted to begin. your line has been unmuted. do we have any callers in the queue who wish to provide public comment on item 8? >> we have no callers in the queue. >> thank you. >> chair preston: thank you. mr. clerk, so with no callers in the queue. public comment on this item is now closed. unless colleagues have any further comments or questions, we will -- i do want to thank
supervisor peskin and your staff for bringing this matter back and for your ongoing involvement. obviously, we know from the presentations these are complex matters involving great deal of expertise, but it's also important, i think, that this discussion is happening publicly and we're making sure that we're getting realtime information back on something this significant. so, thank you for your leadership on this, supervisor peskin. and i would like to go ahead and move item to the call of the chair. >> on the motion offered by chair preston that it be continued to the call of the chair. >> member chan: aye. >> member mandelman: aye. >> chair preston: aye. mr. chair, there are three ayes. >> chair preston: thank you.
help san francisco remain unique, successful, and vibrant. so where will you shop and dine in the 49? >> my name is ray behr. i am the owner of chief plus. it's a destination specialty foods store, and it's also a corner grocery store, as well. we call it cheese plus because there's a lot of additions in addition to cheese here. from fresh flowers, to wine, past a, chocolate, our dining area and espresso bar. you can have a casual meeting if you want to. it's a real community gathering place. what makes little polk unique, i think, first of all, it's a great pedestrian street. there's people out and about all day, meeting this neighbor and coming out and supporting the businesses. the businesses here are almost
all exclusively independent owned small businesses. it harkens back to supporting local. polk street doesn't look like anywhere u.s.a. it has its own businesses and personality. we have clothing stores to gallerys, to personal service stores, where you can get your hsus repaired, luggage repaired. there's a music studio across the street. it's raily a diverse and unique offering on this really great street. i think san franciscans should shop local as much as they can because they can discover things that they may not be familiar with. again, the marketplace is changing, and, you know, you look at a screen, and you click a mouse, and you order something, and it shows up, but to have a tangible experience, to be able to come in to taste things, to see things, to smell things, all those things, it's
the city has an ordinance that we worked with them on back in 2014 that requires city agency goes to give organizations like the san francisco bicycle organization a chance to take bicycles abandoned and put them to good use or find new homes for them. the partnerships with organizations generally with organizations that are working with low income individuals or families or people who are transportation dependent. we ask them to identify individuals who would greatly benefit from a bicycle. we make a list of people and their heights to match them to a bicycle that would suit their lifestyle and age and height. >> bicycle i received has impacted my life so greatly. it is not only a form of recreation. it is also a means of getting connected with the community
through bike rides and it is also just a feeling of freedom. i really appreciate it. i am very thankful. >> we teach a class. they have to attend a one hour class. things like how to change lanes, how to make a left turn, right turn, how to ride around cars. after that class, then we would give everyone a test chance -- chance to test ride. >> we are giving them as a way to get around the city. >> just the joy of like seeing people test drive the bicycles in the small area, there is no real word. i guess enjoyable is a word i could use. that doesn't describe the kind of warm feelings you feel in
your heart giving someone that sense of freedom and maybe they haven't ridden a bike in years. these folks are older than the normal crowd of people we give bicycles away to. take my picture on my bike. that was a great experience. there were smiles all around. the recipients, myself, supervisor, everyone was happy to be a part of this joyous occasion. at the end we normally do a group ride to see people ride off with these huge smiles on their faces is a great experience. >> if someone is interested in volunteering, we have a special section on the website sf bike.org/volunteer you can sign up for both events. we have given away 855 bicycles,
376 last year. we are growing each and every year. i hope to top that 376 this year. we frequently do events in bayview. the spaces are for people to come and work on their own bikes or learn skills and give them access to something that they may not have had access to. >> for me this is a fun way to get outside and be active. most of the time the kids will be in the house. this is a fun way to do something. >> you get fresh air and you don't just stay in the house all day. it is a good way to exercise. >> the bicycle coalition has a bicycle program for every community in san francisco. it is connecting the young, older community. it is a wonderful outlet for the community to come together to have some good clean fun.
sign that's working or not working, i feel the family business that was in there. >> since 2009, citywide, sf shines, has supported businesses and sites like the ones that receive new neon signs. >> you know, sf shines is doing an amazing job to bring back the lighting and the neon glow of san francisco. >> sf shines is such an amazing program, and i can't think of another program in another city that gives matching gunned funds to store owners, mom and pop owners, and if they've got a neon sign, they've really got a great way to advertise their business. >> this is a continuation of
the sf shines program. >> focusing other neon signs is relatively new to us. of the seven neon signs, we've invested about $145,000. >> a good quality sign costs more, but it lasts infinitily longer. as opposed to lasting five years, a good neon sign will last 15 to 20 years. >> in san francisco, the majority of neon signs are for mom-and-pop businesses. in order to be able to restore these signs, i think it gives back to your community. >> part of the project has to do with prioritizing certain signs in the neighborhood based on their aesthetics, based on their current signs, and base on the history.
