availability or funding issues are resolved. >> thank you. it depends on the route. if the 31 is not going downtown, it is doing something different than it did previously. extending along fifth street to pick up senior housing on folsom then extend to caltrain. 21 is going to civic center, but not on market street. there is something we would revisit in the future. the two clement on clement street. for all of these changes we said we are not treating the recommendations we are bringing to the board as permanent

recommendations. there are some places based on feedback and technical analysis that we do think some permanent changes should be considered. we are talking to the m.t.a. board on december 7th. what kind of separate stand alone process would be to have those conversations with the public. i don't think we have any recommendations right now on those routes per se, but i do see a value in the coming months of having some discussions about what we think should be considered as permanent and the public process versus what should be something that we are continuing to pursue additional funding for. then address those resources that become available.

i understand the interest to have a more detailed road map on that. we are still several months away from that. we do recognize the strong need for it. >> thank you. i think that one of my concerns that i expressed privately is with some of these shortened lines that they can be a self-fulfilling prophesy. if you have 21 carrying 8 to 10,000 people each day and shorten the line, even as service rebounds it is a less attractive line for a lot of users. lower numbers. i want to make sure we are building toward completely restoring in a phased approach. you know, as opposed to bringing back at lower service level or

shortened lines in a way that is later looked at as a reason to not effect those lines. i discussed that with you in our conversations. i have an understanding. i will say it sounds like 21 commitment to bring it back on the shortened route and not decision as to or commitment to it coming back in the full route. it is not going to be back and there would be a process to the process. a process including public engagement before a decision is made. am i framing that accurately? >> you are. i want to clarify that what we heard during this public process was the value that a route like

21 plays on hayes street as a safety net. we are increasing frequency on the 5. we are adding buses on the 5. there is a lot of people that naturally gravitate to that more frequent service, and we wouldn't be evaluating 21 hayes with the same expectations that we evaluate say a route like the 5. it is not playing the same role in the network. it is providing in the short term a safety net for people who really can't or choose not to walk that extra distance. we are not trying to create a self-fulfilling prophesy where we say it used to have thousands of people now it doesn't so it must be a failure. that is not what we are intending here. we are intending to recognize that this does play a role in the system and to evaluate it

more likely would evaluate some of the other circulatetor routes that take people to major transit hubs. >> thank you. happy to engage more with you around some of these lines specifically, including 21. it is important and hope we can get to where the full line restoration is mapped out with a timeline working toward and trying to generate the funding to make that a reality. folks are patient and understand why this needs phased in. there are many reasons in the hayes valley neighborhood association sent a strong letter outlining these. many reasons why it is valuable to have the full line which operated over 100 years and even though the bulk of the emergency

restoration may be on the shortened line, it is important to build toward the full line for a lot of folks the one or two transfers on two or three buses to get where they are going. can i ask the same question on the frequencies? i was enencouraged by our conversation earlier this week around the frequencies. some of these lines for instance the 6 is coming back at 20 minute frequency. that is not ideal. my understanding that is a short term driven by resources frequency, not a longer term plan to have a line like this running at 20 minutes and there is a commitment to improving that frequency at the staffing

and public issues. is that a fair characterization? >> i think the 6 is a good example where we need more service on haight street and we heard that the community wanted more continuous connections. we are bringing the service back but not at previous frequency. we would like to add more frequency and we will be looking at ridership on that corridor as well as across the system as we prepare for future service restoration. >> thank you. in terms of the process and it is hard to look beyond the immediate planned restorations with a lot of uncertainties, but, you know, i think that the ta as a body and the board as

supervisors and my office has been critical of the outreach from the outreach process and survey contents. some of it, there were things in the outreach that were inaccurate descriptions of pre-pandemic service. it was evolving. i am wondering beyond the march 2022 restoration whether m.t.a. can commit to sharing future rider surveys and outreach plans with our committee before they go out live and public. we can address the issues. including an issue in supervisor chan's office and mine where you

couldn't take the survey on paper. some of the tools you had to use a slider online. there are issues like that that those of us dealing with constituents every day may be able to flag and provide input before they go live. i would ask director tumlin or director kirsch baumif that is something to do before the next round of outreach. >> we are always happy to have extra feedback. we are moving as you know at lightning speed, having rebuilt the system six times in what ordinarily would each one would be an 18 month process. both minds it is better than

smaller group. we welcome any input that you have. >> thank you. question two. i know a lot of strides are made around vaccinations. thank everyone at twu as well as m.t.a. leadership for dramatically improved numbers around where we are than where we were a couple months ago. i did want to just get the perspective around the vaccination progress. i know tw is working hard to urge members to get vaccinated and director commented on the numbers to date. i wanted to ask mr.marenko to

provide that update on the efforts to get operators vaccinated. thank you for all of your work. i know this is a big priority you are working on. >> we have been working in conjunction with m.t.a. and city hall, mayor's office in terms of educating and informing members specifically the transit operators in terms of facts. there are a lot of opinions/rumors. we are not interested in that. we get the facts to everybody to let them know what happens if they get vaccinated and be what happens if they do not get vaccinated. we think we are doing a good job. we were number one in the city and county of san francisco the highest nonvaccinations memberships. we are number one but i am confident the numbers will continue dropping within the next couple of days.

>> thank you. switching gears to another topic. we talked a lot in the last hearing about bus line and about trains. i want to check in on cable car runs and lines. this is an issue that twu has raised recently in a rally held near city hall. i wanted to ask director tumlin or kirschbaum. can you describe the obligations under the charter regarding the cable car lines and how they are impacted by the pandemic and what restoring service on cable cars looks like.

>> i didn't know if supervisor preston wanted to hear from roger. i am happy to share. the cable car, as you know, is a historic treasure and critical element of the san francisco brand. it was completely rebuilt under the leadership of senator feinstein in 1984. we are very much approaching the need to do another rebuild of that scale, and we can talk about that on a different day. at that time i think there was also the concern that cable car would become an amusement ride or only a tourist attraction. they went to kind of the unique

step of putting a service section into the city charter. it says -- it is a little bit vague. roger and i differ in our understanding of it. it says we will provide the same routes as well as normal service level from 1971. we have been having some disputes with cable car operators who see the charter as solidifying the exact shift pay for cable car operators, and because of so many things changing in covid, including having less cable car operators than we have had in the past, we did need to change and

reconfigure some of the pay which we have not done in probably a decade. we are currently operating a lot of cable car service. we are operating service from about 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. we are not operating what you would describe as normal 1971 level. we are committed to training and hiring and working in partnership with 250a to continue to restore service over the coming years. i think we are not where anybody wants to be on cable car. at the same time, i do believe we are serving the bulk of the cable car service needs while also meeting all of our other competing needs we have been

talking about at this hearing including getting kids to school, supporting economic recovery and keeping people out of their cars. >> thank you, director. mr.marinko, would you address what is the understanding? >> the cable car runs have not been touched, changed. i think probably since before i was even born. the agency decided to use the pandemic or the threat of pandemic or the notion that there are not enough operators to shift the cable car runs, which have been historically

protected without meeting. that right there we believe is violation. as a result many of our cable car operators have voluntarily decided to simply leave the cable car division because they feel that this is not right in the way that s.f.m.t.a. did this in terms of cutting, reducing, slashing protected runs under the san francisco charter they are protected. that is why they have not been changed or altered since before i was even born. that is our stance on it. i know that pete wilson wanted to state something on that. i will ask him. >> i will keep it brief. i want to point out it is not about pay. the charter says schedules. it talks about the schedules. one thing that has been done is

early morning runs have been -- it starts later and ends earlier than it used to. that affects the riders of the people not ill, people -- people in nob hill and union square and downtown. it affects all of them. i have never had a cable car operator say the charter says i get paid this much. the charter says this is what the scheduling should be. cable car operators are paid well. they do hard work. if it is 10, 11, 12 hours. they are train operators they get paid well. like the people i mentioned before who are used to coming in at 5:30 a.m. because of obligations or coming late in the day and working until 12:30 p.m. or 1:00. those schedules are not available. in july kevin davis, chair

person for cable car division, spoke with the mayor's office. they agreed with us. they are silent on this issue. it is hush, hush as far as we are concerned. there has not been a meet and confer. you know, they are violating the city charter which is not violating 250a only. it is violating the votes of all citizens of the city and county of san francisco. thank you. >> i appreciate your perspective on this. it is unclear to me. i don't know if there is an agreement the charter requires what is described and because we are in the pandemic and state of emergency certain benchmarks aren't met during this period or whether there is a more substantive disagreement whether

the city needs to get back to those level of service and run. is that it? >> it is the former. we are committed to meet the charter and to expand the hours of cable car. we also are limited to the resources that we have. we did both, pete and i did participate on a cable car task force that supervisor peskin helped set up for many months as we restored cable car service. we talked about two alternatives. one is delivering the schedule that we had pre-covid but missing and having gaps because

we don't have all of the operators. the business community that participated, tourism, sf travel, union scare merchants, fisherman's wharf gave a clear indication having consistent service from 7:00 to 10:00 p.m. was much more important to the city's recovery than prioritizing longer hours when we couldn't deliver well. we are committed to get back to pre-covid service level. we need to do a lot of hiring between now and then. [indiscernable] >> as a board we have a tough struggle do we make sure the central workers go where they are or focus on downtown that is not recovered.

sf travel talked about that. we would love to increase cable car service. it would be irresponsible at the expense of more critical lines. that is a real thing. we brought it back. the board is on this. as former head of the restaurant association i am watching what is going on downtown. there is really a resource scarety we are dealing with. we are committed to the cable car service. i love it. i used to take it every day to work. i want to point out this is an issue we have been very much committed to the board in trying to figure it out. when we talk about equity and balancing out of restoration of service and how we do it, these are trade-offs. understand that. this is what we are grappling with as a board every week and every time we talk about these things. no one takes this lightly.

the reality is that we are really trying to figure out how you bring back a system that makes sure the equity is included and that you are getting in those critical routes. those routes that need brought back as well. >> thank you everyone for sharing your perspective on this. one question more broadly than just the cable cars is the $29 million allocation from m.t.c. we receive which is good news, i believe it was confirmed after these proposals around the service restoration. i want to find out. we talk about resource scarety issues as driving some of the more limited leans, service. is the $29 million factored into the current be proposal or will it allow us to expand frequency

or lines from what is proposed? $29 million does that allow us to amend the recommendations to add more service or frequency? >> the $29 million is really important for buying us additional time before we need to identify bridge or permanent funding. what is constraining us for the winter is the pace of hiring. short term challenges we are facing are not funding but having the $29 million is part of a package of solutions that we need to get to full restoration and sustain full restoration. it very much buys us time.

it does not help our immediate winter picture because really we are hiring as fast as we can. >> thank you. i understand. another question and we will turn it over to roger chanwaiting on the roster. on this financing issue, what is the price? assuming the hiring and operator capacity issue is resolved. i understand there is a different perspective between the union and m.t.a. around the current capacity. set that aside. let's assume full existing staffing or additional hiring gets us to where that is not a limit on service restoration. what is the price tag for m.t.a. to be comfortable committing

that in fall of 2022 we would have 100% restoration? setting aside operator constraints. how much additional funding would it take for m.t.a. to make that commitment? >> i will jump in here. our acting cso is on the line as well. he can get us the latest number. i want to emphasize our challenge is sustaining our ongoing operations. the money we are looking for is stable ongoing operating funds in order to close the structural deficit that we faced before covid. and in particular when the federal money burns out and we burn through reserves before we are able to replace that money.

