Should happen to the fees. I dont know if we can say that. Im concerned about that. I guess you could express your desire and emotion, but its not going to be legally binding on the appeals or the department. So would we uphold the existing fee or remain silent on it . I think you have to impose the assessment of costs. Or you could reduce it, if you wanted to. We can reduce it, but we have to assign the fees. Okay. I dont think we can again, i think we can say what our desire is or we can say in Public Comment what our hope to the resolution is, but it needs to be binding. To the chair, this is throwing the baby out with the bath water, but if we reduce the fees now with the notion that were being proactive in having these others come together, well take that risk that everybody is going to come to a conclusive decision. What were interested in is getting resolution. We have the autonomy now to come out in front of it and say, heres what were going to do to help the case. Now the parties need to get together and figure it out. I dont know if that resonates. We dont do that normally because we always hang on to that kind of scenario, but i dont see any way out of this other than both parties getting together. Can i ask another question of council . To our council . Yes, of course, commissioner. So if we reduce the fees to just cover the costs of our Department Staff with our action at the Planning Commission and or i mean, i dont know who else would be able to appeal it to the board of appeals. Can somebody else add it . Im trying to say that if were losing the housing, and the Planning Department allows that, theyre going to put on their own mitigation for that, right . Correct . Im not sure i understand your question. I understand her question. I think shes asking my translator. We approve the order of abatement, and we give a 60day stay. Im making this up for the purpose of the question. We reduce the fee instead of nine times. Commissioner walker wants to know if they choose to go to the Planning Department to revert back to commercial, is there a way the landlord can be penalized. That was her question. Thank you. Were offering a bridge upfront, which we normally dont do. I think were looking for a solution, which i dont know if this body has the jurisdiction to make that call. Exactly. We dont. To try to incentivize them. From the look on your face, im thinking there is not a way to do that. Its incentivizing something. Reduce the fees . Or dont. I think we should discuss the fees. Just because other commissioners are shaking their heads. I appreciate that commissioner mccarthy is trying to incentivize and show support for this moving forward, but i do believe having the fees in place and held in abatement at this point adds to the incentive to constructively and seriously engage in resolution. I think that everything thats been said today and now is that our whole goal here is to see a swift resolution to this that creates legal, safe, artist housing wherever possible and protects it in this use, if that is possible. I think it is supported by leaving things in place, pending the resolution. Commissioner lee . My question to the City Attorney is do we revisit this in 60 days, the fees portion . Is that possible . I dont think we have a procedure for that. Once you make a decision, thats the end of it. Gotcha. You can continue it to another meeting. At least one more. Okay. Commissioner walker . The planning process reviews all of this, right . Yes. So they can take the whole so if we hold it in advance for 60 days, they file a permit, then they have to pay the fee, correct . I think they have to pay the fee to get the permit. To get the permit. To get the permit . To receive it . Or to start the application . Well collect the fees at issuance. It could be at the Planning Department. Commissioner mccarthy . Im kind of putting myself in the Property Owners shoes here. Theyve got to make some hard choices here. Im just kind of offering an olive branch here saying, please, make the right choice here, and, by the way, we have the autonomy to do that. Hes here asking for a fee reduction. I think thats good. Were doing it on that context. I dont think we can reverse that decision afterwards. I think we make a decision, as a commission, to try to incentivize. I think that was the word used. I think this is going to be resolved one way or the other, you know. I dont know who is going to prevail, but i think were here trying to say, please do the right thing and preserve this housing. By the way, well help you out with the fees, Property Owner, right now. Get this legalized. Commissioners, you could continue the matter for 60 days. If the Property Owner is saying he thinks some resolution could be reached during that time period, you could continue it for 60 days and have him come back. If the permits have not been filed at that point or theres some movement thats made that you can consider whether to reduce fees at that time. You were saying continuous 60 days. I was going to say make a decision today and revisit it. And thats a different story. Everybody just keeps accruing. The fees keep accruing. Well, if thats the compromise, thats i think we have two options on the table, trying to get to the resolution. One is we uphold the order of abatement. With a stay for 60 days. The other is we can continue this matter until our january meeting, which would be the same time period. We can see if anything has shifted. If not, we can just make it a flatout determination. The fees will continue to accrue, but that could be the incentive, possibly, for resolution. At that time, we could reduce them. So youre saying that the appellant right now can