>> we're a team, we try to do our best. i think we're 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 administrator's 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 city's 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 -- i'm working hard trying to get educated myself. no, can we -- the last two paragraphs on the geo tech and

so on. since november -- so i'm 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 what's really bad and what's buildable. i'm 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. it's usually all in the seismic safety zone areas. as a matter of procedure and policy, i don't 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 we're building a 240 foot tall building in this area, these are -- so we're 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 what's 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 there's a drop-off 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. it's 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. that's why it would be very difficult to create that kind of

a map and say you're 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 you're saying about the soil conditions can vary. but couldn't 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 that's more than just a single person reviewing the work effort of the technical engineer worker. when we get into higher risk and it's 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 you're 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. that's 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. that's 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 we're 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 don't keep the sample. we have -- we have a panel to review it with. if they're 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 they're not going to bedrock, right? >> we didn't say go to the bedrock, we say over 240 feet they need appear review. if they're class f, they have additional -- technical or civil -- later on they changed back saying civil engineer with geotechnical background can do geotechnical work. it's a little complicated. >> i'm 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 you'll 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 tech's on the contract, on the rfq because you're going to need -- you see what i'm 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. it's for the purpose of issuing the permit. >> i understand that. but to determine if the building needs additional review, you're going to have a geo tech review the report, right? >> it's more than just review. it's collaboration meaning that i'm -- 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 walker's work and

provide recommendations in a dialogue. and it's -- 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 didn't 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 you're asking -- >> through the chair guys. >> after the review, you're 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 you're going to go into the peer review, right? that's a separate review. >> no. >> you're 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 he's -- i think you're adding a level that's not in the process. i mean it requires all the reviews. you have the soils person who is hired by the developer, there's a review panel that reviews that report along with all of the other parts of the application to determine if it's accurate. it's a separate person. you can't have the same geo tech or soils expert on the review panel as you're hiring. >> i know that. but i'm 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, you're 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, we'll 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 it's 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

foundation and superstructure addendum. that's the process. i tried to -- >> what i hear is there's two geo tech reviews, right? one for the soil report and one for the peer review -- it's the same one? >> same one. >> okay. all right. i thought it was two separate. >> no. >> if it's class f you might need to have an additional expert. >> yeah on the panel. >> the same panel. >> no, i thought it was two separate reviews. >> no, it's just an additional, maybe more than one geo tech. >> we more welcome for the developer to review again, but in our panel, we set up that way. >> right now we have tentative

interim controls in place until it's finalized. if we have a building who -- might be performance based or predescriptive, we have controls in place recommending a large building concrete that's heavy or whatever. is that correct? >> yes. that's the number sat information sheet. it's very inclusive and there are a lot more conditions in there. there are many conditions related to that. >> perfect. thank you. appreciate that. commissioner. >> do we at this point account for cumulative effects on adjoining buildings. >> now you have forced me to read a couple items. so a few of the bull it points

are -- considering land slides and other geotechnical site hazards. >> can we get you up on the screen? >> this is s-18. interim guidelines structural technical design review for new tall buildings. these are the bullet items i wanted to respond to --

i'll just read them. soil foundation structure under static that is gravity and seismic conditions. liquid factions, land slides and other geological site hazards. ground improvement, effects of the watering on the project site and vicinity. foundation performance of neighboring structures. so numerical model of seismic hazards and soil structure interaction issues, foundation or building settlement and for projects in an area soil class f or the worst soil high risk

seismic zone subject to liquid, such would require more than one engineer for the peer review team. >> does that help to answer? >> yes. second question. i understand completely why supervisor peskin was so insistent about changing who hires the peer review and who pays them and on the face of it, think he's made a good judgment in recommending the separation. i do wonder if there are any legal implications that need to be considered when you change from the developer hires them, selects and hires them and pays for them versus the city has

their pool, they select. >> deputy city attorney robb kapla, we discussed some of these with the ordinance that allowed the third party recovery that we reviewed a few months back. the change as with all permit evaluations, the developer eventually pays the cost of the city to review. in this instance, weary moving -- they're still what we pay for, the expert review it's just we have the duty to hire experts that actually the city wants to contract with to review and provide the information we need and then pass those costs on to the developer. so it is still necessary to process an application that the do developer brings forward. it doesn't change that these are our experts designing a building in anyway. it's still to evaluate what the developer brings forward to the

city. it's not intended to change the relationship or any way get the city more involved in the development itself. the developer produces the building designs. these are the expertise we need to evaluate the design and information. >> so the ultimate liability as it were, professional liability is on the primary engineers that the developer hires and because they have had primary.