in the time that we've been here, we've seen a number of signs restored just on eddy street. >> there are a number of signs in the tenderloin and many more that are waiting or wanting to be restored. i have worked with randall and al, and we've mapped out every single one of them and rated them as to how much work they would need to get restored. that information is passed onto sf shines, and they are going to rank it. so if they have x budget for a year, they can say all right, we're going to pick these five, and they're putting together clusters, so they build on top of what's already there. >> a cluster of neon signs is sort of, i guess, like a cluster of grapes. when you see them on a corner or on a block, it lights up the neighborhood and creates an ambient glow. if you havy got two of three of them, you've created an atmosphere that's almost like a
movie set. >> some of the hotel, we've already invested in to get those neon signs for people to enjoy at night include the elk hotel, jefferson hotel, the verona, not to mention some we've done in chinatown, as well as the city's portal neighborhood. >> we got the fund to restore it. it took five months, and the biggest challenge was it was completely infested with pigeons. once we got it clean, it came out beautiful. >> neon signs are often equated with film noir, and the noir genre as seen through the hollywood lens basically depicted despair and concentration. >> you would go downtown and see the most recent humphrey
bogart film filled with neon in the background. and you'd see that on market street, and as market street got seedier and seedier and fewer people continued to go down, that was what happened to all the neon strips of light. >> the film nori might start with the light filled with neon signs, and end with a scene with a single neon sign blinking and missing a few letters. >> one of my favorite scenes, orson welles is chasing
rita hayworth with neon signs in the background. >> i think what the office of economic and workforce development is very excited with is that we'll be able to see more neon signs in a concentrated way lit up at night for visitors and most especially residents. the first coin laundry, the elm hotel, the western hotel are ones that we want to focus on in the year ahead. >> neon signs are so iconic to certain neighborhoods like the hara, like the nightcap. we want to save as many historic and legacy neon signs in san francisco, and so do they. we bring the expertise, and they bring the means to actually get the job done. >> people in tenderloin get really excited as they see the signs relit. as you're driving through the tenderloin or the city, it
pretty much tells you something exciting is happening here. >> knee an was created to make the night more friendly and advertise businesses. it's a great way of supporting and helping local businesses. >> there's so many ways to improve public safety. the standard way is having more eyes on the street, but there's other culturally significant ways to do that, and one those ways is lighting up the streets. but what better way and special way to do that is by having old, historic neon signs lighting up our streets at night and casting away our shadows. >> when i see things coming back to life, it's like remembering how things were. it's remembering the hotel or the market that went to work seven days a week to raise their money or to provide a service, and it just -- it just -- it just
field, i look around, and i just take a deep breath because it is so exciting and magical, not knowing what the season holds is very, very exciting. it was fast-paced, stressful, but the good kind of stressful, high energy. there was a crowd to entertain, it was overwhelming in a good way, and i really, really enjoyed it. i continued working for the grizzlies for the 2012-2013 season, and out of happenstance, the same job opened up for the san francisco giants. i applied, not knowing if i would get it, but i would kick myself if i didn't apply. i was so nervous, i never lived
anywhere outside of fridays fridays -- fresno, and i got an interview. and then, i got a second interview, and i got more nervous because know the thought of leaving fresno and my family and friends was scary, but this opportunity was on the other side. but i had to try, and lo and behold, i got the job, and my first day was january 14, 2014. every game day was a puzzle, and i have to figure out how to put the pieces together. i have two features that are 30 seconds long or a minute and a 30 feature. it's fun to put that al together and then lay that out in a way that is entertaining for the fans. a lucky seat there and there, and then, some lucky games that include players. and then i'll talk to lucille,
can you take the shirt gun to the bleachers. i just organize it from top to bottom, and it's just fun for me. something, we don't know how it's going to go, and it can be a huge hit, but you've got to try it. or if it fails, you just won't do it again. or you tweak it. when that all pans out, you go oh, we did that. we did that as a team. i have a great team. we all gel well together. it keeps the show going. the fans are here to see the teams, but also to be entertained, and that's our job. i have wonderful female role models that i look up to here at the giants, and they've been great mentors for me, so i aspire to be like them one day. renelle is the best.
she's all about women in the workforce, she's always in our corner. [applause] >> i enjoy how progressive the giants are. we have had the longer running until they secure day. we've been doing lgbt night longer than most teams. i enjoy that i work for an organization who supports that and is all inclusive. that means a lot to me, and i wouldn't have it any other way. i wasn't sure i was going to get this job, but i went for it, and i got it, and my first season, we won a world series even if we hadn't have won or gone all the way, i still would have learned. i've grown more in the past four years professionally than i think i've grown in my entire
adult life, so it's been eye opening and a wonderful learning >> when i open up the paper every day, i'm just amazed at how many different environmental issues keep popping up. when i think about what planet i want to leave for my children and other generations, i think about what kind of contribution i can make on a personal level to the environment. >> it was really easy to sign up for the program. i just went online to cleanpowersf.org, i signed up and then started getting pieces in the mail letting me know i was going switch over and poof
it happened. now when i want to pay my bill, i go to pg&e and i don't see any difference in paying now. if you're a family on the budget, if you sign up for the regular green program, it's not going to change your bill at all. you can sign up online or call. you'll have the peace of mind knowing you're doing your part in your household to help the environment.