diversion to recovery. we're going to replace zero-waste, to zero waste without a hyphen. i think that is really important. [laughter] just kidding. that is a request being made. on page 2, lines 14-16, we're changing the order of the talking about the three streams of recyclables, compostables and trash designated for landfill. we moved some of the wording around. page 3, 19-22, where we talk about the audit and what that means, we've added which may be conducted through the analysis of representative samples. so we're talking about the type of audit and what representative samples those are. we're changing in the definition of the word large refuse generator, we're taking out the

word commercial and adding later, in the city. we're clear to be talking about property and account holders. we refined the definition of zero waste facilitator to mean a person. i don't know why we had entity in there, but that is also involved in not transfer, but movement. and we're striking minimum criteria because we define it very clearly. on page 5 line, 18-20, we talk about how the, in terms of the periodic audits for the large refuse generators, the city departments we've been working with -- and to your point, madame chair and president cohen -- we have been working aggressively with the city departments. one of the feedback we got was when we're doing the hiring and the audit is happening, it's

very different than the private sector. so we try to line it up with the budget process and the process that the city needs to go to hire someone. so that city departments that are large refuse generators. to the point the commercial property owner representative, we are accepting one of the amendments that was proposed under the audit findings. it talks about how the report may identify commercial tenants, who are the audit findings suggest are responsible for contributing contamination in large refuse generators. that is in a building with 15 tenants on different floors, we can pinpoint who that person is to work with. so they might be able to work

more aggressive. page 6, line 5-7, we add not more than once per year. that goes to your point supervisor fewer and supervisor cohen, knowing what the standards are for zero waste and what the guidelines are. it's only going to be updated once a year. on page 6, lines 19-21, we say the director may use any of the relevant information and evidence, including information provided by the collector to determine the required remedial steps. so we're getting feedback in the process. on page 6, line 22 and page 7, line 4, we add -- we strike minimum criteria because it's defined better in a different place. and then on page 7, lines 2-4, we also again get into what the city departments need in terms of flexibility.

and we add the ability in case there is an inability to hire people in the private sector, then they can ask the director for an additional 60 days. up to an additional 60 days. on the city side, we talk about affording them an extension longer than 60 days because of the hiring process and the budget process we have on the city side. we define more clearly on page 8, line 2, a large refuse generator that is city owned is not subject to administrative penalties. we talk about that. the city has certain rules. so we needed to clarify that. on page 8, line 6-8, this is to the point about learning from the audits and the process, president cohen. we allow during this 3-year audit period, we allow for the

director to come back and make recommendations and changes to this on top of an annual check in. they will check in with the board on an annual basis. talking about the number of notices and fines. so we'll know how many are not passing their audits. but then ever the period of audits is done over the 36-month period, we ask the department to come back with recommendations and potential changes to the legislation. if need be. then the last part that we talked about and this is to the port's point. one of the points is that we clarify a section that says the city collected trash cans and compostables are exempt from this ordinance. we're happy to work with the port and we've heard from the other city agencies. we'll sit down with them and talk about additional amendments. if we can make a motion to accept the amendments today, we will continue the conversations with the stakeholders and deptsz

and we're happy to work with you the offices. >> supervisor fewer: i just want to take a moment to thank supervisor safai for bringing this forward. i learned a lot today and we had a robust conversation. these are a lot of amendments that i just saw today. and actually, after having so many questions about the original ordinance, i am not comfortable approving these amendments today in the context of the overall ordinance. i think it seeks to address some of the issues, but it seems a little piecemeal. so i would like to continue this item so we can have actually a full conversation with the ordinance and with these amendments and also with amendments that i think recology has and what we heard actually from some of the other concerned

parties. >> let me offer maybe a medium here. if we were to accept these amendments, it would allow the substantive, this committee is not meeting next week, we won't meet for two weeks. we can accept the amendments and let them sit and be open for everyone to review and digest and still meet in two weeks. or we can set to hear the amendments again in two weeks. either way, it's a two-week window. the difference that is the amendments, if they're not accepted, then they're not made public unless the maker makes them public. supervisor safai, that is a decision i can't imagine why you wouldn't want to share the amendments, but if we're accepting them, they're in the file and that means everyone will be able to readily access them. you can think about that a little bit. i, too, have had a hard time trying to chase down the

amendments. i think i got them late in the evening yesterday. i know. late in the evening yesterday. so i do side with you about needing time to digest them, but it happens they're so substantive, it would allow two weeks to digest anyway. one of the things i try to listen to when things come to the budget committee, i was reluctant to allow this item to come to the budget committee because i didn't think it made a strong enough fiscal argument. and one of the things that was still -- although it still has a fiscal component -- in the presentation, i did not hear how this legislation would provide any cost saving majors for large refuse generators. i heard that it will save money, but i didn't hear evidence of. this i didn't see any formulas of this. i really don't understand how this will save people, money,

