part of the record, the revised geotechnical report of 301 mission street, you'll see the first 23 feet of this site is rubble largely from the 1906 earthquake. ultimately as policy makers, we really have to grapple with the question of the culture of streamlining, cost cutting, permanent expediting in the modern gold rush era that we are in, and i do want to say i think these hearings have led to some positive developments. i want to acknowledge that the board authorized funding for a seismic evaluation of the city's buildings, and i want to acknowledge, naomi kelley, our city administrator who has now convened that committee who is now meeting and working some policy regulations that will hopefully come before the board of supervisors. yesterday, we had a little 3.5

earthquake over in the east bay that many of us, including myself, felt here. we all know it's not a question of if, but when, and i think we really need to start carefully examining some of the tradeoffs we've been asked to make. today we are joined by the original geotechnical engineer for the millennium tower, and i want to thank you for joining us, and i'll ask the clerk of the board of supervisors to administer the oath at this time. >> chair kim, members of the committee, president breed, angela calvillo, i am here to administer the oath. please present your name for the record. >> my name is ramel golersarki. >> just repeat "i do" after i

finish. you do solemnly state that the testimony you may give now pending before this government and audit oversight committee of the san francisco board of supervisors in the city and county of san francisco shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> into the microphone. >> i do. >> thank you very much, sir. >> chair kim and supervisor's breed and peskin, if i may, my name is steve matis. we represent the doctor in connection with these proceedings, and he's, of course, grateful and welcomes the opportunity to speak with you this morning about issues of seismic safety and building standards in san francisco. i do need to point out that as i'm sure the committee and the board knows, there is substantial litigation pending with this building.

i think at my last count, there is some 23 lawsuits that have been filed. the city is a part of the lawsuit directly and indirectly through the tjpa. it wouldn't surprise me if some of the people here are lawyers involved in the case. the doctor may need to be measured in part of his responses, and there has been a substantial mediation process that's been underway that's been ordered by the judge, and there was a mediation privilege in connection with a number of the mediation presentations and the like. so i would ask your understanding with regard to those issues, should any come up. the doctor recently gave a full day of deposition testimony. i expect that -- and i'll stand a ways away from me so i can't kick me when i say this. i don't think that'll be the last day. unfortunately he has more days of deposition in his future. there's a protective order

that's in place by the court about certain information in the case and the like, so we just want to be respectful of this committee and the board and careful in our responses. the only other thing i'd just mention for the record is we did produce two documents, one of which you've already cited, supervisor peskin, and that was the investigation of 301 mission. there was some correspondence that we also produced in connection with that. the subpoena was directed to the doctor individually. he formerly was with the form of treadwell and rollo, which was the geotechnical design firm on the building. he now is with the firm of langel engineering, which in 2010, acquired the assets but not liabilities of treadwell and rollo, and so the documents -- additional documents that the committee may seek may be in the possession of treadwell and rollo, which actually now is a dissolved entity, or their

lawyers, or possibly langen. we certainly want to cooperate. if there are more documents you need, let us know, certainly subject to all the constraints imposed by the judge and litigation. the last thing i want to mention, langen, the firm in which the doctor is a senior engineer had no role in the design or construction of the millennium tower, so thank you very much for the time. >> supervisor peskin: thank you very much counselor for putting all of those things on the record. so maybe we can just start by saying your giving us some brief background on your bona fide qualifications, and maybe you can actually help because insofar as all of us are lay people, and we have

interviewed, for instance professor jack maili who was the peer review on the instruct we right lane system -- structural system, maybe you can tell us the difference between a structural engineer and a geotechnical engineer. that might just be helpful for us. >> sure. good morning, chair person kim, supervisors peskin and breed. i got my bachelor's of science in civil engineering in 1981 from tufts university in medford massachusetts, and i got my master's degree in civil engineering in 1983. then i came here to go to u.c. berkeley, and i got my

geotechnical in geotechnical engineering from u.c. berkeley in 1989. in 1989, i started my career with the firm of danes and moore in the city until 1995, where -- when i moved to treadwell and rollo, and i was with them until 2010, when it was purchased -- the assets were purchased by langen, and i've been with langen since. and i'm a principal with langen, and the director of earthquake engineering for langen. as i said i'm a geotechnical engineer, which means soil and foundations, and i also -- my subspecialty is in earthquake ground motions, basically, estimating how hard the earth, ground shakes during particular

