tv [untitled] October 15, 2010 5:00pm-5:30pm PST
this. will give you a quick demonstration. if you look at this diagram, you will see what a short column does. this allows the building to a absorb more lateral forces. cretinous from the condoms is a huge concession. the proposal is pretty straightforward. this computer modeling is incredibly complicated. obviously, we recognize that
there are proprietary issues involved but they have started to share this with us. last week is when really got into the data. what i'm suggesting that you do the following, that you continue this matter until a date certain. this will enable the data which they're now using to be reviewed by the department and by us as well to see whether this really does performed and if it does perform, we are satisfied. obviously, if you cannot continue this, we have demonstrated there are serious issues that are not being addressed. and a minimum, it if you tonight
our appeal, you should require -- revise the permit to require the separation of the vertical element. i have copies of these slides if the board would like them. >> when you raise the issue of about the slide and about the project sponsor who has agreed to make cuts in order to allow the more lateral movement, it has that happened after the peer review? >> we are talking about concessions as far as i understand. i am assuming that is something that they have agreed to in the past 10 days because only in the past 10 days we have been in the meeting to allow us to examine
this data so we can explain what we are looking for in terms of modifications to the structure of the design so that this will have a minimum structural safety. >> the reason i am asking is that if it happens afterwards that this is raising some doubt about the quality and scope of the peer review in the first place. >> we have made the issue to you pretty clearly. i do suggest that if the data will be submitted and they have to rerun the data and they agreed that this has to be done, this should be reviewed. there is no reason why this should be reviewed and i don't think that it will take very long to reconvene. >> i have a question.
to clarify what you have reviewed. course i would have to ask about this. i am not an engineer. my firm turned this stuff over to jack merely. you have mentioned that you have reviewed the computer modeling. calculations, you received those. >> maybe i can let jack talked in response to these questions.
what level of voluntary up rates will be done? >> i cannot answer that question directly but my understanding was that they did millions of dollars. >> it was so extensive that we cannot belief that they're doing so little. >> i would have to have someone who is involved. >> can you occupy the buildings after a maximum seismic event? >> i don't know. court is my firm was responsible for the seismic strengthening of the structure.
essentially, this is collapse prevention. there was particular risk associated with the ground for that we tried to abate. >> you referenced reviewing computer model and in one portion you say something about rerunning the computer model there and this has demonstrated several weaknesses. in another portion, and you make a request for that. >> my understanding is that the project applicant engineer took the criticisms that the professor had and told us that he had to rerun them we have not seen the rerun on those so the
answer is that i don't know. we have not been given the results of it being rerun. >> you are requesting that you be shown some kind of rerun or some kind of results. >> exactly. my request for continuances relieved that we are able to look at the model in order to see if we have any criticism. that issue is behind. >> we can hear from the permit holder now. >> we plan to place a four story
addition on top of a concrete building. yes, there is an explanation on how this can be done that i will leave this to the engineers. this project is a shell already and it will provide up to 200 jobs. i hope that this will signal that san francisco is on its way back. we have an alignment of interests that is between the commission, ourselves as a company, and the general public. we all want to see a good process and we want to see that this meets the seismic code and it does. we have our headquarters in san francisco. we have an impeccable reputation for quality and safety and we would never do anything to jeopardize that.
we have about 8 seismic engineers. i feel like i have a seismic license. it was appealed by the state bar. we went and we hired three of the best engineers in the state of california. they are here tonight to answer your questions. we have relied on his engineers to give us guidance in regards to this project. also, we want to do the right thing they have had a lot of time to launch their protests. we tried to cooperate with them.
i will just leave this to the engineers because this is science and not hyperbole. i asked your consideration to review all of the data, listen to the engineers, then make a decision to deny this appeal. thank you. >> good evening. i am a structural engineer. we are a firm that has been in san francisco for a long time. i have been an engineer since 1988 with this firm. i am familiar with the peer review process and i have done about 30 peer reviews. i have been an engineer and i put my stamp on construction projects.
i got involved in this project when i was asked to be had another pair of eyes looking at the safety of the project. i have been involved in peer reviews in san francisco. i can answer some questions about that. i also answered the question that the appellate raised about the issue of does this defy common sense that you can add an addition to this building. the short answer is that whether this is surprising to you, this is not just based on looking at the building but on careful engineering analysis to see whether a building can or cannot take this edition. the engineer of record has says that this can.
this has been confirmed by myself and others. regarding the specific issues such as the energy dissipation and the computer model and things like that, we have reviewed that carefully since getting the reply a couple of days ago. i am not sure why the appellant thinks that this was not checked before. if you look at the comment loss, you will see about 14 comments related to checking the strength of the teams and columns. i think that that's his been adequately addressed. we have looked at the details and we have come to the conclusion that the seismic design of the project, the seismic evaluation meets the criteria that has been used on
the project. i would also like to say that in terms of the peer review process and my experience with it that that is typically a constructive and collaborative process. this is a good process and this has been established here in san francisco. the tone of the reply brief does not have the same as the peer review process. this takes things that i looked at and says that these are pretty minor tweaks if you want to change these can tell -- to change these. there are fundamental errors. i think that those statements are not a reflection of what was said in the declaration and i don't think that they correctly reflect the safety and the
terror that has been taken. think you. -- and the care that has been taken. thank you. >> i'm here to introduce our team. we take umbrage with the state bar's position that they are the ones worn out to protect the public safety of san francisco. they have spent three years involved in this process and hundreds of thousands of dollars on engineering. setting aside the cost, the second the state bar filed the appear, they went and got several experts. shorn steam is a respected builder in san francisco. they will not build a building that is unsafe. we have a project here.
