For because clientele maybe hear about your work, so you start focusing on certain areas, Structural Engineering orgio technical and certainly in the academic field, various professors from surrounding universities especially, stanford or berkley, develop the reputation because they focus on certain aspects and theories that they work in the labs and write papers and such. So we get an idea of what their area of expertise and background are. I get it. Its a good answer, thank you. More to the director, kind of lets say we dont get a huge pool again, i think at that stage, what decision will you make . First of all, we already have that number there. And then we outreach to other organization. I believe we would be more and then at that time well i guess im just you know playing devils advocate, i think its something that needs to be decided on in the next round. You might get to 12 or 15, i think the pool we have is what we should go with. This is something we need to get in place as soon as possible. Thats important. We want to get it out and later on theres a presentation regarding the cause. Is it okay if i pop in any other commissioners have questions . Just to reinforce what director hui just stated, this time around we were able to reach out to other professional organizations. Some members work with us pretty regularly. We asked them if they had heard news through the professional organizations and they did not. We feel this time were reaching out to professional organizations who will in turn canvas their membership and we believe well have an improvement from the last pool. Lets see where i am. Okay. So on november 9th, 2017, d. B. I. Issued information sheet s18. These are interim guideline and procedures for seismic and Structural Design engineering for new Tall Buildings and one of the special features, it will require settlement monitoring data, submissions to d. B. I. Annually for 10 years after a tco is issued. And by qualified organizations that have the proper instrumentation i want to add. On that, i think its a great Going Forward, particularly for the city is a necessary next step and particularly because of where we live. Its a really, really i want to recommend to staff and director hui on that. The one question i would have, enforcement of that measurement, how do you feel in regard to how the process will go in regard to the communicating the data we need. The Department Building inspection, yeah, this is i did talk to the developer and then outreach more. Most of the developer willing to do it because its for their protection for the property and then 10 years also is good idea. I talked to them, for that time period, any residential building, they have problem, thats why right now the people i talk to are willing to do it. I will do extensive outreach to the public or any other organization or to inform them. And i wanted to address the matters in there will be put in, recorded in the office to make sure its continued. So the mechanism to monitor that it triggers it at the time frame theyre supposed to send it in will be done by the which office . Something through our office for the inspection. But want to make sure they know new owner that theyre aware of that. And if they dont comply, of course well give them a correction notice and then start the coenforcement. Why you dont comply. And then of course you know, thats the process were going to do. Commissioner walker. So it would be like a notice of special restriction on the successor office . Yeah. Thats what we recommend. Most of it will be put in later how to put the specific instruction, especially instruction in the title. And so, essentially when these things are billed and approved and we issue the permit, it will include a projection of what the settlement is expected to be, there will be a Monitoring System and if it is different, then theres some i think its what he was talking about, theres some enforcement of it. What we do is, settlement, we see settlement and ask them to satisfy and then well thats all we can do. I think commissioner walkers point, we think its a great policy but we want to make sure its a very clear director and its every six months or whatever one year. What happens if its not. What happens if its not. But more to the point is were not silent on this. We have a mechanism in place, if somebody doesnt give it to us, we can say within two months of the day theyre supposed to have it in, something triggers in our department this should have been in and reviewed and i think it should be matched to their geo tech approval, we have learned quite a lot lately on this process, if a building traditionally settles and usually theres an estimate on how much settlement will happen in the building and it falls within the guideline, the time period, if it was supposed to be four inches over 20 years, its on track for the four inches. So can we talk on that mechanism. Will you have that type of thing, assistant director in place . Maybe director, can you answer that question . First of all, we put that information sheet lots of detail we need to iron out. But they submit annually, each building you have a file in a Computer System to make sure and then well ask the developer to have their own review. We can ask them what happened and put correction maybe an nov on it, you need to satisfy it. We see how to thats perfect. When its agreed on and clear on the mechanism, maybe you can put that in writing to us, this is the mechanism in place to the commission. So we are clear on the policy and procedure. Let me add to that. Director hui just explained to you the process we think will be in place and the intent of how we will enforce it, but the key for something to last 10 years, some of us wont be around and wont remember. You dont want to depend on the system, depending on a human factor of oversight, overseeing the process. 