>> they're not embedded in the documents issued by the department. in other words they don't show up on the plans produced by the engineer of record. >> the day in the pass. record day in the pass. >> very early on that's what happened. yes. >> okay. >> that's why we now have a separate retention policy to make them readily retrievable. they don't become part of the records, it's kind of logical, right? you render an opinion, a professional opinion and to link the liability back to the opinion by placing it in the

contract document, you wouldn't be able to find a design professional who would be willing to participate in the process because i wouldn't. you're not being paid to be on the design team. you're being paid by the department of building inspection to render services to us because maybe we lack a level of expertise in our own staff. >> the last in your presentation, the comment i want to read it one more time. >> the information sheet or -- >> your presentation. >> when you say you can prove

d.b.i., i think i'm good on that. i don't know if anybody has questions on that. questions are answered. any other commissions have anything else to add there. >> any public comment on agenda item 6? seeing none, we're on to item 7. >> to close out on item 6, i have it as an action item but i don't think we need to take action. i put that in in case we had testimony. i thought we had a good discussion, to the director, there's still a few moving parts. i think the imitations we're trying to put in is what we need. i just want to reinforce with you maybe you could get back to the commission, when would you say, we could get another update, in a couple of months time. i'm trying to figure out the

time frame and a letter confirming what we discussed here is now in place and we have all these new tall building procedures in place going forward on -- i want to make sure this keeps on a timely manner and i see a lot of things happening in january, so i just want to make sure the dates are kept and so on. is there something you could give us back towards in january that would work? >> yeah, okay january. and then to see, you know, can we get the final lines on the recommendation for the 82 and then we can send it through cac? >> yeah. in the meantime, everything we can be proactive in, let's get that in. hopefully we'll have the first round of decisions and in 2019 more updated decisions.

is that -- 2019 i think ron said in comments. it's fine. i believe you're going to hear something january 2018. right? >> yep. >> thank you. >> item 7 discussion on the accela tracking system. >> good afternoon commissioners, i'm project manager at the department of building inspection, i'll be giving our project status report in the absence of shawn today. things are proceeding well. since our last meeting we have accomplished some good milestones, we have concluded our enterprise security audit based on permissions in the last excel implementation.

we have brought in an accela report person to work and go through and align our report requirements. and we have been working with a third party company called click software that accela has chosen to help us with inspector scheduling module. that work has started last week and actually wrapped up at this point. that is a very important piece of software to help with the scheduling of the complex inspections, we have so many requests coming in every day, click software makes it more manageable. we have wrapped up accela citizen access which is the web portal. and we brought all that information up in the current. we'll be able to proceed with that once we hit the build

stage. and as far as stage milestones, our biggest challenge is getting things finished up with stages two and three. we expect to have that done by the end of the year, december 28th and we're marching towards that goal line. we have no new risks or issues to report this period. and as far as our current and next month's activity, we are continuing with our sessions part of the 2-b foundation builds. those are working with d.b.i. subject manner experts. our click software process has been with the excel people making sure click software understands what the needs are and like i said, all that came out very well. the last part is the reporting.