voluntarily just go ahead and do everything now, as soon as possible, before the 60 days . I think thats the message we would be sending by continuing this order and while we continue it, the order of abatement is still there. Is that correct . So if we choose to commissioner constin likes this. If we continue to the february meeting, the fees continue to accrue, correct . And the order of abatement stays in its current state by the continuan continuance . Its continuing. And we could, at that february meeting, if we do that, we could right, we could just uphold the order of abatement. Whatever the fees are, say, sorry, you had your window. Were starting with staff and department. You could do that, yes. Commissioners, do we want to postpone this until our february meeting . I move to continue this until our february meeting. Second. Theres a motion by commissioner walk tore continue the item to february meeting and commissioner constin seconds it. Vice president gillman. Yes. Commissioner lee . Before i vote, i do make the comment that i hope that the appellant understands that were extending you 60 days but sort of informally. You asked for 60. Were going to give it to you. And please do the right thing within those 60 days, even though were not vote on the issue. All right. My vote is yes. Commissioner mccarthy . Yes. Commissioner walker . Yes. Commissioner yes. The motion carries unanimously. Our next item is item e, new appeals order of abatement. The action requested by appellant, reverse order of abatement because appellant is not working and unable to fix the violations and is selling the house. Members of the board, good morning. Chief Housing Inspector. 418 persia avenue is a Single Family dwelling on two floors of occupancy. The appellant filed this application on october 2nd. The notice of violation had been subsequently issued because there was a lack of a heat source at this property. This notice of violation occurred as a result of the City Attorney task force inspection. There are three open notices of violation at this property, and the heat notice is what is before you today. However, from the time that the previous Property Owner made this appeal, the property has now changed hands. We were able to verify that. So currently you do not have jurisdiction over the new Property Owner. Were in the course of notifying, or renoticing, the notice of violation to the current owner. Weve made repeated attempts to contact the appellant, the previous Property Owner, because chapter 1a section 102. 5. 7 of the Building Code says anybody may make the appeal, and that could be the previous owner. Weve not been able to contact the previous owner. We believe he filed this appeal for the purposes of preventing an order from being placed on the property while it was for sale, and it was no doubt in escrow because the property changed hands on october 19th. We were able to determine that within the last week. It takes a couple of weeks for that to show up for us to be able to see that. The good news is the current Property Owner is making inroads into correcting these. Weve issued all the current notices of violation to the current owner as required by chapter 1a of the San Francisco Building Code, and the inspector in charge has been at the site with the Property Owner and their contractor, as far as the other two items. Theres an illegal unit and an issue that deals with maintenance items throughout the building. A permit was filed by the previous Property Owner, a plumbing permit, to install a gas heating appliance. I believe the current owner is now following up with that or a new permit to be able to address putting the heat source in. So that is what would be before you today. So my recommendation is twofold. If we do have anybody to speak to on the item, and i wasnt able to determine before you began, if the Property Owner is here or a a tenant, you could continue it until they could be renotic renoticed. I would like to withhold on that unless theres anyone here to speak on the item. We also use this hearing as a mechanism to push on the new appropriate owner. Thats the other reason we were not able to take this off the agenda. We couldnt get the old property o owner to tell us whether or not they were going to withdraw. In any case, were glad its before you. We hope to push it toward the direction of getting resolution. Great. Is the previous Property Owner present . Whos named in this action . Is the current Property Owner here . Can they speak as the appellant . You can call them up here. Im going to call the current Property Owner. If they have a representative with them or counsel or someone who is assisting them. Are you the current Property Owner . [off mic] do we need to administer the oath . This is the oath of office to you. You can come to the podium. Do you swear that the testimony youre about to give is the truth to the best of your knowledge . Yes. Hi. Hi. Im the new owner. Do you want to state your name . My name is jennifer we lived there for three weeks. October 19th. Im very new about everything. I take over the property. Can you speak into the mic a little bit . Thanks so much, maam. The property had a violation, and i tried to follow up and correct everything as soon as possible. I already got the permit to fix the furnace, heater, and plumbing. Yes. But i have a little bit issue with the tenant. So the tenant wont let me in the property and wont let the Housing Inspector come in. They pushing us away. They dont let us in. And the day i come over to get the key, the tenant attorney come over and say they gave me the letter that he needs 55,000 for the tenant. And i told him i dont after i bought the property, i dont