earthquakes so then those kinds of information and criteria can be used in seismic designs of structures. >> supervisor peskin: looking at those p waves and s waves. >> yes. >> supervisor peskin: and relative to my question about understanding the difference between a structural engineering and geotechnical engineer particularly in relative to vetting and recommending design standards for buildings which should be resilient in a major earthquake, what's the difference between those two subspecialties? >> well, the standards or whatever the governing codes are, building codes at the time any particular structure is -- is being designed and constructed, so those -- those are whatever standards you follow at the time that you're working on a particular project. from our perspective, the geotechnical engineers develop criteria for foundations and, like you said, estimating

filliments, estimating pressures on walls, and capacities. we also develop earthquake ground motion criteria for design. >> supervisor peskin: and you were also on the 80 natoma project, is that true? >> i only developed earthquake ground motions for that project. >> supervisor peskin: and with regard to 350 mission on the other side of the street? >> yes, i was the principal in charge for that project. >> supervisor peskin: and how did you augment the work of disimone engineers? did you assess the work of theirs or was your work complete independent? >> it's somewhat separate and somewhat interactive. separate in the context of

developing the criteria, like i said, but, for example, when we are estimating filaments, we are getting samples from the structural engineers, for example, from disimone for the 350 mission project. >> supervisor peskin: so in reading the revised geotechnical investigation dated january 13 of 2005 -- let me interrupt myself. what did it revise? i've never seen the earlier version? >> there was an earlier report. i believe it was 2001. i don't remember the exact date, but the structure was somewhat different in terms of basement, and i don't remember right now all the differences, so this -- this -- this particular report that you are looking at is for the structure that is currently here.

>> supervisor peskin: and there has been some conversations along the way. and some of the, there was actually something that was written in a structural engineering document or trade magazine about the tower originally being designed in structural steel and later on moving to the concrete that is -- that was ultimately built. did this analyze steel or concrete? >> that is concrete. >> supervisor peskin: okay. and then, i was reading the report. and on page 15 -- i should start with, on page 14, the report indicates that we estimate settlements on the order of four to 6 inches could occur under the tower. and of course you do answer this in some ways many years

later in 2009 in your february 18 letter which you already produced and which we already had. but to what do you attribute -- it's obviously now sunk 1.5 feet, which is 18 inches, far more than four to six. to what do you attribute that additional settlement that you didn't anticipate in the four to six-inch settlement? >> you mean, what was revised in the 2009 letter? >> supervisor peskin: well, in 2005, you say we think it's going to sing four to 6 inches. in 2009, you say extensive, longer than anticipated ground rewater and other factors may have contributed to this. >> the major--in my view, the major factor that contributed to this more than estimated settlement was the dewatering that was happening as part of the 301 mission project.

as you know, there's a tower and there is a midrise portion next to it. so they are separate from each other, but the dewatering for the midrise was much more extensive and much longer than was anticipated, and that, in my opinion, was the ramain rean why the settlements were exceeded -- at least estimates were exceeded. >> supervisor peskin: okay. and you actually in the report even speak to the potential need for groundwater recharging. do you know if any of that happened? >> no, there was no recharge. >> supervisor peskin: there was no recharging. and on page 15 of the report, speaking to the midrise structure, the podium structure, where the estimate in 2005 was settlement ranging from about one to 3 inches, it

says that these settlements were calculated using foundation pressures provided by disimone dated 17 june 2004. do you believe today that those foundation pressures provided by disimone were correct? >> i have no way of -- of questioning a structural engineer's estimate of pressures which comes from the weight of the structure. that is their design, and they know how heavy the structure is, and they know their structural elements. so you know, from a geotechnical engineer's perspective, we take whatever the structural engineer's estimate as far as the weight and pressures on the foundations are concerned can he -- >> supervisor peskin: understood. and then in your response to ray louie's letter of february

2, 2009, that's the letter where mr. louie who first came before this committee and didn't remember, but they be at his second remembered a lot more than he did at his first interview. on february 18 -- and i'm trying to find the letter here in my stack -- treadwell and rollo, with your signature on it, responded, and response number five -- and this is with regard to the reasons for the larger than expected settlements, you indicate that it could be attributed to several possible factors, one of which you just talked about, which was the languager than anticipated dewatering on-site. [please stand by for captioner switch]

do you think dewatering at 350

or transbay could have had an impact on the settlement. >> i believe the mission was a cut off wall and we had measured, the water levels had already been drawn down quite a bit outside of 350 mission's footprint, if you will. but the issue with the watering is really extent in duration. t.j.p.a., as you know, is approximately 1500 feet long about 180 feet wide and about 60 feet deep. imagine a bathtub you have to empty so you can work dry when