jonathan you have the latest numbers. there is the no fixed number because all of our numbers are facing u-shaped curves. not to give you the latest estimate of the ongoing additional money we need every year to stabilize and sustain. >> only thing i would add and good morning. in the report as presented to the board and this committee we had already assumed in fiscal 22 the cost side to provide that level of service. that is assumed in there at the highest level at each level of staff assist. however, as director tumlin noted that was taking our costs of prepandemic service, the

design and how that service was staffed. doing retirement, dpi, what it would be today. the service may be different but staffing that is required with the working groups is different. m.t.a. board will work on that setting a new baseline what that service should look like. we are working with controller's office to hone in on the cost side of that. the next step would be what is our revenue package to get to that number? the answer is correct. $29 million gives us more headway and time to find the permanent revenue source. the monthly labor burn rate is in the 61 to $65 million per month. that would give you a sense of what labor costs across the

agency are. >> thank you. the more clarity. i know the controller is looking at these numbers. we hoped there might be some of their analysis done by the hearing. that is still in the works. i think the sooner we can get to the vision and i appreciate the effort in the responses to the board. mapping out the costs. sooner we get to vision of here is the cost. one-time funding and in permanent funding it will take for m.t.a. to commit to 100% service restoration by a date certain, that is the lacking piece of the puzzle with the progress on the partial restoration. i want to identify. that is really an urgent goal as we ask voters to trust us all with additional revenue from

which ever sources it ends up being. mapping that out explicitly is the key to that. director tumlin did you want to say something. >> as soon as we are able to get time numbers from controller's office we will work quickly to get you the numbers you need. we depend be upon the full support of all members of the board of supervisors to get agreement on the funding strategy to make sure we win that necessary funding. we are your partners. >> thank you. supervisor chan. >> thank you, chair peskin. i am more than happy to have this conversation continue on. it is worth the wait to really make my comments. it is really not a question because i look forward to the

controller's report on the finances of s.f.m.t.a. is really what i am looking at. i know about all of these. i hope it is true. in the coming months your conversation in terms of discussing about the service restoration, all of the things that s.f.m.t.a. is doing is temporary. to see finances and the deficits pre-pandemic. how do we fix this long-term? it is what i look forward to. i also want to respond to what chair borden mentioned when it

comes to tradeoff and equity. that could be true. again, i want to look through the controller's report. resources is always going to be limited. resources have to be limited even before pandemic. it is the mentality how do we manage resources and to break down the mentality that we can fight against that and fight back against that to make sure that people who have been before the pandemic and more so now during the pandemic and after, hopefully, that the people can help with it will have a reliable service for years to come. resources have been limited, will always be limited.

it is a conversation that we say that because of the pandemic. we have to have all of these trade-offs. i am concerned you can continue to just say because of the pandemic. i don't know if that is realistic. fundamentally we need to think about resources in a way that truly serves the people that depend on the service moving forward. i don't know. i am frustrated, too, this conversation has been going on for so long since we took office that we have s.f.m.t.a. we have asked for the strategy. people depend on your service before pandemic and continuing to be. i look forward to the controller's report to give us the data to depend on april have

that conversation moving forward. i urge the board of directors to think when we talk about trade-offs. that is not going to go away. the resources have always been and will be limited. then what? that is my frustration. thank you for indulging me to express that. >> can i comment on that? >> yes, chair borden. >> i want to say the difference is this. our service level, we have 50% return of ridership. that is a different trade-off than full-service 90%. when i talk about trade-offs, i don't mean we will or not bring lines back. there is no master plan to kill the lines. there never has been. that was never we have wanted to

get rid of this line, that is not part of the equation. if we were a business we would scale service to the required der ship. we are a public service we could never do that. there is a reality throwing good money after bad. you can't deliver great service and restore lines. people are frustrated. we are aware of the fact as the city returns. the work force in san francisco doesn't has to go to the office. the people deciding to work in the office is the ease to take public transit to the destination. if they haven't taken it in a year and they are coming back and the connection works well for them they will want to come back. reignite the city and come back. if they come back and the line

is there but the service is slow or overcrowded, then they say you know what? i don't need to go to the office. i will be a remote worker. we are balancing where we are today. when we are back to the place at 90%, it is not the trade-off i am talking about. i am talking about at the time at which we don't have the revenue not only from ridership but from parking and fees, it is harder to say let's bring everything back and hope everybody is happy with the fact the lines are back and not happy the lines don't get them where they need to be. one california is a good example. people are frustrated by the miss run. some people are committed. some people have a luxury where offices pay them to park. that is what we are talking

about. we are not talking about scarcity of resources. we will. in this time with this unique situation where our further funding comes by restoring service and wanting to encourage people to come back, those are the pieces. i wanted to clarify that. >> thank you. let me comment on that. i think it is important and i am glad we are discussing it. i think it gets to the heart of the thing. in the immediate moment everyone understands there are resource constraints, especially in a pandemic with revenue falling for the ridership. counter balanced. i think it is an argument we could do more. i am concerned when i hear what

sometimes does seem like as supervisor chan has identified a scarcity mind-set when we are looking forward. i think what we keep asks is for a clear commitment of all of the lines, all service, cable cars, everything coming back. if there is a resource gap to get there be clear on the gap. from my perspective and i think this is shared. we shouldn't talk about ridership is only 50%. we don't ratchet up. we should be in a position to ratchet up service, the minimum service to meet demand. this is public transportation. i want to say if our fire department wasn't able to respond because of lack of firefighters or equipment or funning, we wouldn't accept the

idea, this station is going to have fewer firefighters to respond more slowly. we would not accept that as a city. we would do anything possible, i would hope, to make sure that absolutely essential service was at the level we wanted it to be. we need that approach for public transportation. we are asking and begging for challenging us to let us be partners and let us not play the. [indiscernable] it is the same comment. we understand there may be short term trade-offs. how do we move quickly to a place where we are not pitting these things against each other? >> if that means the bus is half empty, that is okay. it is not a problem, it is a

success. it feels like we are behind and just providing the minimum level to deal with overcrowding and this urgency as opposed to challenging all of us the mayor, board of supervisors, m.t.a. leadership, union, all riders, property owners and tenants in the city to step up and close whatever gap there is with clear guarantees that all service is coming ba. thank you for your patience. >> thank you, chair preston. i have some questions and points on transportation. i feel like this line of questions raises a larger set of issues that extends beyond m.t.a. about how -- about the

value, about our choices in spending. this may be my ptsd from being on the city college board of trustees. it is quite dangerous for public entities to imagine resources and not make hard choices. where i completely agree with you is that we have critical services, particularly services serving low income folks, folks who rely on public transportation, seniors, kids. we need to do everything that we possibly can to get the revenue that we need to provide those services in the way that our residents deserve. i also value public servants who identify the hard choices, recognize the resources and lay out for us what the choices are.

one of the things i appreciated about the m.t.a. there have been bumps over the last year and a half, and one would expect that given the magnitude of changes the m.t.a. is trying to figure out. i have actually will get to the conversation in a minute. i appreciated on the things i cared about and paid close attention to. the m.t.a. is presenting some of the hard choices and giving us what we need to decide when all things are not possible and sometimes there are trade-offs. that is a real thing. what i intended to say was that pre-pandemic my priorities for the system were fix the trains and especially make the j church

work better. i requested the meeting of the transit reliability working group in part after big train failures. pre-pandemic those are good. these are things that could be fixed or don't make sense. man, our trains, tunnel disaster and train service is unreliable. for me as supervisor i have this line that has never performed in the way that my constituents expected with reliability they would expect. we have had many conversations before the pandemic, community meetings. what can we do to make the j church work better? you know, in that context we talked about the notion of does

the j need to go to the top? couldn't we center a better for everybody trains in the tunnel and for people trying to get downtown from the valley and other parts of my district to run the j as surface line, quick transfer at church and market, and rely on the system working that way. i appreciate that the m.t.a. has tried to figure out if that is a thing that would work and would help the system. the information we have gathered is complicated. taking the j out of the tunnel is part of making the tunnel work better and getting better service for constituents riding the n and better services riding the k and for those who ride them. better service for anybody

taking anything in the tunnel. it is pretty clear now to me this is not an experiment that worked well for people who rely on the j from the valley. particularly, with any sort of accessibility challenges and mobility challenges. i feel like we are not quite there yet. i don't agree with the technically supported recommendation number one. i guess i would hope the m.t.a. would look at maybe some choices 4 and 5 as well. i think we have had meetings with j riders. the motion of putting service back in the tunnel but at a vastly -- at a volume that

ensures the j will be a pretty infrequent train that not a lot of people rely on. the people who do rely on they will ensured they will have the ride. may be better than what we have now but is not the ideal end stage. option 3 if that is as good as we can do seems like the no-brainer. it does seem odd when the volume in the tunnel is down to not just get people back home to toe valley in the evenings with one shot. as brought up with staff the possibility of looking at other options that might keep the tunnel working well with out -- give people from the valley a

one seat ride into downtown and not lead to the very infrequent service for those people who are trying to get along be the j route. it does seem like some combination of services might be the answer here. whether it is combining j trains running only on the surface and j trains in the tunnel. there are infrequent trains that go down town. at least some for whom that is important. other trains only run on the surface just for biting the bullet and recognizing if we have a one seat ride that is the way to do it through the bus. we will let people get to downtown that way. i think there are other things to look at. what we have now is not really working for the valley and not

for me. i want to thank m.t.a. staff julie, shawn, jeff for their time, their transparency, for meeting with folks many times and a dialogue how to make this go forward. chair borden i am sure up come up with the right answer in december. i want to thank you for willingness to engage with neighbors around 48, 35 and to try to figure out away. there have been winners and losers there as well to try to achieve agencies goals in terms of better service without unduly burdening folks in the neighborhood. that is my speech. my question is back in our

working group conversation we spent a lot of time on the operator shortage age shortage of other folks working for m.t.a. that we need to get the work done and get us around the city. i am wondering whether the -- i share chair preston's desire to figure out a number to get us to full-service or beyond. i also wonder about the actual bringing in of the people versus the loss of people. i noted that even with the numbers you are talking about training they are dwarfed by the number of people we would lose if the vaccinated. people don't get vaccinated.

i am wondering how those training numbers compare to the annual attrition numbers? are we on track assuming that the voters are able, the board of supervisors or voters or mayor are able to get you the additional 50, $150 million that you need for your operations. are we on track to get anywhere near 2200 operators and beyond? we need more than that to actually do the expanded service. >> i think we have a good plan. i think it is one that we all have to monitor. the relatively small class sizes that you are seeing in 21 have to do with the fact that we not only needed to start hiring operators. we also needed to hire trainers.