have any more money. The day that i have appeared today, i didnt even have the letter, so the tenant called me. The attorney tenant called me. I thought he sent it to me. He told me that you give me the money, and i wont show up at the appeal. If you dont, then i will be show up, and you gonna have pay more. So im very i dont even know what i have to do. I tell him that i have no money, no more, after i bought the house. And he say that you have to do the refinance to get the money out, but i called the agent, but they say you cant because you just bought the property. You cannot do the refinance cashout. So i got so i dont even know what i have to do, but i followed the rule. I try to fix the property. Everything. I got permits and contractor doing the work. We try to correct everything. So please tell me what i have to do. Thank you so much. Thank you. Is there Public Comment . Hi, there. Thank you. My name is tim kelly. Im an attorney for two of the tenants at this residency. Im very glad this is happening to try to get some clarity. My tenants position is very simple. Theyve lived in a home for quite a while that has been substandard and hazardous, and repeated efforts to ask the landlord, the previous owner, to make repairs have gone largely ignor ignored. It was mentioned earlier that the landlord appealed and the thought was that was in order to close the sale. They did a similar move with my tenants in that they said they were entering into a buyout negotiation in order to keep them from filing a civil suit based on a rent board finding that they owed money and announced that the house had been sold. So ive spoken with ms. Tran. She says she was not aware of any of this. In that case, she has our deepest sympathies that she was sold sort of a lemon of a house with numerous problems. My clients position is simply they want to make sure the repairs are done swiftly and that they are clearly communicated how and when theyre going to be done. Ms. Tran mentioned that the tenants were not eager to grant access. Theyre happy to grant access. They just ask that 24 hours notice be provided, and it wasnt. I have repeatedly reached out to ms. Tran and her attorney, and i have gotten very intermittent and difficult to comprehend communication back. Her attorney has not responded to my last two emails or answered any of the questions we have, but we simply want to do whatever can be done to ensure that these repairs happen swifty and that the house is not hazardous. We are provided with basic information about when and how thats going to happen. I will quickly point out my clients are of the opinion, and strong suspicion i dont want to engage in paranoia here that the previous owner and current owner are in collaboration. While i dont have evidence to speaker on that, it was mentioned that the home was sold in october, and the mechanical permit that the new owner submitted seems to have been filed by the old owner. So i dont know if thats just a carryover or if its indication of that, but i hope we can get some clarity. Thank you so much. No, i dont have a question. Basically, i wanted to clarify that we could get our inspectors in to move this forward, essentially. I mean, were not going to take an action here necessarily anyway. Rosemary, do you have a rebuttal or anything you want to add . Is there any additional Public Comment first . Im seeing none. Rebuttal. Thank you. Theres an entry thats citing a different permit. There may have been a different permit filed by the owner. In any case, we see some movement by the Property Owner. As i said, she has met with my inspector shortly after taking over the property. Right now, the first thing we want done, obviously, is to get that heat source in the building. Then were going to be dealing with other notices of violation that, as i stated, are related to the illegal unit and the other maintenance items. There are two other notices of violation. Were reissuing the notices of violation against this Property Owner because while they could comply, we cant compel compliance unless we do that, and you would have jurisdiction over the current owner then. Great. As i said, this just changed hands. My recommendation, based on what ive heard, is to recommend at this point in time to continue the item at least to the next meeting, if you so desire, at which time the current owner will be renoticed. She has a copy of all of them, but they have not been issued to her, which is important. She did get a copy of todays hearing as well. That was delivered. So at that time, then this would be the notices of violation would be reissued to the current owner, and then we could report back on the status of what is happening with the heat source. Again, that is the only thing that has been appealed to you so far. Okay. Commissioner walker . After the notices, then, it does still need to go to another directors hearing . Is that the possible. Yes, because of the way the code is written. The way the code is written, it would have to go to another hearing, but if you would like to continue the item so that the Property Owner and the staff would report back to you, i would encourage that because that helps me. I encourage the Property Owner to continue in good faith to get the item done. Then, should we need to take further Code Enforcement action on all three items, we would do that concurrently in a parallel system. Thank you. Youre welcome. To the chair, rosemary, this is just a procedural question for you. When Properties Exchange like that and theres existing notices of violations, it doesnt appear it comes out in the Due Diligence of the buyer, correct . Theres no we dont have any kind of say when the property