you are constructing it. and that project was a much longer project, it's been going on, for i don't know how many years but it's been going on for a long time. the impact of that massive dewatering is very large outside in terms of a footprint it can impact the water outside, we have seen in the data from the t.j.p.a. own consultant, they dropped it outside t.j.p.a.'s own excavation by something like 20 feet which is very significant. that's one element. the second one, also the salesforce tower project, which is a very large footprint project that went on for a number of years and had dewatering associated with that project as well. so between the t.j.p.a. project and the salesforce project with

really on long duration and dewatering and pretty massive amount of footprint to dewater, those two have had, in my opinion, quite a bit of impact in terms of sediment in the tower. >> but absent that, the millennium sunk twice as much as predicted, neither one of the other projects just referenced had even turned their first shovel-full of dirt. >> true. see the thing is, when you dewater something, the water will take time to come back to its natural level.

millennium tower desettling stopped sometime in 2008, it impacted the tower. so by the time they turned off the dewatering and let the water kind of come up, as you can imagine, water, when it comes up, it lightens the load so that's the beneficial effect of water getting back to static level. another 2-4 inches was remaining and based on the data, i'm convinced we were reaching the lower bound of that additional settlement before activities with t.j.p.a. started that kind of started the acceleration, the second acceleration of the settlement. >> is it true where ground water levels are at lower elevations on one side of the

building than the other, the side with the lowest ground water level would be where differential settlement would be the greatest? >> you mean, i'm not following you. >> supervisor peskin: are ground water levels uniform or can they be higher or lower? >> if you let it come up, it will come to its natural level everywhere. if you have deexcavation, you have a hydrostatic up lift you are trying to withstand with the basement lower, but the water -- you have the same amount of water head, if you will. the natural water is here. the basement you are looking at is somewhere deeper, but if you let everything stabilize, it will, the head of the water will come up to its natural level. >> supervisor peskin: and does it do that uniformly? in other words, why is there

differential settlement at the millennium tower tilting northwest, are there different water gradients, sub-surface? >> it's variable from the core to the edges and that's why, for example, in our original estimate we had 4-6 inches. so there was about 2 inches of difference in settlement of the tower, if you will, the pile cap they have, that's because of the weight of the building is not uniform everywhere. it's usually heavier in the core than the edges. so that's why, we had estimated two inches of differential settlement. that's something they took to design the map in holding in

that differential. but that is structural, desimone is the one to answer that question. >> supervisor peskin: in 2009 it was your opinion the building was at that time settling uniformly and not differentially. >> we had only one settlement point which is at the core. i didn't have any knowledge to say one side is more than the other at the time. >> supervisor peskin: interesting. let me just find this. let me talk about your response. the question from mr. louis, are there any differential settlements within the high rise building and your response was one line, we are not aware of any differential settlement issues within the high rise tower but you didn't go onto say because we only looked at it at one point, if you only look at one point you wouldn't be aware of differential settlement. >> but that is response four,

supervisor. there's only one point being monitored. >> supervisor peskin: are the actual total and differential settlements being monitored now. you say currently the benchmark on the wall is being monitored, so the answer is really no. only one point is being monitored. we should probably hear from mr. tom from d.b.i., or somebody else from d.b.i. as to how they looked at that, but certainly as a lay person, i looked at that saying the building is not settling differentially. but the actual answer 10 years later, it may or may not have been, we only had one data point. >> that's correct. >> supervisor peskin: let me ask you this. would you agree the millennium tower should have been constructed with foundations that extended all the way to bedrock? in retrospect?

>> i think, first of all, the bearing material that the foundation for the millennium tower is in, it supports many high rise buildings in the city. before millennium and after millennium as well. the settlements we estimated was acceptable by the design team and they designed a building accordingly. but if you go to rock, then you would not have settlement. or you would have very little settlement. >> supervisor peskin: did treadwill and rono do the geotechnical work on transbay as well? >> no. >> supervisor peskin: that was all era? >> that was my understanding. >> supervisor peskin: did you have the benefit of that data later on by 2009? no, by 2009 you wouldn't have had the benefit of that data?

