we do need emotion -- a motion. please call the roll.

>> on the role and to designate this transcription as the official record. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> we begin with the appellant. >> a plane need to make a disclosure. -- i need to make a disclosure. i have utilized the services mentioned in a professional basis which will in no way affect my ability to make a decision. >> i am a member of the state bar of california but that will not affect my abilities to be objective. >> the same goes for me. >> and for me.

>> can i have time to think of a disclosure? >> good evening, i represent the state far of california. this is the owner of a building on howard street. and you are looking here at the project. to the left, you will see the state bar building. when we bought the building, it was retrofitted to extend. when we come to 120 howard, the project that we have appealed

and there has been a lot written about this. this really defies common sense to think that you can add four stories to it top of the building without needing substantial retrofitted. reinforced concrete is one of the more concerning forms of construction that we have. the state bar's interest in this is only for the people of san francisco. the only wanted this to be built right. what we did when i got involved in this project is that we went

out to find an engineer who had not been previously associated with the project. whether there was legitimate engineering concerns. there was, frankly, because we were prepared to let this go forward. we hired a professor at the university of california in berkeley. he is probably the one person who decreed said -- who would agree that this needs to be looked at. around the time we got to -- we have been given access to the complicated computer data which is being used to justify the

performance of this building as designed. i don't pretend to be an engineer. there are a couple of slides in the package. i will make a couple of proposals to you. the next slide shows what a building will look like as proposed. those are the four stories. then, and jack is to look at the data and finally meets with the project engineer. in that first day, the professor identifies three critical faults in the analysis. one of them is portrayed here which shows and that they have miscalculated the required dampening and the performance.

there is another slide here which shows to the standard that is being used here which is the most permissive standard that actually a performance which should look on the one on the left actually looks like the one on the right. they say, we will be to the data. we have learned that they have redone the data. they have not shared this with us but apparently this is still okay. that is the kind of approach which i don't think that the public should put up with. the other critical piece they came out of our discussions with the applicant was that there is a problem with this structure. there are still attachments running between the vertical which reduces the length of the

project. the project engineer has been acknowledged that they have looked at what they have come up with and they proposed to cut this. will give you a quick demonstration. if you look at this diagram, you will see what a short column does. this allows the building to a absorb more lateral forces. cretinous from the condoms is a huge concession.

the proposal is pretty straightforward. this computer modeling is incredibly complicated. obviously, we recognize that there are proprietary issues involved but they have started to share this with us. last week is when really got into the data. what i'm suggesting that you do the following, that you continue this matter until a date certain. this will enable the data which they're now using to be reviewed by the department and by us as well to see whether this really does performed and if it does perform, we are satisfied.

obviously, if you cannot continue this, we have demonstrated there are serious issues that are not being addressed. and a minimum, it if you tonight our appeal, you should require -- revise the permit to require the separation of the vertical element. i have copies of these slides if the board would like them. >> when you raise the issue of about the slide and about the project sponsor who has agreed to make cuts in order to allow the more lateral movement, it has that happened after the peer review? >> we are talking about

concessions as far as i understand. i am assuming that is something that they have agreed to in the past 10 days because only in the past 10 days we have been in the meeting to allow us to examine this data so we can explain what we are looking for in terms of modifications to the structure of the design so that this will have a minimum structural safety. >> the reason i am asking is that if it happens afterwards that this is raising some doubt about the quality and scope of the peer review in the first place. >> we have made the issue to you pretty clearly. i do suggest that if the data will be submitted and they have to rerun the data and they agreed that this has to be done, this should be reviewed.

there is no reason why this should be reviewed and i don't think that it will take very long to reconvene. >> i have a question. to clarify what you have reviewed. course i would have to ask about this. i am not an engineer. my firm turned this stuff over to jack merely. you have mentioned that you have reviewed the computer modeling. calculations, you received those. >> maybe i can let jack talked

in response to these questions. what level of voluntary up rates will be done? >> i cannot answer that question directly but my understanding was that they did millions of dollars. >> it was so extensive that we cannot belief that they're doing so little. >> i would have to have someone who is involved. >> can you occupy the buildings after a maximum seismic event? >> i don't know.

court is my firm was responsible for the seismic strengthening of the structure. essentially, this is collapse prevention. there was particular risk associated with the ground for that we tried to abate. >> you referenced reviewing computer model and in one portion you say something about rerunning the computer model there and this has demonstrated several weaknesses. in another portion, and you make a request for that. >> my understanding is that the

project applicant engineer took the criticisms that the professor had and told us that he had to rerun them we have not seen the rerun on those so the answer is that i don't know. we have not been given the results of it being rerun. >> you are requesting that you be shown some kind of rerun or some kind of results. >> exactly. my request for continuances relieved that we are able to look at the model in order to see if we have any criticism. that issue is behind. >> we can hear from the permit

holder now. >> we plan to place a four story addition on top of a concrete building. yes, there is an explanation on how this can be done that i will leave this to the engineers. this project is a shell already and it will provide up to 200 jobs. i hope that this will signal that san francisco is on its way back. we have an alignment of interests that is between the commission, ourselves as a company, and the general public. we all want to see a good process and we want to see that this meets the seismic code and

it does. we have our headquarters in san francisco. we have an impeccable reputation for quality and safety and we would never do anything to jeopardize that. we have about 8 seismic engineers. i feel like i have a seismic license. it was appealed by the state bar. we went and we hired three of the best engineers in the state of california. they are here tonight to answer they are here tonight to answer your questions.