February 2, 2017, meeting of government did it and oversight committee. We have supervisor aaron peskin and supervisor london breed . I would like to recognize leo daisies and from sfgovtv. Org. They provide transcripts to the public. Madam chair, would you like to make any announcements . Yes, please silence all cell phones and any copies of your speech should be submitted to the clerk. Thank you, madam clerk. I have acknowledged all in todays meeting. Please call item 1. Clerk hearing on existing building standards in seismic safety zones, including infill and waterfront neighborhoods; and requesting the department of building inspection to report. Supervisor jane kim thank you, this item is to continue to discuss the structural safety concerns at 301 Mission Street. Will for clarification purposes, todays hearing is related to file no. 161299, a motion passed by the board to issue a subpoena for professor jack moiler. A Structural Engineer who designed the 301 mission as a third par
Quorum but we will take the other items okay. Communications. I have two. One is the question is do we want to make the election of chair and vice chair do we want to postpone until supervisor john kim has asked that it be postponed and arguing in favor is that chairs are supposed to serve a year and i was appointed in february. So we could do that, too. I dont care. What is the boards preference . To postpone it . [inaudible] [off mic] we will postpone that for a year. The other thing that is that until next month . Yes. X month i suppose. I just i apologize for my voice today. I spent the last few days in washington at the Transportation Research board. It was extremely cold and i came back with some sort of cough and deep throat. It was very interesting about that meeting was the overwhelming interest now. You could not get into a room that haven to do with Autonomous Vehicles. Everybody in the industry is trying to figure out what to do with those things. And of them that i attende
What systems are resisting those actions. But the scope is usually a seismic scope. And in current practice, the peer reviews are generally structured with a chairperson. The chairperson i think is required in this city to be practicing and registered Structural Engineer. There is typically a geotechnical engineer or engineer with seismology background who is skilled in issues related to the Foundation Design. Geotechnical parameters, earthquake ground motion. And then there is generally an academic who is brought in. The academic is not so much to bring an academic perspective, but to bring to bear the Specialized Knowledge that might be required to understand the design of a particular building. So, i might be brought in as an academic reviewer or as a reviewer are academic background as my related expertise in concrete construction. In steel, someone might be brought in with a structural steel kind of background. And the review is is in the city and county of San Francisco. Lets ste