then train those trainers. we were starting classes of about 20 operators every five weeks. starting in june. that class size is increasing to 40 beginning in january. we are skipping one five week class and reducing a class at the end of the year because we are going to be focusing on training our existing operators as they exercise their right to move to different divisions and try different modes of service. we were very close to getting to a steady state of operators coming out of the muni working group. we had partnered and created city drive, which was helping

with the class b permits. we had done other things to speed up the medical process and other things that were impacting the process. we do know how to hire operators. i think we have a good plan. i think that does need to be evaluated monthly and quarterly because across the bay area what was once just m.t.a. shortage is now a bay area operator shortage. you can see that when you see canceled trips from bart. i was in sacramento earlier this week. they are struggling with something similar. we don't know what that regional competition will mean and we are going to have to track it closely. we did reach out when we were

really seeing at the height of the high vaccine numbers, i did reach out to several bay area agencies and ask for mutual aid especially on the weekends where we miss service. we are maximizing operator over time, trying to do everything we can. we are not meeting the 75% service level that we are at which is why while i share roger's goals of full-service restoration, i am cautious about our timeline. i think that we have all of the right pieces in place to continue to restore service and we are going to need to watch it very closely as we address new

challenges. >> the stacy transit said they had a shortage of 100 operators. it is a bay area regional issue. >> thank you, chair preston. i think this is and has been for years now the barrier in some ways a bigger barrier than revenue. we have to fix the revenue problem and we have to fix this. if you feel like you have a path to getting up to these numbers for full-service restoration and beyond, good. if not, i think there is real concern on the board's part, supervisor ronan discussed this on tuesday around hiring overall in the city, and we need to

solve these problems. that is an important part of this conversation, too. thank you everybody for your work. i think i am done. thanks. >> thank you, supervisor mandelman. supervisor chan. >> thank you, chair preston. i want to reference back to what supervisor mandelman mentioned about ptsd from the state and city college. i do, too, have performed tsd from days in city college. i have a different perspective where that ptsd comes from when it comes to trade-offs. i think that the resources to provide the services. city college free education and low cost higher education. it is what we have with public

transit to provide public transit. i believe it is the public good. at the same time it is about managing the resources you have. pts d that i have we retracted to give the administration a 10% raise while they cut classes. those are the conversations that if we talk about trade-off conversations it should be about managing the resources and money you have to make sure you do meet your coordination to provide public transit for people who pretended on it. people working from home. you know what? the population that uses public

transit. i am happy they do. i don't think they are -- i am talking about they do not depend on public transit to get to work for their daily life. i want to reference this, too. this is probably through the chair funding the comments from director borden. there was a budget annual mist report that got into 2020. that referenced a ridership. in the ridership they talked about. this is before the pandemic. the ridership of s.f.m.t.a. is in decline since 2014. that is because s.f.m.t.a. did not meet the annual ridership goals in 2017 fiscal year and 2018 fiscal year. that is likely because

s.f.m.t.a. has not met customer rating targets. that was before the pandemic. i recognize the pandemic added hardship the way you deliver your service. i am saying it is a system eckproblem. resources are limited. how do we move forward? let's recognize that we did receive like many other public transit agencies. you did receive federal funding. the federal funding is to carry you through the harshness that we experienced. i would say in some ways it evens out. you experience the hardship, federal dollars, close to $1 billion to our city's rescue for the public transit agency.

i am saying what is stopping us from restoring the chargeses for what we should have receive before pandemic. i am grateful because i grew up san francisco using public transited. i am grateful for their service. i am glad chair borden is here. it is about the decision. it is about our board of directors. how do you make sure people depending on it can use it before the pandemic. especially during the pandemic and in 2022 as we recover from the economy. thank you. >> what i will say that is why we increased service on declines focused on people that were

going to work, hospitals or hogspitalty businesses. that is -- hospitality businesses. we added back the routes that had not been in service before. i think you would see that we learned how people get around the city. they get around differently during the pandemic. where they were going to the grocery store or work. they were different than the trips prior to the pandemic. we are still in that stage where you see a increase in need and ridership in certain pockets. not so much in other pockets. that is what we look at. making sure we serve those people most that need us most. the cable car wasn't priority. trying to bring it back to your point. yes, we have always had issues with reliability this is part of the conversation around the j and reliability in the subway.

we recognize those people are transit deepen department. they are least able to be limit for work. they can lose their job for not being on time. we are looking to make sure the critical routes increasing frequency of service and adding expresses that may being sense in that regard. that is a trade-off right now as we scale things looking at the patterns who needs service most. this is to bring back the service as noted. there is no grand plan not to do that. we are trying to look at the picture of movement and service needs greatest are tackled first. >> thank you, chair borden and

supervisor chan. i would like to go to public comment at this time. >> we are checking with department of technology for comments on agenda item 3. for those watching on cable charm 26 or streaming through sfgovtv or he wills where if you wish to speak call in now. follow instructions on your screen. dial 415-655-0001. meeting id24922118986. following that press pound twice and star followed by 3 if you wish to speak. for those on hold in the queue continue to wait until you are prompted to begin. you will hear that your line is unmuted. i understand there are around a

dozen callers listening. we have five callers in the queue. could you please connect us to the first caller. >> good day, chair preston and committee members. i am district 8 senior and j church work group. i appreciate this hearing to hold muni officials to act. i took part in the rally hosted by coalition of transit riders last thursday with speakers dean preston, supervisor chan's staff and the transit workers who spoke about need to restore full service on all muni lines. thankfully my district 8 supervisor mandelman convened the zoom meeting and invited the transit is manager and representatives from the sf cac

to hear from constituents. we j riders overwhelming oppose the church route that ends. we have to navigate traffic to get across cracks and cracked pavement at the high-injury network station to go two flights down or find an elevator to get downtown. seniors and persons with mobility issues face huge challenges because the j church doesn't from balboa to embarcadero and back through the subway tunnel. our concern is that they will dismiss the needs of j riders even though the m.t.a.'s priorities are to center concerns on persons with disabilities and seniors and

prioritize coverage over frequency. option one to keep the service as it exists is inconsistent with the stated priorities. option two runs four trains per hour with full-service routes in both directions advances both of m.t.a.'s priorities. option two were implemented. >> your time is concluded. next caller, please. >> this is lower rain petty, senior -- lorraine petty from district 5. i support restoring all existing service to the pandemic service. if these are not restored it would be a mistake. huge set back to equity for all

in san francisco especially seniors and vulnerable communities. a good trial of the transit first policies. my primary line is 31 balboa that did not run for a year and a half. considerable public pressure is when you agreed to bring it back. to the ferry building declared a priority equity line because it is for people of color and low income folks. it is not fully restored. it is missing a third of the route. now muni proposes to devote it to caltrans. allowing muni to justify abandoning the 47 caltrain line. 21 ways is another example.

to muni restoration will mean cutting in half. number two will be stopped at presidio avenue. same with j church allegedly restored. that meant cutting off in mid route as the previous speaker is referring. they are conducting a transfer most policy where most trips are going to require two or three buses. this is a disincentive to taking public transit. muni will never recover with transfer most policy. i urge you to restore lines in full. >> your time is concluded. next caller, please. >> i am a resident of tenderloin and community organizer with

tndc and for the 31 action committee. thank you to supervisors for this hearing and supporting full restoration to pre-pandemic level, local 258 operators and supporters for coming out last thursday for the rally to restore muni. we thank sfgovtv for restoring as much services in 2022. we are demanding all services be restored to pre-pandemic level. especially from those who need service the most. we sound be like a broke ken record but we don't have a lot of tests on s.f.m.t.a. if they committed months ago we would be fining ways to ensure services continue in the future.

it is a difficult year. we appreciate changing from 30 to something more hopeful. this helps and we hope s.f.m.t.a. continues to do so. we want transportation equitable and not run like a business. we want to put the public first and needs met by people who rely on it because they don't have other options. this proposal has to enter service restoration is in the right direction. to pre-pandemic level and provide us in san francisco something to fight for in the coming year. thank you for your time. >> next caller please. i am calling to repeat that we would like service to

pre-pandemic level as soon as possible. thank you. i have talked to many people with experiences. if the pandemic continues to have impact on the capacity including the operators who failed to report vaccination status or fail to protect minors. many are upset because they have been inaccessible to those not connected to the internet. service does not communicate three options were not considered not allowing for specific comments. we demand the j church be be restored. the advocacy has been engaged in complaints and not demands. under staffing and the financial concerns they face. work towards restoring service

as soon as possible. [indiscernable] to build a better transit system together. it is important to find commitment from new leaders to make sure the gains we are fighting for as a city are not lost in the immediate future. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i am cathy deluca community living campaign, non-profit work with seniors and add difficulties with disability. we want to restore muni service to pre-pandemic level. thank you to everyone here. the residents fighting, advocates, union, supervisors and s.f.m.t.a. staff. i don't doubt for one minute that s.f.m.t.a. staff cares about residents and wants to

deliver excellent transit services. i see a major disconnect between those doing the planning and those depending on muni service. you can't plan equitable and just only when you plan for those walking up and down three blocks up and down hills to get to buses running. it should never have been the scenario if all populations were planned for. you can't plan with an outside focus on numbers and data. you can't plan an equitable system when the outreach is digital. you can't plan equitable when it is four weeks long. i have been works in the neighborhood for full year and no way to reach the residents. in four weeks i couldn't do outreach. older adults and people with

disabilities feel left behind and tell me they feel stranded in their homes. they don't understand why m.t.a. staff might talk to me but not reach out to them. they have to change the way to do outreach. transit will never thrive unless it is planned with the community and not for them. thank you. >> next caller, please. >> i am samuel thomas calling representing the potrero hill. what i have to say is that a lot of people on potrero hill is sick and ill. they can't get no one to come up here. in home support.

they help them out and stuff like that. for me i am just getting out of the hospital. i can't get in-home support to work for me because there is no bus coming up here to bring them. most people that work for the in home support they don't have cars. they have to use the bus. we need the 10 back and have the 10 go the long distance like it has always been. shortening is not really doing anything. you know what i am saying? that is all i have to say. thank you. >> next caller, please. >> i am senior and disability action. we were part of the coalition to

fully restore muni. i would like to use what our speaker before cathy said from tlc. build on that. it was basically we really appreciate all of the work s.f.m.t.a. put into it. it was not a team effort. team effort with the community and with the transit workers union. hence, the result is the s.f.m.t.a. spent a lot of time dealing with the push back, dealing with the community buying in, not part of it. not accepting the results or the solutions that m.t.a. come up with. they might be beautiful, perfect onutions. you need the buy in.

bring us to the table. you need to treat the community as part of the team. not dealing with that and cathy from tlc went in details about it. the plan for 2022 was basically set up a foundation and then study that. determine what the future of muni will be. please take what the community and the twu has said are the flaws of your outreach, flaw of not bringing up to the table and learn from that so that when you start developing a plan for the future you will bring us in as a team. you are going to spend a lot of time with the mess created from not doing that. i know that m.t.a. does not have the energy or the staffing to do that. please work on this.

>> your time is concluded. >> next caller, please. >> right now there is two options being presented for the j. 10 minute frequency for surface only. 15 minutes for subway option. i would like to propose third option to reduce the number of stops closely spaced which could enable the j to probably run around a 12 minute frequency right in the middle of the plans and that way people don't have to make transfers, they are still at a decent frequency.

>> are we still connect. to the caller speaking? >> no, the caller hung up. >> next caller, please. >> i have a couple quick comments and then two questions about abandonment. my comments are that there has been a tremendous outflow of concern stated by noey valley residents. i live in the valley. i am part of the restore j work

group. the thing that troubles me most there is no technical analysis that m.t.a. presented that would support what they call option one. keeping the j out of the tunnel. in fact, the technical analysis supports option two. putting the j in the tunnel at 15 minutes headway. four trains per hour. currently they are running 18 to 20 trains per hour. if we added the j four that would bring it up to 22 maximum of 22 trains per hour. that is well below the 30 that the m.t.a. stated it would be the limit that might create performance problems. supervisor mandelman in a meeting with us suggested put the j into the tunnel right now

at the rate of four trains person hour and monitor the situation. if in fact there are negative impacts on the rest of the system we can look at that, make decisions about it. right now there is no data or analysis suggesting that this would be a problem. therefore i think we should go ahead in line with the very strong concerns that valley neighbors expressed. two questions about abandonment. i thought the meeting would be focused on that issue. i will throw them out. >> your time is concluded. all speakers have the same two minutes for comments to the committee. i understand we still have a caller on the line. next caller, please.