10 years is a long time. Most of the time its from a Planning Department but its a mechanism in place you record a special restriction. When you have the title of search, they show up. Having said that, im going to put on my other hat as a project sponsor for accela, not to steal thunder from the speakers coming up, but well have the ability to relay the records and be able to put in programming, im confident we can, were looking at how to do it for automatically expiring permits. We can have similar methodology apply so that when the one year timeline for this specific address or permit application number is coming about, say 60 days prior, then well have automatically notification built in to the new ppts for any permits coming up so that everybody becomes aware of it within our department. Im confident it can be done. Very good. I mean, its thats what computers are good for. You can plug in just like our phones, you can put the alarm in and it will go off at a certain date and repeat itself. Im confident this will be more practicalble to enforce. Okay. Perfect. Thank you director. Let me try to wrap up, a couple last items about the current actions. Last week we asked supervisor peskin to schedule a hearing at the land use hearing before the end of 2017. And allow Cost Recovery for third party peer review and other permitted related expenses. Currently those are paid by the developer. And this would be a mechanism for us to recover it up front. Since september im sorry, on the supervisor peskin hearing, this is our first time asking for this this is the first time asking . I think formally, yes. But its been referenced and discussed in previous public hearings. Supervisor peskin found it inconsistent that the developer would pay for peer review directly. This is a response in order to address that concern but also to look at more holistically how to manage the peer review process so were the sole parties that designate the peer reviewers and cover the cost of the peer reviews. Right. My point is, could we have had this meeting sooner than now . Im a little baffled about that. Bill strong, the ordinance has been on the land use 30day calendar for about the past 45 days or so. It could have been called any time after the fifth of october. It has not yet been called so we took the Initiative Last week to ask the supervisor if there was a possibility to schedule it before the end of the year, meaning november or december, but it is subject to the committees agenda and various items they have. I dont know if theres a reason as to why it hasnt happened yet. We took the additional action step last week in order to say were trying to move ahead with the rfq. We would like in parallel to have the mechanism for the payment Cost Recovery at about the same time. Thank you for that clarification. I want every angle we need to push, we need to push here. Thank you. Were a team, we try to do our best. I think were an effective organization. Let me wrap up quickly. Just a reminder of what we have done in the past. One more item, current efforts, since september 2017 d. B. I. Is working closely with the City Administrators Office for new comprehensive tall safety study building. The study is expected to be completed next year, november. Actions we have taken, october 2016 all peer review panelists are appointed without input from the developer and since november 2016, one or more licensed geotechnical engineers are required to review new Tall Buildings in the citys class f soils and most at risk seismic safety zone. And last but not least, since december 2016, we took steps to improve d. B. I. Tall building retention and require all peer review documents and design letters to be scanned, indexed and made readily available. If i may, assistant director, go back to the im working hard trying to get educated myself. No, can we the last two paragraphs on the geo tech and so on. Since november so im a little bit confused about these definitions that keep appearing on some of these new policies and procedures. With regard to the type of class of seismic and how we get to the definition of whats really bad and whats buildable. Im saying it as a point of view, i think we need to be kind of more simpler in our approach to like for example i hear class f is the worst and then i hear c is not great but okay. Its usually all in the seismic safety zone areas. As a matter of procedure and policy, i dont know, you might be doing this, is there a map we could put together where we go to the map and say if a building or design would say this is where were building a 240 foot Tall Building in this area, these are so were not kind of mixed up with all the different soils. I think the most important thing to consider, the history of San Francisco, you have your outcroppings, quarries. As you get toward the water, the history of San Francisco has been to fill in the bay so to speak. To create a very rather uniformed shore line whereas it was never that way to begin with. And the fact that you would like to map out specific sites will be somewhat difficult but not impossible. But whats more important, as you focus on each site itself, the lot or parcels, they themselves can have a profile very different from the general map you might want to assemble. You may not know theres a dropoff right within the same parcel that has a different has rock very close to the grade line. It could drop if that was the bay so to speak. Its difficult to know that, even on a regional basis, downtown shore line. You could craft a map but you would never know the specificity of the lot until you do the borings. In the borings, depending on how large it is, you may find very different soil classifications. Thats why it would be very difficult to create that kind of a map and say youre on this site, therefore you shall do this or that for the foundation. Director hui may want to add because of his experience as Structural Engineer and having soil reports and looking at sites with different profiles. I do understand the dilemma. Director, did you wants to Say Something . I understand what youre saying about the soil conditions can vary. But couldnt we possibly just say any Tall Building in the zone regardless of the soil has to be reviewed this way . Would that be more