exchanges, oh, by the way, theres notice thank you for that question, commissioner. Properties, commercial and residential, frequently change title with open code violations. Now, a Residential Property would typically require a report of building record, which should technically indicate to the owner that there were outstanding notices of violation. However, if none of those had orders of abatement, there would not be a recorded order as in this case. None of those open cases prevent the Property Owner from selling the property to somebody else. Under state law, there are certain Disclosure Requirements that we do not enforce but that do exist, which would require a Property Owner to disclose certain things. I wont get into the details of that because i have a broad understanding, but it does not none of those open cases prevent a appropriate owner from selling the property; and the issue for us is when the property changes hands, we dont always know exactly when that is. Were constantly clearing the system. Theres a bit of a delay as to when that title changes hands. This has happened within the last three weeks. So we knew it was happening. We were watching this very carefully. Now well reissue the notices of violation. If we were at a point where the item was installed and waiting for a final inspection, we may not do that, but in this situation where we have two other notices of violation and this is not yet done, i want to do that. As weve seen, theres somebody representing the tenant. There was a as the task force inspection. Were concerned about the quality of life of the occupants of the building. Rosemary, i think thats a good idea, to continue this item to help keep tabs on this order of abatement to help you influence the process. This helps me. Thank you. Given that the permit is actually good for one year but i dont think we want to wait a year. When do you think is a good time for us to revisit this . I would say that there will be a question, and perhaps Deputy Sweeney can help me with this. There may have been another filing. I dont know if the Property Owner can use the permit by the other Property Owner. There appears to be a permit with a different application number. So they may have pulled a different permit. Perhaps she can indicate that. But it doesnt take much to file a plumbing permit if its a plumbing device heat source theyre putting in. Maybe they wont get finished, but if the permit is pulled, and the time of installation is good. That would be very useful to know. Acting deputy director, do you want to come up . Ron tom, assistant director, good morning, commissioners. I was the hearing officer that heard this case when it came before me. I asked ms. Tran what transpired prior to the purpose of the transfer of the property. I want to ask the question that was posed by commissioner mccarthy. I did pose a question. She had just closed the property the day before the hearing. I asked her if she had disclosure about the violations and whether she had a threehour report issued so that she could be aware of the notice of violation. She advised me she did not have any of that information before closure. Thank you. Can we invite her back up . Or does that need to be in Public Comment . We can invite her back up . Rebuttal. Come up, ms. Tran. Rebuttal. I did have the permits for heating, furnace heating. I put those in your packets. I have that. Thank you, ms. Tran. [off mic] can i speak . Plan of action and a recommendation to the commission. Do you want to make an amendment to that . I will make one amendment. Rosemary, i know its is there any way your staff could help educate ms. Tran about noticing tenants before work is done to their units. I think that would be beneficial to the tenants and to ms. Tran who doesnt understand about the notice required. Absolutely. We will definitely work with her to understand since she indicated that this is new to her so that she gives the notice under california civil code, yes. Thank you so much. Youre welcome. As amended, i would like to second that. Okay. So theres a motion and a second to continue the item for 60 days. Yes. Take a roll call on the motion. Vice president gillman. Yes. Commissioner con sting yes commissioner lee yes commissioner walker yes commissioner yes the motion carries unanimously. Is there anything else . Public comments . Hello. Item f, general Public Comment. Is there any general Public Comment for items not on the abatement appeals board agenda . Seeing none, item g. Adjournment. Motion to adjourn. Is there a second . Second. Were all in favor . Aye. Its 10 30 a. M. Well reconvene in ten minutes. [music playing] today is wednesday november 15, 2017. This is the regular meeting of the building inspection commission. I would like to remind everyone to turnoff electronic devices. The first item on the agenda, roll call. Commissioner clinch is excused. We have a coquorum. President announcements. Welcome to the big meeting of november 15, 2017. Madam secretary, i have a few announcements. Congratulations to building inspection donald duffy, praised for his response of Helpful Customer Service in early november. They failed to obtain a permit for a retaining wall issue and inspector duffy issued one. And Housing Inspector yee, inspector yee provided the proper permit and inspected the proper setting for the timer. Nice job there. Finally, nominate qualified staff for our employee of the quarter appreciation program. We are accepting nominations for quarter three, july, august and september and ask you again to send them to Caroline Jane and William Strong to continue to recognize the work done each quarter. B. I. C. To take comments not part of the agenda. I have