>> no. >> supervisor peskin: and then, let me change gears for just a second because part of this entire exercise is to learn going forward for the city and county of san francisco, and i am in receipt of a letter with regard to a building that sits next to the ocean wide property downtown, actually very close to millennium, that would lead me to believe that there is some differential settlement occurring at the federal, at the f.d.i.c. building at 25 jessie street. are you involved? is langan involved? >> langan is involved but i am not. >> supervisor peskin: so asking you questions about that would not be productive, would it? >> i wouldn't know. i was only involved on the earthquake ground motions. >> supervisor peskin: for ocean

wide? >> correct. >> supervisor peskin: not as it would have impacted adjoining structures that may now be -- >> [off mic] may have been involved in that, yes. >> supervisor peskin: colleagues, do you have questions for mr. golsorki? i don't believe i have any further questions but maybe we can get mr. straun or mr. tom to come up. i might have a couple more questions for you. and thank you for your candor. >> thank you very much. >> if i could, i just want to mention on the second page of the revised geotechnical investigation report, there appears to be a reference to the earlier reports that you asked about early on and in particular there's a reference

to a report dated 14, august, 2000. dr. golisorki referenced 2001 one time but i believe -- that's the correct date. >> supervisor peskin: and dr. golsorki, do you remember with regard to the circa 2000 report was that for a concrete or steel building, do you remember? >> i know we looked at both concrete and steel, but honestly, i don't remember right now. 18 years ago. >> supervisor peskin: i understand. do you have any idea when it went from steel to concrete? >> i don't. i mean, that was, we were not involved in that decision making. >> supervisor peskin: right. but the information that you got from desimone you analyzed were for pressures that would have come from heavier concrete? >> that's correct. >> supervisor peskin: all right.

mr. tom, or mr. straun, if there was one tidbit of interesting development today it's in the two years we have been holding these hearings i have labored under the impression that the response to the department of building inspections, february 2nd, 2009, letter, wherein the department asks these now famous eight questions including whether or not the building was tilting, differential settlement. and this goes back to a hearing we had a couple years ago but the funny story is we had a copy of the letter that d.b.i. wrote, which we got from d.b.i. but d.b.i. could not find and this has actually lead to changes in our record retention policies, the response that

desimone gave d.b.i., including incorporated the treadwell and rolo letter authored by dr. golsorki, which interestingly enough were produced by millennium. our first hearing, i was like this is kind of interesting. we asked these questions, we never got any responses weish shooed a final certificate of occupancy, indeed we had gotten a response but i labored the last couple years under the impression the way at least a lay person would read this is no, the building was not tilting. but now if i have learned one thing, it's actually there was one data point and you can't tell anything from that data point. mr. tom, do you want to respond to that? >> good morning, supervisors, ron tom, building inspector at the department of inspection. the department prior to changes and implementation what we

categorize s 18 for tall buildings did not keep or maintain records for settlement. in fact, settlement, if it manifest itself in neighboring properties or within the property itself could be brought to our attention and we would administer the process to do an investigation and require certain parties, professionals, the designers to provide is a report for us to assess. other than that, we have no ability to go monitor buildings, not even today. now having said that, as you know for the record, during the period of time during this investigation was going on, or actually the question, the letter that was questioning the conditions of the property was under a different administration, preceded the current executive team and we tried to learn as much as we

could by investigating our own records. having said that, because of the benefit of the hearings and also because you have continued to look into this issue for the benefit of the city and process of approving tall buildings, we have implemented a whole lot of changes that will now actually address any settlement because we are now through the current administrative bulletin number s, information sheet s-18 require a 10-year monitoring period for all tall buildings. and tall buildings by definition are 240 feet or greater. there are a host of other requirements that will provide us additional records, should there be an occurrence of any nature similar to what we are currently investigating. but this duration of 10 years is an annual report submitted

to department of building inspection by the design team so there's a responsibility that carries forward even after sales of the property to say if it's a condo to the condo owner. that's a measure we think will address and provide us any information if it's connected to settlement. so settlement would not be just a single point any more. it will be a host of points, data points that are established when the c.f.c. is issued and monitored annually to see if it's settled at any of these points within the building perimeter and possibly also at the interior. >> supervisor peskin: i appreciate all those process improvements we are all learning from this unfortunate moment, but i guess my fundamental question to you is, would you, as a professional

have read the letter of february 18th, 2009, the way i, as i lay person read it, which the building is not tilting. i'm not pointing a finger at mr. golsorki, but when i see a question that says are there any differential settlements within the high rise building then the response is we are not aware of any differential settlement issues within the high rise tower, and then the next question are actual total and difference settlements being monitored now, and the answer is the benchmark on the core wall is being monitored, i don't see that as a response from a third party who works for the project sponsor as, we don't know. yet our recommendation is you take other data points. so whether i walk away from