practical so people can understand that any Tall Building in this area they are going to be reviewed. The thing here i think pointed out, we want to have a peer review thats more than just a Single Person reviewing the work effort of the technical engineer worker. When we get into higher risk and its a Tall Building, those require us to have a better view of this from not just one person but at least two. So on top of that yeah. Yeah. Needs to be site specific, a map is difficult in San Francisco because we have a lot of landfill, a lot of soil line, just tell the experience for myself redesign [indiscernible] when they do 160 next door, 100 feet away, completely drop. To answer your question, why we put class f, this spell out in the report what kind of soil, and then depend on what kind of foundation youre going to build on those soil. For example sunset or richmond we know the soil type, sand dune and so forth. Downtown area is more difficult. They will be on pile. Now look into it with a housing project. When you go down to the ferry building, those are lots more complication because bedrock 300 feet down and then few rubble in the area. Need to have this requirement for settlement and peer review and all those. We look closely at the association, we put more geotechnical. Thats why we have those stuff, cannot be in the old days, design a building and put number of story times 10 for the way of the building, we are different now. We need to depend on the soil type, the soil in the building. Thats why these will be cut from the geotechnical what parts of soil and base that to calculate all those the soil profile, we effect that. Commissioner lee. Follow up question, if were doing it this way, weary lying on the project sponsors soil engineers to determine what type of soil is underneath that land, right . How are we sure their report is accurate . Do we keep the core samples . We dont keep the sample. We have we have a panel to review it with. If theyre class f we have additional peer review. You review the report first . Beside our staff, we have additional peer review for 240 feet or higher. If theyre not going to bedrock, right . We didnt say go to the bedrock, we say over 240 feet they need appear review. If theyre class f, they have additional technical or civil later on they changed back saying Civil Engineer with geotechnical background can do geotechnical work. Its a little complicated. Im getting it. If you have we used to study geologists, rock formation and soil mechanics and all those, for us to understand as a Civil Engineer, we learn all these classes to learn. Commissioner lee. If you have a geo tech report reviewed first, i assume youll have a geo tech expert reviewing that. Yeah. Will the same be reviewing the entire process or will you have somebody else. Is that why you need more geo techs on the contract, on the rfq because youre going to need you see what im saying . The peer review is intended to be able to issue a permit and have the confidence that the Design Professional and the team has executed their work in a professional manner. This process is not intended to have an oversight of the construction process itself. Its for the purpose of issuing the permit. I understand that. But to determine if the building needs additional review, youre going to have a geo tech review the report, right . Its more than just review. Its collaboration meaning that im you can say commissioner walker is the engineer of record retained by the owner to do the geotechnical investigation and produce a report and d. B. I. Will hire someone to review commissioner walkers work and provide recommendations in a dialogue. And its they have meetings, they have meeting minutes, they have meeting action items. Those are the things we want to have in our records that we have implemented the end of last year. We didnt have the requirements last year. We just had the final letter, now we have the process being documented and captured and put in the system. So youre asking through the chair guys. After the review, youre saying the building or project, the soil is class f, we require you to design a building that whatever the standard is, it is going to be, to be seismically strong. Then youre going to go into the peer review, right . Thats a separate review. No. Youre going to have the geo tech engineer on the review body as well. Will that expert be the same as the first one you hired. Okay. Commissioner lee director and then come back to you. I think hes i think youre adding a level thats not in the process. I mean it requires all the reviews. You have the soils person who is hired by the developer, theres a review panel that reviews that report along with all of the other parts of the application to determine if its accurate. Its a separate person. You cant have the same geo tech or soils expert on the review panel as youre hiring. I know that. But im saying okay. Let me explain to you let me explain to you the process first commissioner lee. First as a developer, they get the site. Then they have the entitlement, before the entitlement, the design Team Including geotechnical engineer and do all those things and how tall is the building and then meanwhile, most of the time they run parallel to d. B. I. And application meeting at that time, we say just a minute, youre over 240 feet. We need to peer review. Previously we those peer reviewers only seismic, now we want to recommend by the association, they have one more geotechnical review now, including the design of the foundation and settlement and all those. Then the review panel will be after the process, if we can do it by next year, it will depend on having a pool of people we can pull. And then we say mr. Developer, well set up this Peer Review Team to review your job. Okay . To set the criteria. And then the design team. And then we review the geotechnical. They find out its a class f, we say additional geotechnical expertise to review the requirements. After they finish all those, they submit the site permit with the recommendation and so forth and then also with the f