all of the sentiment can answer your engineering questions if that is in question. and think you. >> i would love to hear your opinion. >> actually, part of this is not technical. why did you not provide the calculations to the appellant earlier? >> the structure of calculations are copyrighted. you are entitled to go down and review this but they're not allowed to be copied. we made them available. we said that they need to sign a
non disclosure agreement. we have no problem with this. they dillydallied for about a week and then refuse to to signed it and then they accuse us of refusing to offer the information. >> when was that offer made? >> right after they filed the brief. we had a meeting after the project engineers were there and we presented them with -- and we offered to look into this and provide them with the information. >> there were three issues that were brought up, does your engineering team want to respond to the other two items? >> that is probably a good idea. i know that this issue was briefly address, i will have
them come back up. >> the issues in the reply brief, there was an issue. one essentially said that we did not check the forces. that is the issue that i think was a major focus of the peer review. there are about 14 comments. i'm not sure why jack felt that that was not checked. also the idea of when the design for the cutting of the seals was proposed. the engineer of record would know the history of that more than me but certainly the issue of it is in the comment log.
there is one comment through this process. there was some that were entered into this. this puts more focus on the issue. before this, there was questions about the sheer in the beams and columns. ben bernanke >> what about the existing structure? i believe that you can improve this in an analysis model. usually this will affect how much a building moves. generally this will not changed and things like the beams and
that was my initial response to the reply brief and that is what michael tells me he has found. we have run with their own choice of assumption. we have made the change to change the energy dissipation factor. we have done all of that and we have some grasp i can show you how this is really not affected that is why i think this is a minor issue and they are not critical omissions, their fundamental errors. >> it would be the best person to summarize what changes have occurred from the package?
holes. this was an added precaution. >> let me show you. we have seen your log and we understand that this has gone back and forth between the purity or and the city. >> i which is leading up to this. the only other change as that we intended to do this. in talking to the contractor, in lieu of drilling holes, we agreed to cut it. that is the only change. this has not been submitted because the project is on hold. >> that would be the only
change. >> yes. >> this is always troubling to me when you have competing experts. you expect advocacy from some certain types of experts, you sell it in the expect this from other entities. no one here is advocating anything but good principles, is this an option of applying different criteria of what should be done? >> i think that we are all using the same criteria which has been approved by the department of building inspection. there has been -- we have been addressing this sense 2007. as was indicated, there were
actually put into the peer review log and the engineer said this never happened. we're trying to address the concerns. the latest concern are actually met with them and we had inc. depredation and the revised damping and we found that there was actually a reduction. so his recommendation actually improve the performance of the building and actually shared that with him the following day. this was the day his declaration was due. unfortunately, the results sounded encouraging but he did not have the time to review them. >> does that raise the rerun
issue? >> this is the worst case column in the entire building. we have received comments from the professor and we we ran them. what this shows is the horizontal line. this shows the length of the earthquake. the vertical access to the column shear. the orange line's were based upon our original which was approved. the blue line is with the professor's recommendations. there is a slight reduction when you incorporate the recommendations. the bigger point is that these
are very fine details, they are not global issues that will affect the building fundamentally. they are minor details. the red line in the case the capacity. this always stays above the demand. one of the other fundamental issues that has not been addressed is when your columns are controlled, there is no possibility to have a failure. that has been discussed on the day of this declaration. >> the sheer force in that graf is a function of time. this is one earthquake record, this is playstation 10. this is plotting the sheer
overtime throughout the particular earthquake. >> for what size? >> this is for the maximum credible earthquake. >> can you give me this in the magnitude? >> this is not easily correlate to magnitude but the ground shaking in san francisco in 1906 was about a 500 year return. >> thank you. >> if i can as quickly address the question that you asked. in layman's terms, you ask how engineers can't agree. what i've learned is that there really is no magic checklists of
questions that you go down. i think you heard and that the issues raised by the professor are unique, they're simply variations of those that were raised. there was different assumptions. this is not the first time that they were ever raised. there were scrutinized by the process. this is professional approach and professional judgment. >> described the best possible motives to the state bar. if this was to fail and had been engineered wrong, what would the effect be it on their building?
>> i would never want to speculate as to the motives. if you read the declaration, he does not use the word fundamental error, garbage in, garbage out. that is the advocate for the state bar. you can ask them what they would suffer in result of an earthquake and tell also why would they build an unsafe building? >> i appreciate the answer. these are things i am grappling with. >> would be the benefit of building an unsafe building? >> there is none.
>> i have a question that is brought to my mind. we heard that the building required millions of dollars to bring it to collapse prevention state. is this what you're talking but doing with this building? >> i would ask our peer review were to come up and he can explain why this is unnecessary to do a seismic upgrade that they did. >> aren't there different levels of bringing in building two being able to withstand seismic events. aren't those of inevitability and collapse? can