reading this letter is nothing to see here, yes it has sunk 8.3 inches, we don't anticipate settlement for the podium mid rise structure. we anticipate maybe an additional 2-4 inches of settlement. the way i would have read this, as a lay person is, yeah it was supposed to sink 4-6 inches, it sunk 8.3, it will sink another couple, don't worry about it, no, it's not tilting. that's the way i read the letter. it doesn't say warning, department of building inspection, you should ask more questions, you should not answer the c.f.c. you should get us to find another data points. seems to me, that's the kind of question, that if not answered this way, you might have asked in return. >> not wanting to sound

uncooperative, if i'm going to answer that, that's a whole lot of speculation on my part. putting myself in the shoes of deputy director at the time for permitting ray louis. i think that would be more appropriate to direct that question to mr. louis who still is in the employ of city and county. on a higher level, however, in order -- there's settlement and differential settlement. and the two have a relationship but they also can be looked at independently as well. so as we have learned from experience, we have both occurring in 301 based on the department, our department has received, from the consultants.

>> supervisor peskin: thank you. while we have you up here, do you want to give us any update on what's happening with our tall building working group and whether or not policies around de-watering are being analyzed? >> i was prepared today to provide an update. if you would like, i have some handouts i can provide for the supervisors. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, mr. tom. >> on a higher level, i would direct the supervisors to page 4, slide 4, please. excuse me one second, i will

grab some for the overhead. >> supervisor peskin: while you are doing that, because you are getting to the issue of peer review, mr. golesorkhi one thing we have long concluded in this committee and our investigations is that -- and this was a decision, however it happened, that your work was not independently peer reviewed. is that common? was it common at the time? is it common now? can you share thoughts about that? >> sure. it was not required, or common at the time. but for the past few years after a313 was issued by d.b.i., and we haven't been involved in many of the tall new buildings, myself, personally. peer review is an excellent

process. and it works. and it's great that it exists right now. or it has existed for the past few years. >> supervisor peskin: and do you know if there was any push back at the time. because obviously there was peer review on the structural, which is why we had professor mohele come before the committee. we heard a little from hanson tom why there wasn't peer review on the >> yo technical aspects of the project. >> to my knowledge, it wasn't even discussed or considered. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. mr. tom? >> here is an update where we are today. 2016, as i eluded to earlier, we have s-18 issued and titled

interim guidelines and procedures for structural geotechnical and seismic hazard engineering design review for new tall buildings. and now all the peer review appointments are made by d.b.i. and engineering design reviewers are compensated by d.b.i. two geotechnical engineers are required for projects in the city's softest soils unless the foundation reaches bedrock. let's look at the time line of what's progressed. we have the information sheet that now requires monitoring data reports for duration of 10 years submitted to d.b.i. annually. february 2019, completed and posted a prequalified list of experts to serve on future peer

review panels. so we are now prepared to assemble a peer review panel. april 2018, we received a board of directors recommendations for ap082 and now we are going to prepare ready for b.i.c., building inspection commission approval. we have other collaborations and partnerships. we have 301 mission seismic safety committee from the office of the city administrator, and also the apply technology council is conducting a tall building study. specific to the building. close monitoring, july 2017

expert engineering report, structural safety review of millennium tower of 301 mission street and also february 4th 2018 was a follow-up report to find the settlement tilt do not adversely affect the building's structural safety. that was a conclusion of those reports. >> supervisor peskin: at that time? >> yes. >> supervisor peskin: the one thing we have to really underscore is it didn't say and in a month, and or in a year, or five years. mr. hamberger was clear, at that moment in time. >> yes, supervisor, that is correct. but we also asked for a more current assessment as well. so we can bring up-to-date where the building is now. in terms of the safety. d.b.i. inspectors conduct life safety inspections every six months and the next one is

scheduled for about june or july next year. so it will be more than likely next month. and i'm missing a sheet so i will just put this here. what is happening now? we have three permits issued to conduct exploratory work to determine existing conditions and collect concrete core samples. they occur in location of the shoring wall, the mat foundation, basement wall of the podium structure. this work has started on two of the permits and we have several inspections that have been conducted by our staff. so i think i would like to stop there because i think that presents at least a snapshot where we are, where we have been and where we are going with the information sheet s-18