we are continuing refining our work on the reporting requirements. reporting requirements are statistical and form related. something like an mov is actually a report. any questions on this portion? >> commissioner walker please. >> are we still getting the staff commitment from our vender? i know they've expanded and signed up a couple more cities. i just wanted to make sure we're still a priority. >> yes. the team we have is very good. i'm actually thrilled with the people i'm working with. >> they're going to stay? >> they are staying. one of the persons that was scheduled to come off the project is actually been extended to help with the reports. all that is to help pull that timeline and keep us on schedule for our dates. yes, i do not expect any

significant personnel issues. >> great. thank you. >> the next thing i want to go over, the ppts process improvements. this is something we're very proud of. this is -- these are the results of the build process. what we have found are some key benefits that are going to affect our staff, it's going to affect our business partners and our customers. i've got a list of about 15 here. i'm going to ask you for your guidance president mccarthy. do you want me to go through each or just do highlights? >> quick highlights are fine if there's no objection. >> that's fine. >> okay. so our first one, number one is based on redesign of the work fill process. we currently have an informal process with planning and fire

where we don't track the process in our current system. we brought that into the work flow. all of that will be tracked so customers know where their plans are at any time. another good one, number four, a new process to provide 60 day notice, this is similar to what ron mentioned, where we can expire the building permits automatically but we'll give advance notice so the benefit to our customers is if they're not familiar with the process, they will get notice so they know to extend the permits. that won't get expired out from under them. number six, we improved and simplified the implementation of the third party inspections. we'll have a better way of tracking all that process through the software.

number seven, we're able to apply for no plan alterations and roofing permits via the web. so those are where we were restricted to electrical and plumbing, we'll be extending those permits through the web as well. number 10, code enforcement will be coming into the same module. all of our complaints are going to be following the same type of formats. our benefit is the management of the whole process, everything is going to be very similar. >> commissioner walker please. >> will issue notices of violation rest in that as well? >> in the complaints. >> great. thank you. >> number 14, our night noise permit for construction will be formally recorded. those will be in the system. and our online inspection scheduling will be extended to

the public and not just licensed professionals. right now homeowners are only to schedule those through ibr or contacting staff. they can do it through the web as well. those are the highlights for those. we'll present new ones as each month goes by but i think these process improvements are something we can take pride in and it's an important part of the reporting. any questions? >> i think that's a good update. thank you. >> appreciate it. >> all good news. >> any public comment on item 7? >> jerry dratler. it's promising to see them taking advantage in the accela system. i see they're in the process of

finalizing report specifications. my question relates to, one, establishing b.i.c. reporting objectives to allow b.i.c. to monitor management and provide statistics on questions like hoarding, abandoned property, stalled construction projects and descriptive statistics on serial permit violators. accela is an enterprise or city wide system and therefore there should be department objectives, board of supervisor, district reporting objectives and citizen reporting objectives. can these reporting objectives, not the reports, be presented and reviewed in a future b.i.c. meeting. thank you. >> that's a great point. >> any additional public

comment? seeing none. director's report, update on d.b.i. finances. >> good afternoon commissioners. deputy director for the department of building inspection. october 2017, year to date financial report which includes revenues and expenses for the first four months of the fiscal year. i'll take a couple of minutes to go over the highlights. on the first page, we have projections as to budget so you don't see differences right now because the numbers are preliminary. it's only the first quarter, barely the first quarter of the fiscal year, we just projected to the budget.

we'll start making more accurate projections on revenues and expenses after six months. northernly normally we have a better understanding. basically we're at 21 million and we continue revenues are still strong. and that's due primarily to increases, continued increases in checking revenue. we're doing well there. also if you look at the table, we're doing well when it comes to evaluation. you'll see we have a lot of permits, a million and over, our change is about 700 million and during the reporting time we had a couple of big projects that came in once again. we're seeing more and more big projects coming in and it's impacting evaluation. on the expenditure side, we're a little less than last year but

still about equal. $200,000 less. that's primarily due to work order billings we have not received. so once again, the numbers are preliminary. we'll start seeing a real pattern probably by december and make a better estimate of what we believe the revenues and expenses will be. i'm happy to answer questions. >> seeing none. thank you. >> item 8 b. update on proposed or recently enacted state or local legislation. >> good afternoon. just mentioned a little update on tier three mandatory seismic retro fits. we have noticed with notice violations and the earthquake warning plaquards now, 218 non

compliant buildings. so from the last report i gave you, we had been at about 364 non compliant buildings, we had roughly 40 come in in the last six weeks or so. and we're about 66% through the code enforcement initial round of notification. once the notice goes up, the owner has an additional 30 days to come in and respond and make the building compliant. maybe by the time of our december report, we'll have better news on the compliance side of things. the only other item i will mention is that supervisor peskin is reworking updating the slope protection act that he original authored in 2008, our office is working with his staff