>> david pill plow. system does not tell you where you are in the queue. it is very difficult. if you could start my time now. i support full restoration of regular meeting to at least pre-covid weekend service. i know resources exist now and in the future to provide service without pitting people among each other staff suggested. there is too much service in the early morning and later evening and too little service in the day when people need it most. i plan to relate coverage, frequency to capacity and equity at a future meeting, possibly the land use hearing that i believe is up.

the 12 could be operated to presidio in california. 21 to downtown and other changes can be added at very little incremental cost in trade-off i would not operate both 5 short line and 5 rapid. i would run more service on the 5 long line at this time. the time savings between the 5 local and 5 rapid is not significant. same on the 28 and 28r. coupely cat service. >> 30 seconds. >> i do support operating 14r and 38r not night service on those lines. more local service. i appreciate commitment to continuing service planning and public outreach that needs follow up and monitoring. you discussed cable cars ask city attorney for opinion. untrust and happiness with m.t.a. i made comments on this topic.

i can advise further in public or private. thanks for listening. >> thank you. next caller, please. >> i am district 5 resident in japan town. i support restoring all lines to pre-pandemic level. every week i see elders at the bus stops for the bus to come. it is heartbreaking. i know 2 is planning to come back. every day that line or any line not running is another day someone can't get where they need to be or walk an extra hilly block to get there. for one of the slides it says 38 is just a couple blocks. for j town and tenderloin that runs on clay. that is three to four blocks. that is not a good talking point as one to two. i don't trust this department to

do the right thing without constant public pressure. if there wasn't organizers from the public the 31 wouldn't have come back. we have a director who says redevelopment was not bad. i don't trust this department. we do need more revenue. where is m.t.a. to push? charge for parking on sunday. the m.t.a. says a lot of things and does not back up with action. i believe it when i see it attitude. please restore lines to pre-yuzuru hanyu level. >> next caller, please -- to prepandemic level. >> this is the director with san francisco transit riders. thankful for the proposal to give the service we have been missing. it is a difficult situation, but

we want to acknowledge the supervisors and riders who felt they are no other choice than to get loud and demand change to get vital lines restored. we are glad to see the plans. we know this isn't the end of the line. we need significant investment in muni operations to fund and expand services. as the callers mentioned we have to learn from this process if we succeed for a more equitable transit system and process. that is the only way to get political will and power to restore service from muni. we need in creased accountable from community and labor for the stakeholders and secure funding for transit system that has faced decades of disinvestment.

we can't emerge more divided. it is critical the board of supervisors and mayor and public are aligned and supportive of the accountability mechanisms. impact to communities and identifying the funding for progressive resources to restore lines. anything short leaves our riders in economic recovery. as we move i hope we can find the political will and center the community and riders and labor most impacted by the service changes. thank you. >> any further callers in the queue to comment on agenda item 3? >> there are no more callers in the queue. >> thank you. with no more callers in queue, public comment is now closed.

a quick question. we have had a lot of time last hearing discussing the consultant walker. i want to clarify with director tumlin whether the contract and services for which mr. walker was retained to conduct this survey and this was his recommendations regarding service restoration is that concluded and the service concluded or ongoing? >> just one word of correction. chair walker's company had no role in the survey. that was done entirely in house by the staff. walkers term did analytics to shape options. i believe there may be some

ongoing scope but for the most part the work that mr. walker's firm has done is complete. m.t.a. staff will carry it out. >> thank you, director tumlin. i want to thank all of the folks who called in. it was very important comments. i want to make one final comment. something i was thinking about. in light of the discussion about shortened lines. in particular i appreciate ms. petty from senior disability action talking about she framed it transit first looking at transfer most which is interesting. i do think that it does highlight a real issue. i think that looking on the map of coverage it is easy to see a

case for investment in core lines and requiring transfers and look like you are covering the city. i want to make sure especially as we look at the most significant issue. winter 2022 changes are adopted, proposed and adopted and we are talking about if next step. i want to elevated i would like to see as clear as possible commitment to restoring the full length of these lines. remain a little concerned with the lack of clarity around the long-term plans. i appreciate further engagement before the shortening of the line would occur. i hope we can restore those lines. i think that the impact of

forcing additional transfers is particularly harsh on senior and disabled riders, folks with mobility impairments. it i lengthens the trip for everyone. for all of us and any of us who use muni regularly know that if you are planning a trip that involves one or two changes it completely changes amount of time you have to allocate. more can go wrong. it is a longer trip. the final piece. we can talk about this further offline. i think it is important to recognize forcing more and more transfers does not necessarily save us very much. there is this assumption that somehow it is 21 terminates at civic center and continues down market and there is a massive

cost savings. at the level to come back right now i think it would be like one or two additional buses an hour required if you were to cover the entire lot. one or two additional buses to run that line. which you can achieve by the 5 a few blocks away. you could run more buses. i pick up some of the extra folks there and a couple buses to serve the whole line. obviously, we have talked about trade-offs and moving parts here. when i looked into it i am surprised how low the savings seem to be by shortening these lines. it doesn't make sense short term when we have this usage and downtown traffic. there is a case for that.

i appreciate that line coming back to understand the thinking of waiting. extension further downtown. i would like to see more clear commitment that lines like this will run all the wayne downtown to original route as themuter track and workers getting down town. i hope we can get more clarity on that. those are my -- really my final thought beyond thanking everyone foreign gaugement. it is a long hearing. appreciate the m.t.a.'s responses to the question. the work that has gone into the recommendations and i want to thank everyone for their work and thank our operators and

stafffor being here today. i don't see anyone else on the roster. if there are no further comments or questions, we can wrap this up with those thanks. i would like to continue this item to the call of the chair again, especially since we have a series of recommendations that may go into effect in february. there may be a desire to bring this back one more time depending on the next rollout. mr. clerk call the roll on the motion to continue. >> motion offered by chair preston the hearing be continued to the call of the chair. vice chair chan. >> aye. >> mandelman. >> aye. >> chair preston. >> aye. >> mr. chair, three ayes. >> thank you. motion passes. thank you all again.

please call the next item. 4. hearing to receive progress updates on the seismic retrofit options for 301 mission. based on public documents in our file that being 160975. members of the public to comment on this call in the call-in number 415-655-0001. today's id24922118986. after you entered the id press pound twice and then star followed by number three if you wish to enter the queue to speak. >> thank you, mr. clerk. i am going to in a minute here hand it off to the sponsor of this item. before i do let me thank

mr. peskin and the callers for their patience. it is a long hearing already. let me assure you that these items are not agendized in importance of order or order of importance. we are looking forward to this hearing on this extremely important matter. thank you for your patience. i will turn the floor over to supervisor peskin. >> thank you, chair preston and supervisor chan and mandelman for the opportunity to bring this item before you. i wish that the 301 mission street mel enemy yum tower -- tower behind us but that is not the case. as you know, going back to 2009 when the first unit in that

building were sold the tower had already begun to sink differentially, to tilt far beyond what the projections in the environmental analysis yielded which is tropical. so far as this board of supervisors actually recently held a hearing on a different building and were concerned about the lack of seismic and geotechnical information in that report. in this instance over the life of the structure, there was projected to be four to six inches of uniform. the building not differential settlement, no tilt. this building like the one we considered the other day is in an area of town that was not originally tera fir mabut filled

reclaimed lands. when i started the hearings in 2016 on the sinking and tilting, the building had already tilted almost a foot and a half to the northwest and sunk approximately a foot. there was a lot of litigation which we are all aware of. that litigation has been settled. we don't know the terms of that. i am led to believe the homeowners association receive the range of individual homeowners received benefits. we do know that the city and county of san francisco did not participate monetarily but did make available at no charge the portions of the public right-of-way along mission and

fremont streetses where a voluntary fix casing and tiling system that was supposed to stem the continued sinking and tilting of the building and maybe even restore some of it and sadly, unfortunately, it would appear that the fix has exacerbated the sinking and tilting that is now approaching two feet of tilt at the top. i realize this has gotten a lot of media attention and is the issue. it is not what we are here for today. we are here, one, to hear why experts, structural and geotechnical experts think the

fix caused the accelerated differential settlement. two, to hear from the department of building inspection who is the permit issuing authority and their plans now and in the future as well as from the edrt, the design review team that has been a second be set of eyes for dpi, what their role has been, what their assessment of what went wrong in the fix and what their role is going forward. there is good news. the good news is and we will hear about this shortly. of 52-inch 36-inch casings on fremont and mission streets when work was halted in august 23rd

there has been one test casing and it's would appear the techniques used for sinking that casing did not lead to any additional settlement. we will hear about that. then colleagues we hope to have lessons learned. i have a series of questions you should feel free to jump in. obviously, this building is unique in san francisco because it is built out of concrete and not steel. 57% heavier. load is heavier. we know that the foundation system does not go to bedrock. it has 10-foot matt slabs supported by friction piles. you will hear about the column of sands and the substrate

beneath the tower. with that the project that the fix is a product of the millennium homeowners association. we will start with the hoa as to what the outcomes of the fix have been, what is going on with the building and what their plans are going forward. we will hear from the structural engineer of record who works for the hoa who participated in our 2015 hearings as well as matt who was the project manager for the hoa overseeing the construction doing the actual on the groundwork.

>> from this process it was unanimously endorsed by an independent third-party panel of experts after a peer review led by the university of washington. member of the berkeley academy of alumni. once consensus was reached. the best approach in the foundation and long-term performance of the tower it was presented to the city's engineering design review team. after the review they also improved the design. in addition to seeking out the best available experts for the design the tower sought out most qualified team for construction. the lead design team of engineers from the mediation process were chairing over to the construction project itself. for construction only one

obvious choice to select a contractor shimek construction. they have delivered on local projects such as bart, caltrains and performed for the san francisco transit agencies. they sought out and relied on best experts and professionals to address the settlement of the tower. lastly, the tower has remained safe to engineering certainty. on this point there continues to be consensus. in the final declaration it was evaluated and determined to be structurally sound. that is why this is an upgrade not repair. after much consideration the millennium tower determined it was best to proceed with construction to improve

long-term performance of the building. this including tilt construction, further projections over the long-term. on behalf of the tower community we are grateful for the engineers and construction professionals working with our team to complete the upgrade. now with that backdrop i will turn it over to our lead engineer to update the board on the progress. >> good morning, mr. hamburger. >> good morning. i did attend to transmit a powerpoint this morning. i wonder if the clerk has that available. >> i did not get such a thing. i don't know if the clerk got it. >> through the chair to mr. hamburger, no, sir, i did not receive the powerpoint from you. i have a presentation from the department of building and inspection on this topic. >> i am sorry about that.

if i can share my screen, i will share it. if not i will talk. >> we can help you share your screen. if you can start with your bona fide des in this field. >> the screen is shareable now. i am ron hamburger. senior principal with simpson. i have approximately 47 years of experience in structural engineering. education, construction and failure investigation. i am a member of the national academy of engineering. past president of the structural engineers association of northern california. california and the national council of structural engineering associations.