especially with the two geotechnical experts required and also the monitoring. those are powerful tools we did not have before. and as i said earlier, i think this is a great outcome and by-product of the hearings you started. we should feel, certainly as a department, we, with the retention policy of records that has been implemented, our engineers and plan reviewers are much more cognizant of what their obligations are in the whole process. and we check with them to make sure they are up-to-date with that. >> supervisor peskin: i really appreciate it. we aren't holding these hearings because they are fun but because we want to see changes going forward. actually to that end, and i don't know if you are in receipt of a copy of this, but i will hand it to you. i have a document actually dated march of this year from a

structural engineer with regard to differential settlement at 25 jessie street which is the aforementioned 18 story, 1981-era building. that letter indicates there is differential settlement occurring there. apparently it was the subject of a complaint that was investigated that may have elicited this letter and it indicates there's differential settlement on the order of an 8th of an inch between building columns which columns are "typically 24 feet apart". it is a 90-foot wide building at the base, if you do the math on that, 90 divided by 24 is about 3.75. so round it up to 4. if you take that 8th inch and you multiply that by 4, it sounds to me like the f.d.i.c.

building is now differentially settling a half inch. but again, i'm a lay person. so i don't know what i'm talking about. but i want to make sure that d.b.i. learns the lessons of 301 mission street as it applies to 25 jessie street. i will share this letter with you. but would like to hear what your thoughts, observations and course of action is with regard to the differential settlement at 25 jessie street. >> supervisor, i am not aware of the, i guess this is a complaint on 25 jessie street. >> supervisor peskin: apparently, as i understand it, and looking online you could see there was a complaint and you could see that it was closed. but at any rate -- >> [off mic] >> supervisor peskin: supervisor kim also understands there is settlement.

again, this is modern steel, relatively light building. and as we are embarking on what is in essence, another millennium called oceanwide, i just want to make sure that d.b.i. is on it. >> supervisor, i would request you provide me a little time. i will report back to this body at a future date at your calling for any update. and also in between, we will communicate with you and your staff and other supervisors present so that you can have an update, with more detail, once i get back to the office. >> supervisor peskin: i will provide you with a copy of that letter. colleagues, if there are no further questions, i really want to thank dr. golesorkhi for coming. i'm sorry about your depositions and i appreciate your candor with the committee.

>> thank you. you're welcome. >> supervisor kim: thank you very much. >> supervisor peskin: i would like to continue this item to the call of the chair after public comment, if there is any. >> at the time we will open it up to public comment on this item. please step up. >> good morning, i'm phyllis deets, i'm a lay person. i have a simple question. i wonder to what extent rising sea levels are considered in these discussions, either as decisive considerations or geotechnical conditions to support the foundations, thank you. >> thank you. >> supervisor peskin: i imagine the tall building work group is wrestling with those concepts

going forward. is there any other public comment? >> seeing no other public comment, public comment is now closed on this item. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, again, madam chair. and thank you, again, to the individuals who came today. some day we will get a fix at 301 mission street and good luck to the parties in settling that. as i have said repeatedly, i'm actually, if everybody could stop fighting for a minute and do the fix, what portion of it afterward, that's the right thing. because meanwhile you have 400 individuals and families who are kind of living under a cloud. as well as the entire downtown to the extent that building fails to perform. it's a serious problem. so with that, madam chair, thank you for your and president breed's indulgence and i would like to continue this item to the call of the

chair. >> we have a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair. just a follow-up, i would like to hear a little more about 25 jessie as well, because i have heard about settling issues there, so as we continue to build in this neighborhood, i think it's incredibly important we look at all the tall buildings along with the millennium. we could take this motion and do it without opposition. thank you very much. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. >> supervisor kim: mr. clerk, can you please call the remaining items, 7, 8, and 9. >> clerk: various ordinances and resolutions authorizing the settlement of lawsuits against the city and county of san francisco. >> supervisor kim: thank you so much. and before we take a motion to convene into closed session, are there any members of the public who would like to testify on item 7, 8, or 9, seeing none. public comment is now closed. we will now convene to closed session so we are asking members of the public to please

exit the room. do we have a motion to convene? we have a motion, we could do that without opposition. >> supervisor kim: all right we are back in open session. city attorney mr. givner if you could report back what happened in closed session. >> sure, the committee voted unanimously to forward item 7, 8 and 9 fo the full board with with positive recommendation. >> could we take a motion not to disclose. we have a motion not to disclose closed session discussion. we could also forward these three with full recommendation. mr. clerk, is there any further business? >> clerk: there is no further business. >> supervisor kim: thank you. meeting is adjourned.

[adjourned] >> 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