on that right now. he is going to reintroduce that item and i believe he knew understands the department's argument that came from the code advisory committee that the older map from 1974 that includes a hand drawn boundary and creates all kinds of dispute potential is likely to be removed and will go to a digital map that we are actually already using with the planning department. so i think that improvement will be with us very soon. and also i'll mention, as i think i mentioned before, we're working on the mandatory accessibility improvements and this building entrance program. we now have a finalized initial mailer that will be going out to approximately 10,000 of the

estimated 20-25,000 different property owners we think may be in this titlely likely pool. we hope to get that mailing out in the next week or two. and then the department will begin holding public workshops to help explain this to property owners, along with colleagues from dpw and the mayor's office of disability and the planning department. so with that, i'm happy to take any questions. >> seeing none. thank you. >> item 8 c. update on major projects. >> tom hui department of building and inspection. as you can see, the value for the major project goes down roughly 5% but still okay i think. any question? >> just to reinforce to make sure we have all the policies

and new guidelines we're working on, the interim control, new buildings coming down the line falling under the category of tall building. >> yeah, we'll have it to work on. >> any of the major projects, let's be ahead of the curve making sure they're following the interim policies. >> what about issue the tco, we ask them to do it. >> yeah. thank you. >> great. 8 d. >> good afternoon commissioners. the numbers for october, building inspections performed

6044. complaints received 400. complaint response 24-48 hours, 371. complaints first violation sent 69. abaited complaints with notice of violation 65. second notice of violations 65. housing inspection performed 1,042. complaints received 335. complaint response 321 within 24-48 hours. complaints of notice with violations issued 150. number of cases sent to directors hearing 33. routine inspections 219. code enforcement number of cases sent to director's hearing 132. number of order of abatements issued 40.

number of cases under advisement, 16. code enforcement inspections performed 190 and no litigation committee in october. >> thank you. deputy director. >> any public comment on the director's report? item nine. review and approval of the meeting of october 18, 2017. >> move to approve. >> second. >> there's a motion and second. any public comment on the minutes? are all commissioners in favor? >> aye. >> any opposed? the minutes are approved. our next item, item d, discussion of annual performance evaluation for the director.

is there any public comment on prior to going to closed session? seeing no public, is there a motion to convene a closed session? >> i make a motion to convene in closed session. >> second. >> all commissioners in favor. >> aye. >> we're now in closed session. >> deputy city attorney robb kapla. we met in closed discussion to discuss items 10 and 11 and move to reopen in open session. >> thank you. is there a motion to reconvene open session? >> move to reconvene. >> second. >> motion and second. we're now in open session. commissioners. >> mission accomplished. so thank you for your patience on the review.

we should be more efficient in getting them done and set a more regular schedule to get ahead of that. thank you, thank you for your service and all your hard work. >> thank you. so we -- are we done or? >> move to adjourn. >> next item, adjournment. motion to adjourn? >> move to adjourn. >> motion to adjourn. >> second, we're now adjourned. it is 12:50 p.m. >> thank you madam secretary. >> thank you. ♪

>> hello, everyone. i'm supervisor katy tang. welcome to 12 days of kittens. my staff came up with an idea of hosting animals in our office so people can come and not only find animals that they might want to adopt, but we found it's a great stress reliever for people that work in city hall. they come around all day, whether it's the shift department or upstairs or the

mta, just want to pet the animals and it helps people feel better. a lot of people proactively ask us, are you bringing back the kittens? we've been doing this for five years. it usually culminates in a party in december. we'll see animals adopted throughout the year. if people are thinking about animals to adopt, they may go to a pet store, buy from a breeder, go to spca, but we want people to know that the acc has animals that need homes. >> every year, her office does the 12 days of kittens. and she picks up every morning cute, adoptable kittens. she has different groups of kittens every day and brings them to her city hall office and they're there all day for everybody that goes through to see and enjoy. we adopt out 900 kittens every

year, cats and kittens. we're working all year long promoting adoption, getting people in to see the cats. so it's a pleasure it have the opportunity to showcase some of them in supervisor tang's office. kittens love to play and they're frolicking and all that and it's super fun. >> sometimes they will roam around people's desks. if someone wants to adopt a cat, they can identify any of them that might be hanging around our office, but we have to go through animal care and control, make sure they pay a fee. it's very affordable, as well as they receive the proper vaccination. >> come on down, adopt a cat. there's a lot of kitties waiting for a beautiful home. >> how can you resist this face? >> i think everyone needs a pet in their life. it makes your day so much better. i hope you will support us in