since 2011 i have chaired the follow veer committee of the american society of civil engineers that developed the structural engineering requirements of the engineering code. if i may, i would like to talk briefly. supervisor peskin has about the problem and solution. millennium tire is constructed at the corner of mission and fremont street. like most of the financial district south of the market area of san francisco, underlying the city consists of artificial fill since the gold rush. young bay muddy possit is from the deposits when the san francisco bay covered that area. deep layer now 70 food down 70-f

beach sand did not cover. [indiscernable] a very deep layer 150 feet of material called old lay clay. eventually about 230 feet down formation bedrock. the tower like every building constructed in that part of san francisco prior to 2010 is a series of piles that extend down into the dens sand layer for the foundation support. the reason the building is settling is that under the effect of the building weight as supervisor peskin said is significantly larger than buildings constructed prior to that is causing a process called consolidation of the old bay clays beneath the building pile. consolidation is the pressure created by the building and by the watering of the surrounding site to allow construction of

the adjacent buildings. basically squeezing water out of the old bay clay. that squeezes the water out it is like squeezing water out of a sponge causing volume change that is allowing the site to settle. tilting beneath the building as shown in the slide is not uniform. the layers have different thicknesses on different sides of the site. construction add jay sent to the building including the transit center immediately to the southed removed the soils present to the construction and constructionrelieved pressure o. the building is tilting to the west. the goal of the voluntary upgrade is to arrest that

perfected settlement of the building and to allow recovery over a period of years. we accomplished this by new piles underneath the sidewalk on fremont and mission street at the side of the building. jack load off the existing foundation to new piles of rock and transfer that load down to the bedrock to stop the consolidation of the old clays. >> if we can go back a little bit. i know this is going back i recall it started on the mission site before the excavation and

installation of the wall on the transbay terminal, and that was initially ascribed to more de-watering of 301 mission street site than originally predicted in the earlier calculations and in further allegedly exacerbated by the de-watering of the transbay site. does that sound right to you? >> that is correct. it is settling since construction initiated on it. effect of de-waters is reducing the -- when you de-water it decreases the effect of waste of soils above or below the water table to create more pressure and consolidation. the building did not tilt until

2009 when it started on the add jays sent project it settled straight down. >> my recollection is the same. >> as the structural engineer of record does that mean that you designed the foundation system or somebody else designed the foundation system? >> i was not the structural engineer of record for the original construction of the

building. the original structural engineer of record designed the foundation system, they selected the number of piles to be used, how deep they would go, designed the foundation map on those tiles, it was done on the basis of recommendation made by the geotechnical engineer of record for the original construction. >> remind he who is the structural engineer of record originally in the foundation system? >> original structural engineer of record was. [indiscernable] >> right, yes. >> tread will was the geotech? >> that's correct. >> going back again to the original if you will. >> was this a process in implementation failure?

what do you think the original failure was in. >> i am not comfortable on this. i have not studied that in any detail. my understanding is that the original geotechnical engineer for the project did under estimate the weight of one of the layers of soil. it was assumed when the project was originally discussed that the de-watering for this project was going to be only during the period of excavation and construction. . [please stand by]

>> digging piles 270' deep in the rock. with 36" diameter. once that's done, a 24"

diameter steel pipe approximately 240' down through the center of those 36" diameter casings to the top of the rock and then they drill down into the rock and that's another 30' and that's. once the pile is installed, they would totally be which is about 15' below grade in a 10' set. we have attached onto the existing and existing foundation will be basically extend that foundation out to

encompass new the contractor's technique and installing the 36" casings and the 24" casings. inadvertently removes soil from beneath the structure.

and just squeezing the pile and resulting in volume changes. and piles have been installed and resulted in volume change and settlement. a secondary cause into the sand and support the existing piles that have dense fied them and we think that has some expense as well. >> supervisor peskin: and just relative to the behavior of the structure during the insulation of the casings and the piles, maybe we can just take it from the top. the design that you propose

that the edrt reviewed and were otherwise peer reviewed as mr. lip said consisted of 52 casings, correct? and 52 piles that you would in essence tie back to i assume you started with the casings. when did you start and how -- when did you start detecting the accelerated differential settlement? >> it started in may of this year. we began to detect small amounts of increased settlement almost immediately. and as additional casings and piles were installed, the

increase in settlement became more severe. by the end of july, the contractor had installed a total of 33 of the 52 casings consisting of call the casings along fremont street and about two thirds of the casings on mission street. they had also installed at that time, six of the 24 -- i'm sorry. three of the 24" piles. at that point in time, i became concerned and i asked the contractor some following 36" casings continuing with the 24s so they can understand which of those two operations and.

>> supervisor peskin: as of right now, 6, 24" piles. >> those are located at the south end of fremont street. from the driveway north. >> supervisor peskin: and then you see 36" casings after the 33 up until you did the quote unquote test recently? >> is that correct. >> and they permit us to install some additional 36" cases. as of today, there are a total of 36 installed. >> supervisor peskin: and, are

you still going for 52 or are you revising the plans to have less casings and piles? >> we did submit a proposal to the city. we have not yet seen impact. >> supervisor peskin: and the quote unquote successful installation of the test casing and subsequent casings, what did you -- what was done differently relative to method? >> on the 36" casing, we did much more careful control of where the ends of the casings would be stopped -- it's possible that we do 100'

length. the contractor has to make splices in the casings and so we controlleded where those splices would be made so that the tip of the casing would not be that could be pushed up into the casing while -- we also acquired much more careful control on the depth of plug and the end of the casing and the amount of water fill in the casing while they're installing it to provide waste at the end of the casing to prevent material from piping up into the casing. >> supervisor peskin: so less ground. >> we also put measures to isolate the installation equipment -- to isolate the vibration from the installation equipment from the piles that had already been installed. when we installed the pilot casing a few weeks ago, we have

extensive measurement of operations both at street level and the casings and at depth within the same layer and we have determined that we have successfully mitigated the vibration. and ground loss measures on the 36s also appear to be successful. >> supervisor peskin: and, the techniques that are being utilized in this are techniques that have otherwise been utilized in other situations, is that correct? >> the installation techniques that are being used here have not been used in the san francisco bay area previously, but the contractor who is doing this work has used these techniques and other sites around the city. >> supervisor peskin: so is this good to new any explanation as to why these techniques that have been used

in other places in the united states were not implemented earlier in this between may and when you ceased in late august and commence the test recently? >> i have no way looking at that. i can tell you the soil at every site even at different sites within the city vary quite a bit and the techniques that are used in one place technically may not be as effective in other locations. >> supervisor peskin: and just in the placement of the first 30+ casings, what kind of monitoring regimen was employed then versus what has been since implemented in the pilot? >> there are a series of 38

settlement markers that are surveyed upon. in the basement of the building that have been surveyed every week since the construction started. in addition, there are a series of prisms mounted on the side of the building and also at the top that give digital read-outs not only of settlements, but also horizontal movements of the buildings at different levels. those also were being monitored at a weekly basis. we are now monitoring a prism on the side of the building.

>> supervisor peskin: so the difference is not that you installed more prisms or more monitors, but was that you monitored them more frequently, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> supervisor peskin: but it's not the monitoring that decreased the differential settlement during the test pilot, it is the change, means and methods? >> that is also correct. >> supervisor peskin: okay. thank you for all that. please proceed. >> okay: in late august, when

i put the moratorium on the compilation. the tilt on the plot at the top is tilted to the north. the plot on the bottom is tilt of the building to the west towards fremont street. in 2009 with construction completed, the building was holding about 4" to the north.

>> in november of 2020, when construction started, the building was helping about 7" to the north and 17" to the west. in august of this year, when i instituted the moratorium and 23" to the west and as of today, it's about can. >> supervisor peskin: mr. hamburger, i've heard in the past where we have a duty

as the department of building inspection and the board of supervisors to inquire. at what point, should we particularly in a seismically proned region. at what point do we worry about structural failure. ? >> it's an excellent question. i've been asked this a number of times. i started back in 2018 and what we've done -- what we've done is we created an analytical model of the building. this is the same type of model used the design what the

building code called the maximum considered. 1500 years or so. it has the magnitude of the 1906 san francisco earthquake, but has an indentation of a location that reduces more severe compared to as i said, the building is holding 12" to the north and 28" to the west. we had evaluated it previously and the ezrt reviewed and concurred that the building was safe at that level of deflection we lacked at the building as much as almost 3' to the north and almost 80" to the west. and we've concluded that the

building is still able to safely resist its maximum considered earthquake shaking not that we expect the building will ever be permitted to go that far. i will mention that the edrt has seen those results but has not had the opportunity to review that. [please stand by]

>> we have successfully tested the 36-inch casing. our next step is testing 24-inch casing in two weeks. based on the results of the testing of the 36 and 24, we

will be able to project how much settlement will occur to the building and how much sloping. we will have a conversation with the homeowners and with the building department as to how much additional sloping they will accept. we will trim the project to allow the piles not acceding that limit. i will note the upgrade is voluntary. the piles that we install and attach to the building will improve performance and will reduce amount of settlement that occurs over the years. at this point we are looking to see how many piles we, the city, homeowners can afford without causing excessive tilt in the building so the behavior in the future will be improved.

>> mr. hamburger, i thought there was a chance to find out if it was on a specific slide or wait until the presentation is done before asking your question? >> i think it is just a quick question between this slide and the last slide. maybe i missed the point here that was already made. you mentioned from a technical perspective you consider a tilt up to 40 inches is acceptable limit. knowing that right now from what you indicated the tilt is 9.5 inches north and 23.5 inches west. in the event from your estimate or i don't know if this is the right question to ask you.

in the event that -- because the work has begun and it tilts more and settles more unexpectedly. in the event what you are about to do now with the new solution that you are moving forward in the event it doesn't work again, how fast do you think -- how much time do we have until it is no longer acceptable? >> before the initiative the building was settling about one eight inch per year and tilting at one-half inch per year. when we stopped construction of the piles in august the building returned to those rates of settlement. we are currently at almost 30 inches of tilt. we have another 10 inches of tilt which could occur at the rate of a half inch per year.

that could be 20 years if we did nothing. >> thank you. >> thank you, supervisor chan. i apologize for cutting you off, supervisor peskin. >> none of us are geotechnical or structural experts so this may sound like a simplistic question. mr. hamburger, do you think this building would have been better off without the fix or is it too early to tell? what is your take on that? >> if we had not done the fix, the building would have settled and tilted as it currently has today in about four years. the building would have been better off today but not better off four years from now. >> four or 40? >> four. >> even with the limited number

of piles that we have installed at the moment, if we put these piles into the building and off the building to the piles that will improve the building's future performance beyond what it would otherwise have been to the extent we can successfully install additional piles that will improve the building future performance. i would not say the building would have been better off if we had not done what we have done. >> all things being equal, the fix was not necessary? >> in our opinion the fix has never been necessary from a structural perspective, from a safety perspective. >> got it. you are saying if this thing does not reach equalibrium and sees tilting eventually it is

going to get to 40 inches or 28 inches? is that fair to say? did you say that? >> 28 inches now. >> i thought you said 23.5. then you said 28 inches. i am confused. >> you are correct. the reason is summing the tilt to get the tilt quantity in the north west direction which is more of the tilt to the north arwest. >> got it. consolidation causing the tilt we are not installing piles is self-limiting behavior. if you think about the sponge someone squeezing water. if you grab a wet sponge and apply pressure with your hand

and you squeeze water out, water will come out for a while then stop. consolidation is a self-limiting behavior. we expect to happen over time as the consolidation continues and more and more water is squeeze the out of the soil, it will self-limit and stop. i think it will self-limit in about 40 inches. >> 40 inches. you are saying you think it will get to 40 earlier that 40 is the acceptable limit? >> yes. >> then if it goes to 41 or 48, which the edrt and other peer reviewers haven't looked at that is the point of no return, in your estimation?