some material. Thank you. You can begin. Good morning. My name is jerry dratler. A construction project across my house is root cause of unpermitted construction work. I handed out a detailed explanation. Ill highlight six of the more important root causes. Number one unpermitted demolition work carriers low financial penalties because of the value of the work. The work is labor only and no materials and it is very inexpensive. Number two, unpermitted construction carriers a penalty of two or nine times the permit fee. A smart contractor will pull an inexpensive Building Permit at the start of the construction project which will limit all future violations to a penalty of two times the permit fee because theres an existing permit. Unpermitted construction penalties as they exist are not a deterrent. Number three, the Code Enforcement process does not assess penalties or fines. An absence of reporting building law penalties, there is no effective process for identifying serial violators who should be subject to escalating penalties. Number six, there are no penalties for sequel violations. Actually the current Historical Review process encourages unpermitted demolition and construction. If you apply for a permit and the building is over 45 yearsold, you are required to get a Historical Review evaluation that delays the project six to nine months and you have the cost of the hre. From a risk reward perspective, you save time, you save money and theres no penalty. Why would you do why would you pull a permit if you have a building over 45 years . It is my hope the b. I. C. Will schedule a formal presentation at a future meeting to discuss the root causes of unpermitted work. Thank you. Thank you. Any additional Public Comment . Seeing none, item four commissioner questions and matters. Inquiries to staff. May make inquiries to staff for policies, practices and procedures that are of interest to the commission. Commissioner walker. Following up on the Public Comment just issued, i think its a good assessment of issues we could discuss and maybe we could either schedule it here or at a future joint building and Planning Commission meeting that we threaten to have and maybe this is something we should follow up. This is one of the things we talk about, the squaring up between planning and building and really looking at the penalties and how were using them to discourage this kind of demolition that we dont want. So to encourage a process we do. So, i would like to put it on one of our future agendas or to figure out a schedule for the joint meeting. And add it. Okay. So theres two asks there. The joint meeting one, which we need to revisit again, which we did i want to say two months ago, i can do that. I didnt get feedback. The second part, sonya, we could see if they would like to discuss this and we could figure out how to articulate it more and theres a lot of information here and a lot of suggestions. But i think i do get the spirit of whats being asked here. If we dont get a kind of resolution, maybe we would calendar it for a hearing for ourselves. Im more inclined to have it ourselves and then go the other option. Yeah, i think we have had conversations internally about demolition. Maybe we can get an update about that considering these issues and how to make the system more effective. Lets have this sooner than later, possibly next month if we can get organized with staff. Any other inquiries from commissioners . If you have any items at a later date, you can contact me to let me know. Item 4 b future meetings of agendas. The commission can discuss and take actions to set up a special meeting or determine the items placed on the agenda of the next meeting and future meetings of the building commission. The next scheduled meeting is december 20th. Are all commissioners expected to be here for december 20th. Two weeks before christmas. Yeah. Any Public Comment . Seeing none, moving to item five. Item five, were going to i believe vote to continue one of the seats the general contractor seats but for now addressing the other parts of this item, discussion and possible action to approve and swear in members of Property Owner, licensed architect, Civil Engineer street and registered mechanical engineer street. Appointments recommended by the nominations are Michael Robbins and menghsiu chen. Terms to expire september 15, 2019. The Nominations Committee met and feel very strongly that we have two very strong candidates, mr. Robins and mr. Chen to recommend for the two seats at this point in time. Once again we would like to thank the talented people who offer their services to serve on the board of examiners and were he here to address questions colleagues may have about these two nominations. If the commissioners dont have questions, we can ask the two candidates to come up. Thank you commissioner. Im sorry. Is there Public Comment on this item . Okay. Do we need to approve it . Okay. Sorry commissioner warshell, just a moment. I apologize for the delays. Were going to vote to accept the candidates. Are all in favor of accepting the candidates. Aye. Any opposed . Okay. Go ahead. Repeat after me. Im michael robins, do somely swear and confirm that i will support the constitution of the United States and the state of california. Against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That i will bare true faith and allegiance to the constitution to the United States and state of california. I take this obligation freely without any mental evaluation. I will well and faithfully discharge the duties im about to enter. I will vow and faithfully during such time as i hold the office as a member of board of examiners, Property Owner licensed