>> i love teaching. it is such an exhilarating experience when people began to feel their own creativity. >> this really is a place where all people can come and take a class and fill part of the community. this is very enriching as an artist. a lot of folks take these classes and take their digital imagery and turn it into negatives. >> there are not many black and white darkrooms available anymore. that is a really big draw. >> this is a signature piece. this is the bill largest darkroom in the u.s.. >> there are a lot of people

that want to get into that dark room. >> i think it is the heart of this place. you feel it when you come in. >> the people who just started taking pictures, so this is really an intersection for many generations of photographers and this is a great place to learn because if you need people from different areas and also everyone who works here is working in photography.

>> we get to build the community here. this is different. first of all, this is a great location. it is in a less-populated area. >> of lot of people come here just so that they can participate in this program. it is a great opportunity for people who have a little bit of photographic experience. the people have a lot, they can really come together and share a love and a passion. >> we offer everything from traditional black and white darkrooms to learning how to process your first roll of film. we offer classes and workshops in digital camera, digital printing.

we offer classes basically in the shooting, ton the town at night, treasure island. there is a way for the programs exploring everyone who would like to spend the day on this program. >> hello, my name is jennifer. >> my name is simone. we are going on a field trip to take pictures up the hill. >> c'mon, c'mon, c'mon. >> actually, i have been here a lot. i have never looked closely enough to see everything. now, i get to take pictures. >> we want to try to get them to

be more creative with it. we let them to be free with them but at the same time, we give them a little bit of direction. >> you can focus in here. >> that was cool. >> if you see that? >> behind the city, behind the houses, behind those hills. the see any more hills? >> these kids are wonderful. they get to explore, they get to see different things. >> we let them explore a little bit. they get their best. if their parents ever ask, we

can learn -- they can say that they learned about the depth of field or the rule of thirds or that the shadows can give a good contrast. some of the things they come up with are fantastic. that is what we're trying to encourage. these kids can bring up the creativity and also the love for photography. >> a lot of people come into my classes and they don't feel like they really are creative and through the process of working and showing them and giving them some tips and ideas. >> this is kind of the best kept secret. you should come on and take a class. we have orientations on most saturdays. this is a really wonderful location and is the real jewel to the community. >> ready to develop your

photography skills? the harvey milk photo center focuses on adult classes. and saturday workshops expose youth and adults to photography classes. >> good morning, everyone and thank you for coming my name is rosy form treasurer of the united states and the form of empowerment 2020. >> yeah. >> empowerment 2020 is an initiative to durnl encourage a million women we 2020 to go in leaders positions it is request quality day and the one hundred year of the 19 amendment that give woman the right to vote

joining me on stage a margo the ceo of ma tell. >> (clapping.) >> 74 percent have been girls in middle school express interest in office only girls are expressing an interest in computer science 50 percent less graduating are for girls than thirty years ago i've spent 8 years of the treasurer of the united states to have a portrait on the photo in our public engagement process there were one hundred of women overlooked in the history of our country many tops will be discussed and empowerment 2020 conference everything there empowering young women and girls to be the future leader to encourage women to get into stem education and getting into nasa and google and

making sure that they are part of tech economy. >> the second part of empowerment 2020 is women money and power to put women in so and so positions for the corporate fleet and elected office the third part of empowerment 2020 are the conferences their action oriented women have flatlined at 20 percent on that percentage one and 20 percent women a in congress that is stagnated if we get up to thirty percent fabulous 80 percent would be amazing that conversation is equality will be something we're used to as pair the culture i'd like to that that will be done in 2020 but if