>> i wouldn't call it point of no return. i would call it a point at which the building's ability to resist maximum earthquake. [indiscernable] >> maybe this is not a question for you but mr. eaga in who joined the call. with all of this and sorry for the technical termmucking around in the dirt and the existing load measured in kips, do you or does the goio tech think there is any defamation of the substrate? are different layers sheering

within the subsurface? >> no, i don't think there is sheering. i think that what the installation of piles has done has -- obviously if you get settlement, you are causing additional consolidation settlement or second dairy compression settlement during this process. i don't think it has caused sheering of concern within the sub soil strata. >> relative to the condition of the matt, the 10-foot slab matt. i will ask this question. i never did get answers or good enough answers to this question

a half step years ago when we were holding the hearings. was that done in one pour or multiple pours? do you know? >> i do know that was done in one continuous pour that lasted more than a day. hundreds of trucks would come and depossit is the concrete. >> it gets hot. did you cool it. >> i was not the structural engineer. it is typical in large foundation pours of big buildings like this to ice the concrete. i assume that was done here. >> this is a separate question. i will start trying to turn it over to the next speakers, but i mean again, none of us here are

remotely experts in this field. i did start out as an earth sign measure in the math kicked my behind. i have not spoken to most of these folks, but i have the same access to the internet and the television that everybody else does. i see this parade of credentialed experts and i can look them up on the internet. they are structural or geotechnical engineers in good standing, licensed in the state of california. we all know their names. some of them have taken upon themselves to e-mail me and robert pike is in the record and date williams we saw on tv and somebody from uc berkeley and

larry carp and the list goes on. one was concerned about dishing of the matt. any thoughts for mr. eagan or mr. hamburger if there is defamation of the mat. >> it has dished. when detailed measurements of the elevation started to be taken in 2009 with the survey markers, it cuts off the addition of the matt. we are continuing to monitor those with the survey. the mat has not improved at all since 2009. the building has been settling and tilting at the rigid bottom as you see on the slide here with no additional dishing of

the mat. i would like to note my analysis of the building included a detailed model of the building map. before we apply an earthquake load to the structure we apply that dishing to the model to stimulate the effect of what has occurred. the analysis indicate we have reviewed it and that dishing has not compromised the mat. >> i have been in the basement of the building and seen the cracks. there is obviously water in intrusion.does the modeling tako account any of the corrosive activities occurring in the basement? >> the water leakage that you are referring to as well as the cracking of the basement walls

which are not in this building. it was constructed together with adjacent mid-rise building. the garage for both buildings is in the five level of basement of the mid-rise knowledge. all -- mid-rise building. all of that damage is in the mid-rise building. i have not evaluated the safety of the mid-rise. it has not compromised the tower ability. >> okay. mr. eagan, do you agree with that? >> yes. >> thank you. i i assume all of you in this relatively small tight admitted expert community know one another. do you talk to each other? are these people looking to be on tv or what is your take about the skepticism we are seeing from other industry experts on

television set? >> i don't really care to speculate as to the motive of these individuals. i will say in the san francisco bay area there are at least 2000 structural engineers. i assume several hundred geotechnical engineers all members of the structural engineers association of northern california. i was once part of that. the fact that a half dozen engineers think there is a big problem. i wouldn't suggest that is representative of the engineering communititive in the bay area. i will also say the engineers who have been vocal and in the press could not possibly have done the level of analysis i have done over the seven years i have been involved with this

building. >> thank you, mr. hamburger. you are not speculating that is a good thing. i have not spoken to most of them. i do always read their submissions with interest. would you like to wrap up? we can go to briefly in charge of overseeing construction for the homeowner's association. any last slides, mr. hamburger. >> one last slide on the project schedule. there is a detailed schedule developed by the contractor 22 month construction period. at the time construction halted in august at my direction about 10 of those 22 months had elapsed. the project was on schedule at

that time. assuming we get permission to restart construction, i am saying in december of this year, it will take about another year to complete the project. that would be december of next year. steps will be permitted and will have arrested and stopped further settlement of the building upon submission and allow gradual settling on the south and east side with the effect of recovering the tilt that has occurred over time. thank you for your attention. >> thank you very much, mr. hamburger. congratulations on the new means and methods that have proved at least initially successful. i wish they had been implemented earlier in this fix. we are where we are.

mr. dutro, good afternoon. >> good afternoon, supervisor peskin. thank you for giving us time for discuss this project. i will be very brief. my role is to oversee the project for the homeowners, taking into account the budget and the schedule. we have at the same time engaged a mechanical engineer to review the interior of the building to ensure that the interior of the building remains functional for the homeowners. then in regard to the intrusion that you mentioned, supervisor peskin as mr. hamburger indicated in the parking garage underneath the mid-rise building. we have a design team designing

a fix to water proof that section of the building to keep the residents safe. there is no currently no life safety issues associated with the interior functions. we will continue to monitor those for the homeowners. >> thank you. one quick question. relative to the integrity of the mat slab. do you know whether or not that thing was iced when they did it in one pour? >> no, i was notes involved in the original construction. >> have you undertaken any ground penetrating radar investigation of the mat? >> no, we haven't done anything to that extent. we relied on professional

engineers, hamburger, eagan to guide us to the activities and further investigation would be needed to ensure the safety of the building. >> they have not recommendedded using ground penetrating radar technology? >> no. >> if i may. as part of the original investigation performed back in 2014-2015-2016. gpr would not be use full because of the depth of the matter it could not penetrate. [indiscernable] through the depth of the mat and removed from the mat and examined. there was no significant be cracking in the cores. we are confident that concrete is in good shape. >> thank you, mr. hamburger.

if there are no questions, mr. chairman, i want to thank the hoa and their three representatives, four representatives for their presentation and answering of questions. i will move to our department of building inspection. i don't know if all of you are familiar before patrick is with us to ask questions. mr. ferrara has a powerpoint and is an engineer so with that. if you can walk us through the role of d.b.i. in the permitting process that would be greatly appreciated. >> good afternoon, supervisor peskin and the rest of the committee. as mr. peskin has said i am new

to the department. i am the deputy director for permit services. i have studied in late september working for 40 years in the industry in design construction and previously served in building departments throughout the state and in private sector. in the past few weeks i acquainted with the project and the department has control oversight and is actively participating for the review of the proceedings during construction. you have heard quite a bit of technical information about the project from mr. hamburger. my focus here is to underscore the d.b.i. role regarding this project.

current and future oversight as you said at the beginning of the presentation and the current status of the project. i will then hand be it over to professor dear line of the engineering design review team and dr. ben turner who we have since retained from dan brown and associates a national drilling expert in the field. >> the role of d.b.i. as most building as any building department is that to ensure that the building code is being enforced to the maximum extent possible. the building codes offer clear and state guidelines. they are acceptable and what we

are here to ensure that construction appears to those boundaries. i think, john, you need to mute your microphone. essentially we are driven by design proposals and constraints. we don't tell the design professional, project sponsors what to do. we ensure the proposal is code compliant. that gives us a stronger position to guide and enforce the code without directing the design or construction. this is how all building departments work up and down the state and across the nation as well. if the project varies from code compliant we ask them to correct it. if necessary to shut down operations. public safety is always our

first intent. department uses construction proposals, complaints and observations as a prime resource of input to ensure the building codes is commyatt. we -- compliant. this allows us to review the scope of work. we have a highly educated team in my career. san francisco plan check engineers are probably the most qualified that i have seen in the building departments that i have administered. we have several advance dee dee's and structural technical engineering here. they are involved in the retrofit. we once the building permit is issued. it will be to inspect the

project to make sure it com ports to the plan we were approved. we oversee special inspections and materials, tickets delivered to the site. last we respond to complaints of unsafe conditions. that is what we are doing at the millennium tower. in this case we have gone beyond our original scope in several areas. one of which is that we have scheduled biannual inspections to go through and ensure safety of the structure. any minor code violations that come along with those inspections are rectified along the way. the homeowners association have contracted with several other inspectors or teams to go

through and do an analysis of the building. we review those and comment on those as necessary. of course, we have been instrumental in compiling the engineering design review team and this additional layer of expert oversight helps supplement the internal expertise we have. this continuous monitoring off the project and the construction that actually led to the discovery of the accelerated tilt that we experienced this last summer. >> mr. hamburger made a point saying that he on behalf of the project sponsor of the homeowners association halted

the work in late august. what role did d.b.i. play? can you give us background on that. clearly d.b.i. even though you knew there was accelerated settlement did not invoke powers to halt installation of the 36-inch much casings and 26-inch piles. tell us behind-the-scenes considerations? >> from what i understand the monitoring of the settlement was essentially started around the same time as the 36-inch casings were beginning. it wasn't until june 23rd that we receive the data from the design team and the field. at the same time we were involved in the changing of the scope from the 52 piles to 42

piles mr. hamburger talked about. essentially we began reviewing settlement data as soon as we got it, and you heard mr. hamburger talk about halting the 36-inch casings and continuing on the 24. this was kind of methodology to make sure that it was, you know, what was responsible for the settlement. the 36 or 24. halt one to continue on the other one. this process of deduction and communication back and forth between the engineering design review team and the design engineer took some time. eventually we requested that they halt the continuation. mr. hamburger was the ultimate

decision-maker to do that. >> aren't you guys the ultimate decision-maker? you can issue stop work on construction of any kind anywhere in the square files of the town, can't you? >> we can do that. this is a consensus of review. the conversation that happens between the design engineer, edrt and d.b.i. is one of general agreement. it takes all three of us to make that decision. yes, you are right. we do have that ability to do that. in this case it was just suggested that they stop. >> so they stopped at your suggestion. please proceed. i know that my three colleagues

are about to mute me. let's go on. >> i can go through this slide quickly. i did say earlier we oversee and don't determine the means and methods for the contract. that is up to design professional and contractor to come up with that. we will talk about the timeline quickly. i touched on this a moment ago. this is just a rough visual for the ongoing proceedings starting in may when the 36-inch much casings began. then we went into the 24-inch casings. it was discovered the accelerated settlement was going on. there was a period of discussion

before the proceedings were actually halted. then a discussion again to restart with the pilot you talked about in early october. during that process also it was decided to get in additional oversight. because it is means and methods we found dan brown and associates a nationally recognized drilling expert to join the team to evaluate the means and methods for the installlation. i wanted to start this by saying that conditions at 301 mission are stable. the building is structurally sound by all of the information that i have reviewed and the

eert has had. we know the building is habitable and serviceable through various inspections and we monitor with the help of the homeowners association and their team of experts that come in and address matters as are needed. the current tilt is at 22.5 northwest of the building. that is holding steady. we had successful installations of the pilot piles. we proved it's on pile number 34 as well. the elevator. >> 34 of 42? >> that the 34 of 42, that's correct. >> the 42 as opposed to 52 permanent casings and piles? d.b.i. signed off on the revised

lester number of casings and piles? >> i have to defer to my team on that. i believe that. patrick. >> thank you, supervisor peskin and chair preston for holding this hearing. we have not signed off on the reduction from 52 to 42. it is currently being reviewed. >> mr. reardon, while i you on here. it is not fair to ask mr. ferrara. can you tell us how the members of the engineering design review team were selected? and who they work for? >> yes, supervisor. i wasn't in that department at the time either. i believe it included the city administrator at the time and

decision was made in consensus with d.b.i. along with the city administrator to select this team of professionals. >> do you know how it worked? >> i am not aware exactly how that happened at the time, supervisor. i can get back to you with that information. >> so they were originally hired and paid for and worked under then city administrator naomi kelly and that function was transferred to d.b.i. they are now consultants to the department of building inspection, is that correct? >> that is my understanding, yes. >> supervisor peskin, i want to go to supervisor chan with a comment. >> thank you. my question is earlier

mr. hamburger said the limit for this tilt is about 40 inches from acceptable design standpoint. do you agree to that? >> supervisor chan, we actually just started those discussions this morning in a meeting. the information is relatively young. in front of the edrt. there was about two hours of very technical discussion this morning. we are in the process of reviewing that. >> what will happen? i am curious in the case that you have a difference of opinion about what is an acceptable limit? what is the process to resolve that difference of opinion? meaning, you know, whether you

find it too much or how would you do that? how would you resolve that if you don't agree that 40 inches is acceptable limit? >> that is a great discussion. it is very -- it is a series of. it is a discussion among all design professionals. as well as the members of the edrt. we go back and forth. i have seen greg dear line and marco on the team request additional information from the design professional and they are to prove that theory for the engineering design review team and come back and prove it or refute it. it is that process of back and forth. eventual consensus of everyone that we can move forward that

results in the decision or the way to go. >> in my line of questioning was to mr. hamburger. the attitude of supervisor peskin asked. without the face, you know, we are seeing, you know, the challenges of that the tower would face in terms of tilting would have significantly impacted without the fix within four years. with the fix maybe we have like 20 years. would you agree to that or do you agree with his assessment? >> my experience with this type of building and -- i'm sorry. my experience in fact i was

asked by internal executive team about that same thing. >> their visual cues to what is going on at the building. if we come out of an earthquake and the building has suffered trauma of some sort. it is not necessarily catastrophic effect. it is not brittle. you will see beams and that sort of thing. these official cues are fuses that are designed to alert us ahead of time as to remediate

building or evacuate the building and demollish it if needed. >> okay. thank you for that. i personally have not been into the building. sounds to me there seems to be some visual cues from what supervisor peskin had talked about earlier in terms of the cracks that he was seeing. thank you so much. i am done with my questions for now. i may have more later. thank you. >> thank you. supervisor peskin. >> let's keep going. >> next slide please. what d.b.i. is doing. during actual installation is that we have set a threshold.