architect, civil or Structural Engineering seat of the city of San Francisco. Great. Yes. You are now sworn in. Great. Thank you. Congratulations. Thank you very much. If you want to say a few words youre more than welcome. Sure. Im a licensed architect, i have worked in the city about 15 years, mostly for large firms. Specialize in healthcare, resort hotels, i now have my own practice and its more focused on residential, small commercial projects. Im also a member of the aia, im on the board of directors this year and involved with a committee on Public Policy through the aia. Thank you. Thank you for serving. applause mr. Chen. I menghsiu chen do solemnly swear too support the constitution of the United States and state of california against all enemies foreign and domestic. Can you repeat that . Yeah. That i will bare true faith and allegiance to the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of california. That i take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evaluation. That i will well and faithfully discharge the duties that im about to enter and during such time that i hold the office for member of the board of examiners, registered mechanical engineer seat in the city and county of San Francisco. Congratulations. I am honored to be with all you people. I have a master degree from u. C. Berkeley in mechanical engineering. I have been working in the city of San Francisco since 1977. So im a little experienced at least in my field. Ill be honored to serve for the board. Thank you. Were honored to have you. applause commissioner walker has a comment. Yes, i want to formally move to continue the general contractor seat to the next meeting. Thank you for that. Okay. Theres a motion. Can we have a second for the motion . Second. Okay. All in favor . Aye. Thank you the item is continued to the next meeting. Congratulations again to both of you. We are on to item six discussion of possible action regarding best practices approach for Tall Building review. Good morning commissioners. R robb kapla. The d. B. I. Was one of the first building departments in the nation to use the adoption of administrative bulletins in march 2008. Requirements and guidelines for the seismic design of new Tall Buildings using non predescriptive seismic design procedures. These guidelines mandated third Party Reviews for all new Tall Buildings. Develop with the Structural Engineers association of northern california. Since may of 2017 at director hueys request, building safety reviews for Tall Building. Still in draft form and expected to be submitted to director hui by 2018, improvements include. Broadening the scope of the regulations beyond the current Structural Design with more comprehensive Structural Engineering Design Review with geotechnical and seismic hazard mitigations. Tightening technical qualifications that the expert involve in the Tall Building review must be a licensed california geotechnical engineer or licensed civil california engineer with expertise. Beginning another effort to work separately to improve or work on ab083. We expect that to be coming next year. In june 2017, d. B. I. Distributed a request for qualification, rfq to create a pool of academic seismic experts to draw upon as needed for future Tall Building projects. While a number of submissions didnt make the july deadline, our Senior Engineer recommended the reposts of the rfq to retain a deeper pool of experts. It was posted october 30th and are expected by january 5th, 2018, as a deadline to have submissions. Once all submissions are reviewed, including those from last july, we will issue a requalified list of experts after february the 9th 2019. Sorry, is it okay if i interrupt. I have a question. So this the rsq, you had a date there of the first original i dont know, can you bring it back on the screen there . June, i believe of 2019, right . 17. Excuse me. Just so i understand, you had to repost this. Can you explain what happened there . We received a good number of engineer civil and Structural Engineer response. We didnt receive as many from the technical field and also from the academic field. So our Senior Engineer in concert with our director determined that we needed a deeper pool, so thats why we went out again with the rfq. And the rfq is pretty much to the geotechnical and there was more outreach this time to associations for especially for the geotechnical side. We did have a deep pool for the structural review. So we have a highly returned rate on is there a certain quantity you need that youre satisfied . I dont believe so. It was just a matter of making sure that we had opportunity to draw from a pool that was more representative of the disciplines. Its not a quantifiable i dont know how many we have for each, i think there were four. Director hui, do we remember . I would like to know how many geotechnical and mechanical applied and you made the decision based on needing more. The bidding section, i discuss with my Senior Engineer and look at the group because outreach more to capture all the expertise. Its not only number, its expertise to come in and look at different stuff. Its not only now the Tall Building, also for other peer review. Okay. Still have a number. 16 Structural Engineers, we have seven or eight geotechnical and four from academic field. Four from the academic field. And i know were kind of reading the tea leaves, when you say seven or eight technical, how many are you expecting on the next outreach . I think if we have a dozen well feel comfortable, just as director hui advised, in the design professions, over the course of time you develop a level of expertise youre known
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.