design team and engineering design review team has agreed a quarter inch maximum settlement is what is acceptable. if it were to pass this we would pause construction evaluate and react accordingly. during the installation, dan brown and associates monitored the last two casings to make sure that the program for installation is being followed and that it is proving out and the results have proved that minimal settlement occurred using these procedures. the department sends out a senior building inspector every single day to make sure that the monitoring is going on and that we are recording thepertty net data to submit to the edrt for

review after reinstallation. the daily measurements are taken. mr. hamburger told you during installation these are hourly measurements and the measurements continue to happen daily basis. >> two quick questions. i assume that the stepped up monitoring would be applied to all future installations not just the test casing and the test pilot? >> that's correct, yes. we have seen that we get better or more telling results from the exterior prisms the reflectors on the surface of the building as it reacts to the work going on. the higher the prism the more movement to be reflected on

what is going on at the foundation. >> it is not a show stopper. is the project sponsor paying for d.b.i. staff time on all of this? >> mr. reardon, i will ask you. >> not as of right now, supervisor peskin. we are looking at the resources we are pouring into this project and continue to and we are evaluating that right now. >> you do have the legal ability to charge for your time, i assume? >> i will have to check with our city attorney on that in relation to what we can and cannot charge for. we have charged a fairly sizable amount of money at the issuance of the permit. i can check on that to see what it is we can do.

>> mr. ferrara or other reardon, it sounds like the hourly prism measurements and ground vibration monitoring for the test casings and new means and methods are being provided to d.b.i. in realtime or close to realtime, but it sounds like that did not happen between may when this project started and june the 23rd. why not? >> so the plans issued required monitoring. it stated that if the monitoring exceeded specific numbers that the design professional responsible for the project was to stop the work.

that is what is drawings indicated. prior to june 23rd we requested those numbers to review. [please stand by]

and then we review it and once a week we get together as a team. the design professional and d.b.i. and d.r.t. members and we review that and discuss it and see what we learned, if anything. decide to act on it, slow things down or analyze it a little bit more or move forward. next slide, please. i've covered this already, daily

inspections by the building inspector to go out there, weekly coordination occurs. as well as we've asked mr. hamburger to come up with that threshold, right? what we consider a structural safety issue with the building and that's currently being reviewed. every complaint that is -- that arises out of the building we actively engage in to review it and to get compliance. and ultimately, we're making sure that the building continues to be habitable for the occupants and serviceable for the building maintenance. you know, make sure the sewage is running the right direction and the elevators and so on and so forth are working correctly. if the soil settlement reaches more than a quarter inch, we ask

that the retrofit stop and we caucus how to move forward. >> when you say for casing, installation, does that mean casings and piles? >> correct. so there is a casing that is run down for the 24 as well, but, yeah, people tend to use piles for the 24-inch as well, but there is casing that is run down for the 24 inches as well. >> i'm saying is the tolerance for shutdown a quarter inch per casing and per pile? >> no, it's per installation, so it's -- well, actually, i'd have to ask mr. hamburger about that. >> supervisor peskin: okay. remember that through the process of elimination, what we realized was that the casings are causing differential settlement and the piles are causing differential settlement. that is what the sinking of the

six piles showed us, it wasn't just a casing problem, it was a casing and pile problem. my problem is, if it's 42 or 52 and you've done six of them, and you're doing a little less than a quarter inch of settlement per and that does not lead to a shutdown, the cumulative is many inches. and i think that you guys started with soil sediment in excess of an 8 inch per casing and per pile. i just want to get some clarity on that. >> these limits were per casing, so if a 36 inch casing installation was to exceed a quarter inch, we can stop it. if a 24 inch were to exceed a quarter inch, we would stop it.

i will point out that the settlement that has occurred throughout construction, i said it before, is only an inch and a quarter. the maximum amount of settlement that any one has caused is a little bit more than an eighth of an inch. so we're not looking at many inches and we will not allow many inches of sediment to occur. >> supervisor peskin: but even if you did the math -- if you did 52 -- i mean i appreciate there is a little more than an eighth of an inch, but every remaining pile, assuming you have 46 to go, 36 to go -- but if you've got 46 to go even at an eighth of a inch, that's another half a foot of settlement, right? >> i haven't done that math. we would not install that many

piles. in fact, once we install a 24-inch test pile we are required to come back to dbi and project how many settlement will occur if we complete based on the results of that test, then we -- [indiscernible] if it's not, work in such a way to prevent that from happening. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. >> okay. next slide. i think i'm done. so with that, i'd like to introduce the engineering and design team, which is chaired by professor greg deerline. marco shah, who another structural engineer on the team. greg shields who is geotechnical engineer and dr. donnie who is

also of a geotechnical specialty as well. so i'll hand it over to greg. >> just to jump in. in terms of just a little time check. i see a long list of folks and i want to -- >> yeah, we can continue this to another hearing because there is obviously we have to wait for the 24-inch test, but the thing that you said earlier and maybe i fell asleep for a minute, had a slide, t technical aspects. did you just show us that slide? >> that was one of the slides i prepared on the edrt. >> perfect. i want to talk about that slide. mr. chairman, what is your will? >> it's fine to proceed. i just wanted to make sure and maybe get an estimate of how much time if we're moving into a new presentation.

-- by the design review team, what the time estimate and we also, of course, need to allow time for public comment as well. >> i think in terms of the slides i have prepared, there are just four or five of them. definitely less than 10 minutes. >> okay. three of the four edrt members have been enlisted by the city managers office to perform all of the retrofit as proposed to review studies of the safety of the building and supervisor peskin, if you remember, the hearing in august 2017, we reported on that on behalf of

our committee. since we've been looking at the foundation retrofit, working with the department of building inspection, that's when va danny was added to this. we meet with the dbi and the design team, the proposals for the design team, the drawings, the calculations, the analysises and the assumptions behind those things. then we put them with additional questions and then when it's resolved, it's the consensus of the group. not one of us has more clout than the other. we discuss all these things together. just wanted to point out that our review team works under the san francisco administrative bulletin 82.

and that's to provide the independent objectives we have technical review of aspects of the design and reporting that back to the building inspection. and also what we do and what dbi doesn't replace the quality assurance measures that are ordinarily expected of the structural engineer of record for the design. the two things ways we've been enlisted back from 2018 to august 2019, that was the time in which we reviewed the permit request for the foundation upgrades. these were drawings and calculations to substantiate issuance of a permit. and then more recently in december 2020, we were enlisted to continue in our review capacity during construction. i want to emphasize that our role during construction is really still focused on design issues. that is some pile tests that are

done in the course of construction that provides geotechnical parameters to finalize some of the design values. there is changes in the design, so we're there to review those. and in the case of the monetary and the excessive settlement, we look at implications of those and we're here to review those. you've heard previously about as ron hamburger described the objectives of the retrofit. the key part of our role is to ensure that the requirements that the san francisco existing building code for voluntary seismic improvements, which is dealing with the structural safety of the building under the gravity load and earthquake loading. the key focus is paying attention to that in addition to the other objectives. and that the design team is

following the perform-based guidelines that are permitted under the san francisco administrative bulletin 83 and further that referenced guidelines for performance-based design of new tall buildings. ron hamburger mentioned that previously. next slide. so i have two slides to talk about, supervisor peskin, the key technical aspects you were alluding to. the first is during a permit review, the initial stages we worked on over a year ago. what is identified here is a key technical aspects of that. i just wanted to touch briefly on. you heard details of this from ron hamburger earlier, i won't repeat that. but the perimeter piles, these are steel piles that go down to rock, through the clay layers and then settlement on the mission and fremont streets. it was an intentional part of the design in the geotechnical

engineers would agree to minimize any disturbance to the soil, any of the so-called ground loss. obviously there are effects that were larger than expected, but the basic design principles, the solution or the proposal to minimize those effects. here is focusing on the earthquake safety, looking carefully at the detailed analysis of the structure and the foundation. but both the existing case, if we're thinking about that, and going through construction until the retrofit is completed. and then beyond that, the safety of the retrofitting structure, considering the pile configurations. during the course of the permit, the design team has looked at the safety of the existing building under the tilt. as ron hamburger mentioned previously, they also looked at tilt of twice that amount

anticipating that there would be some settlement. some did occur just naturally between july and last january, up to 17 inches, but through crushings -- construction. so that is a key part of the retrofit. once these piles are in, they're connected back to the building through this 10-foot mat. so a key of the review is looking at the details of that. there is a ductal fuse that is the way the new piles are connected to the mat to ensure that this mat extension and the mat that it's attached to don't get overloaded. we also looked at estimates of long-term settlement. i think one point i would like to emphasize here that i don't think was conveyed earlier. once this retrofit is installed as it is designed along the mission and fremont street, that

will rest the settlement of those spots. and the long-term settlement that will continue to occur on the other sides of the building will, in fact, recover tilt. so once this is tilting to the northwest now, once this retrofit is in place, the original design anticipates that there will be continued settlement of the building but, in fact, that's going to recover some of the tilt over the life of the building. >> can you hang on a second? i appreciate this. but just going back to the first thing, perimeter piles. i mean in this process did the edrt predict or model or analyze hamburger/eagan's predictions as to what increased amount of settlement and differential settlement this fix would bring about? >> well, we reviewed all of their reports in detail. and as part of their study, they

did not look at what would be to try to estimate the settlement that occurred during construction due to the pile installation method, but they did look carefully at once the piles -- new piles were in place, what would be the continued settlement of the building and looking at the properties and the soil and n. their study included a sensitivity study to look at how the estimates of future settlement would vary based on the range of the parameters. >> commissioner peskin: that seems a little weird that you wouldn't analyze -- far be it for me, again, maybe i'm not an expert, but you would think that you would try to analyze what the fix was going to be with increased settlement. but separate and apart from that, is it your belief that it

wasn't the design, but the means and method, ie, the excess ground loss that led to the accelerated tilt? >> well, yeah, because the design itself is not causing the excess tilt. it's the installation of these piles. now the question of whether the installation of the piles is a design feature or part of the means and methods. the point i'm trying to make here is that the design shows chose the type of piles that was to minimize disturbance to the ground. sometimes piles are put in with drilled shafts that don't have the steel lining. but those ones will tend to cause more ground loss. so that type of solution was dismissed on this project in favor of the steel piles. but the settlement estimates that were made during the developing the design and part of the permit review, again,

we're looking at the settlements kind of post construction. >> commissioner peskin: so relative to future tilt, professor deerline, if we can do apples to apples, which is hamburger is using a northwest tilt combined number of currently 28 inches and apparently historically said that the red alert number was 29, but now is saying it's 40 to 47? how does this westward tilt number of 29, which is twice the 14.3 that was july of '19, which is now well north of 14.3, how does this number relate to that number? and what do you think is where this city should get nervous? i mean, i did hear mr. pereira say eventually demolish if needed.

>> okay. well, the tilt numbers that we're talking about are roughly proportional. so the ones that are quoted on this slide, which is where -- there is more tilt to the west than there is to the north. and as the piles and casings have been put up fremont street, they caused more tilt to the west. if i could just focus on these numbers, with again are proportional if you look at the ratios to the ones to ron hamburger was talking about. in 2019, it was tilting to the west 14 inches. we did analyses to see if the building were safe if it were to tilt to the west 29 inches. the current is 22.35, or 23 inches we'll see. what ron reported, which the first we saw of that was in a

conference call this morning. so we've not reviewed it. is the westward tilt could increase to 79 inches and it would still be safe. now we've not reviewed that yet, so we're not going to make a judgment on that. now the 40 inches is something much less than that, which is more of a practical or a serviceable limit on tilt. but the casing and another point that ron made is that -- ron hamburger made, is that once the next indicator pile of the 24-inch pile is put in and they can make a better estimate if they proceed with the original retrofit plan how much settlement do they expect to occur through construction? then the key thing is to be to look at that amount of settlement and make sure it's far less than any of these thresholds that would impact the

structural safety of the building. okay. so the last bullet point here really that leads into the next slide is that one part of the permit review -- and this was mentioned before -- is that a requirement that monitoring occurred to the building weekly. there was also some holes put in with down hall monitoring for water tabling and so forth. if you go to the last slide. so then during construction, for the first few months of this year, january through march, we were busy reviewing information from additional soil testing and a couple of test piles that were put in to help finalize the geotechnical parameters to establish the capacity of these piles. the load they could take into the rock.

we also then starting about april were reviewing modifications to design. and you heard mention already of major modification is a proposal to scale back from 52 to 42 piles. so we have been looking at those and, in fact, we did issue a letter back in july, the review team had gone through that 42 proposal and made comments on that fact which was basically to support that design decision back to dbi. then since that time, the casings have been installed, we are meeting frequently with the design team and the contractor to evaluate the causes of that settlement and how they might mitigate it through these modified installation procedures. again, you've heard that the modifications made to the 36-inch casing so far have been

successful. pending though is what is going to happen with the 24-inch piles. and the last thing that we've been focusing on, ron hamburger mentioned, the design team is already looking at contingency plans in the event that continued piles with lead to an unacceptable amount of settlement under ways that they could scale back the retrofit and achieve the piles. we brought in dan brown and associates who are experts in deep foundation construction, to help us review and help advise what the design team and the contractor are proposing for the mitigation procedures. so i'd like to, if i could turn

it over to dr. ben turner from dan brown and associates who has been, along with dan brown, part of these discussions looking at the causes and mitigation methods and also ben has been on site for these two 36-inch casings that were installed. he has a couple of slides and can be available to answer questions. >> commissioner peskin: before we do that, and thank you, colleagues for your indulgence. a couple quick things. professor, i neglected to do what we did half a decade ago was to give your findings -- >> most of my time in life is a professor at stanford university. i've been a structure engineer for 40 years, but academia for 35 or 10 of those years. doing research and teaching and

structural and earthquake engineering. part of our faculty appointment allows us to spend a certain amount of time on doing outside activities that are related to our research and teaching. and it's through that, that i've been involved in kind of reviewing this project and also worked on other reviews for the department of building inspection. >> commissioner peskin: thank you for that and sorry for failing to ask that in the beginning. but relative to geotechnical expertise, that's not your specialty? >> no, that's not my specialty. >> commissioner peskin: and i do want to hear more and i would like to hear about a similarly situated project, foundation system, virtually identical, but we'll get to that on another occasion, because i think we should do this again in january. but do you, mr. deerline, want

to speculate why we're people, experts in the profession, who i mentioned, are sending us letters with different analyses than that of the edrt and the engineer of record? >> well, a couple of things on that. as ron indicated, i don't want to speculate on people who are sending the comments forward. some comments came in during the review of the permit back in 2019 time frame. and at that time they were sent to d.b.i., d.b.i. forwarded them to us and we considered those in our review. we thought about those questions and if we i greed it should be -- agreed it should be answered, we reviewed it with the team. so now in terms of the -- well,

those comments maybe what came up more recently, one comment would be many of those criticisms are based on incomplete information. because there is a lot of background information and some of that becomes available through sunshine laws, but there is an awful lot of understanding that comes about through the many meetings we have with both the design team and even amongst the edrt debating the issues, delving into these things. the analyses need to be integrated with a lot of judgment. we have two geotechnical engineers working with marcus and myself collectively looking at the issues. >> commissioner peskin: i appreciate that. and by the way -- and i'm in no way -- going to be very clear --

casting any professional doubt on those two gentlemen, but insofar as mr. hamburger indicated early on in today's hearing that part of the original problem was if i may, you know, be pointed, was the geotechnical analysis or problems in the geotechnical analysis done by treadwell and rolo now a decade and a half ago and the structural guy is only as good as the geo tech guy. and half the edrt comes from treadwell and rolo. i'm going to leave it there. [please stand by] [please stand by]

>> i do want to get to public comment, i know that folks have been waiting. >> sure, thank you for the opportunity to speak here. my name is ben turner and i'm a geotechnical engineer and i work

for the firm dan brown and associates. our company specializes in all aspects of deep foundations. we primarily do engineering design of deep foundations that are going to be built but a large part of our business is also supporting contractors and owners and other engineering professionals through a construction-related aspects of deep foundation. and how that affects design and the ground around deep foundations, etc. so right in the ballpark of what we're talking about here today. the photo that you see on the right shows installation of 36-inch casing, number 33. and that was the first one that i was on site to observe. if you will advance the slide, jen. so since we have been brought on board, the pilot program that is called to implement procedures has been in effect and two facings have been completed and a third they understand is being installed and it will be

completed today. and so the numbers listed there are actually just the number and schemes where each is assigned a number, not the sequential order in which they are installed. and those are close to each other by coincidence. i first observed 36-inch casing number 33. and then after successful installation of that casing and when i say success, the parameter was the settlement, the settlement that occurred during installation as mr. hamburger noted was negligible. so we adopted those in a additional set of specifications called supplemental is specifications and they were in effect when casing number 32 was installed at the end of last week. the things implemented on site that i was there to observe include tracking of both the water levels inside of the casing and also what we call the soil plug thickness.

so that's how much soil remains inside of the bottom of the pipe as it is moved down to minimize ground loss. and you can see some photos of these things on the right, the water levels being measured with a weighted tape measure which is also used to measure the soil thickness. so that was done between every pass of the drilling tool in and out of the hole and those measurements were recorded so that everyone involved knew what they were at all times. they also welded the bolts on the joint. you can see a bolted casing joint there, which was intended to minimize the time that it took for the total installation and then the bottom photo kind of gives you an overview, seeing the casing going in the right and see some workers on an aerial left taking the measurement. and then you see a number of people observing, which was the case for these last two. overall, it has been successful as has been recorded with these modified procedures. and so now our next job here is

to see what happens when the next 24 -- >> 10 minutes on the clock. >> thank you very much. and supervisor peskin, i think we should go ahead and go to public comment and i imagine that you may have some questions of me and we can decide after public comment if you want to pose those now or in a follow-up hearing. so, mr. clerk, open up the public comment. >> clerk: see if mr. chin has something? >> it's not really a comment but more of a quick question. chair, thank you. and i don't know who can answer this question. the question is what is currently the occupancy rate or just a number of occupants in the tower at this moment, if we know that. is that an hoa question?

>> perhaps for dbi. >> probably matt from the hoa. >> supervisor chin, i can answer that question. there are 419 residences in millennium tower and the total occupancy of the community is about 1,000 residents. >> great, thank you. >> you're welcome. >> thank you, supervisor chin and let's go ahead and open up to public comment line, mr. clerk. >> clerk: thank you, mr. chair. we'll working with the department of technology who is checking to see if we have any callers in the queue. for those watching on the cable or through sfgov-tv.org or elsewhere, if you wish to speak on this item call in now. dial 1-(415)-655-0001. and today's meeting 2492118986. following that you should press the pound symbol twice and then

press star, followed by 3 if you want to be entered into the queue to speak. for those already on hold in the queue wait until you're prompted to begin and you will hear that you are unmuted and that begins your time to -- to give your comments to the committee. excuse me. could you please connect us to our one caller in the queue. >> clerk: hello, caller, if you are there, you want to mute your television or radio. i'm hearing myself. >> caller: hello. >> clerk: yes, please begin. >> caller: say again? >> clerk: please begin your comments. >> caller: oh, good afternoon.

my name is david williams and i'd like to request an extra minute if possible. >> clerk: not possible. >> caller: it is possible? >> clerk: it is not possible. all speakers enjoy the same two minutes' time and i will start the clock. >> caller: recognizing the reports that were reviewed over four years, and with what i have heard today, i believe that implementation of the ongoing voluntary ppu should be put on hold to confirm two critical issues with the upgrade and future performance of the task. and once they have installed and the foundation is extended it involves redistribution of foundation load. given the consequences of poor assumptions, the current foundation structure condition should be thoroughly reassessed many detailed investigations, including further non-destructive testing. and any cracks on the underside

and durability issues. and even if successfully implemented without incident, resulting in upgraded structure with a symmetrical stiffness will result in a less desirable seismic response. tall buildings on soils sway and rocking. and the slant of the buildings on deep foundations such as m.t., rocking is the most likely response, and reasonably uniform foundation, rocking is smooth, seismic and acceptable. for a building on stiff piles and in bedrock on two adjacent sides and on soft piles elsewhere, the seismic response is unlikely to be smooth, typically biased in one direction with little recovery. and this can cause problems. that is why the guidance and the voluntary upgrades warns against adding any a symmetry to the construction. and many designers would have

concerns about the performance of any slender or high rise building with a symmetric foundations and avoid them. >> clerk: time is concluded. thank you for sharing your comments with the committee. mr. chair, i received word just now that we have no further caller in the cue. >> supervisor peskin: with no callers in queue, public comment on this item is closed. supervisor peskin, do you have any -- did additional comments or questions at this time? >> supervisor peskin: thank you for your indulgence and i know that it's a long hearing, chair president, and committee members. i said what i have to say for now. i would respectfully request that you continue this item to the call of the chair and that we find a time to continue this hearing in january. >> chair: thank you, supervisor

peskin, and i'm happy to make that chair and i do just want to say that i know that we've got a lot of inquiries, you know, in the recent months around these issues, and we very much appreciate how your office has been and you have been on top of this issue and working with the departments and making sure that -- that everything possible is being done and i appreciate you calling this oversight hearing and we'll look forward to continuing the conversation at a future hearing date. so, mr. clerk, can you call the roll on the motion to continue to the call of the chair. >> clerk: [roll call vote]

mr. chair, there are two ayes and member mandelman is noted absent. >> supervisor preston: the motion passes and thank you supervisor peskin for your leadership on this. and, mr. clerk, do we have any further business before the committee? >> clerk: there is no further business. >> supervisor preston: thank you, we are adjourned.

>> thank you. at this time i like to call the november 1 meeting of the redistricting task force to order. by way of introduction, i am the committee chair arnold townsend. madam clerk, are there any announcements? >> clerk: the minutes will reflect that task force members participated in this meeting remotely through video conference. the task force recognizes that public access the city services is essential and advise public participation in the following ways. first public comment will be available on each item on this agenda. each speaker will be allowed two minutes to speak. your opportunity to speak are available via phone by calling