business, the city, money. what i really heard was how this is going to cost money. i this the most obvious thing that probably brings everyone to the table, is how this is going to cost businesses. i'm concerned how this impacts public housing and the vulnerable. i am glad this is coming back to us in two weeks, because one thing i want to hear in the next presentation, not so much about the amendments, but specifically how the legislation is going to provide cost saving measures to not only to businesses, but to everyone. all the parties that are involved. one thing that i want supervisor safai to start to think about, is reconsidering the compliance period. i think the port commission made this argument. but reconsidering it, the compliance period, maybe 6-9 months after the initial audit in which they can work to come

to can compliant and be retested before hiring a facilitator. i see that as burdensome and expensive, particularly to city and nonprofit entities. they've asked for consideration of the grace period. i haven't heard from any other departments. i plan in the next two weeks to do outreach of my own to businesses that are not associated with the associations and the representatives we heard today. i'm talking about january terse, i'm talking about bouma and the apartments and association and golden gate restaurant association. there is a considerable list of businesses that are impacted that are on this newly furnished list. the department of environment provided. the american industrial complex in particular. the industrial businesses are not fully represented. i would be interested to hear from the school district as well

where their thoughts are on this. so it seems like there is a lot of moving parts and work that needs to be done when it comes to moving this legislation forward. any other comments? >> thank you. i want to start out by thanking supervisor safai for this important piece of legislation. i know there is a lot of questions still. i want to thank my colleagues for asking all the questions. i've been in listening mode. i'm fine with accepting the amendments because i think it's good to work off one body, one piece of legislation. so i am fine with accepting them and knowing that we have two weeks to address all of the concerns that have come up. and work with supervisor safai on any more amendments you might want to make. so i am fine with moving the amendments forward today. >> supervisor safai: thank you. >> president cohen: when is the

next budget meeting? >> the next finance meeting is november 15. >> just one last point. the one example that they gave that talked about the cost savings of $28,000 before the zero waste facilitator and after, i would ask the department, if we can get this one case study is great. it shows how much money was saved. shows how the annual cost is a significant savings to the building. if you can show more examples of that. if you can bring those, i think that will be very helpful to this committee. because it will talk about some real life examples about why this is important. how the cost savings are there. and specifically what the overall benefit is. so i think that is an important point. then i would just again say to the committee, i think president

cohen's point is a good one, i would prefer to have the amendments accepted today and we can move forward with further conversation. i know they sounded technical and cumbersome, but we did spend a significant amount of time talking about a lot of those today, in a lot of detail. >> supervisor safai, you definitely put a lot of work in this. this is quite a heavy lift. you definitely have many stakeholders that are at the table that are touching this legislation. even myself, when i first heard about it and learned about, i didn't even think about the impacts to some almost secondary stakeholders. so i appreciate your willingness and flexibility to work with us on the legislation. >> supervisor safai: through the chair, to your point about the affordable housing, i am -- having been a former housing authority commissioner, having worked with the housing

authority, i'm cognizant of that and i think sitting down with the affordable housing stakeholders, i appreciated mr. cohen's comments today about working with the department in terms of helping them get up and running and/or education as both you and supervisor fewer talked about today. i would say in some cases if you're at 3% diversion rate, that could be the availability of the right equipment. could be education. but it also could be a real opportunity to put some pinocchifolks in a position to have a job opportunity. you know this firsthand, supervisor, president cohen, even though we have a low unemployment rate certain communities have a significant unemployment rate that is not reflected. and it's emphasized and magnified in public housing.

so we could be giving residents and/or students and youth an opportunity. this does not mandate the type of person going in, but it mandates the type of work and focus. >> supervisor fewer: i would like just to follow up with the department of environment on some of the data that i requested. i was hoping you can get that to the supervisors as soon as possible. so we can have actually a deeper analysis. that would be greatly appreciated. supervisor safai, i'd like to make a motion to move these amendments with a positive recommend takes. and -- recommendation. i and believe that triggers a two-week waiting period because we don't have a meeting next week. and the meeting of the 15th. steph >> would you like to accept the amendment proposed by the port? supervisor safai, i would like

to remind you you're a guest here. >> thank you for reminding me. >> let me check with my committee. ladies? would you like to accept the amendments from the port? >> supervisor stefani: i this in the two week time we have time to talk with the port. i don't know if i'm comfortable, because i haven't had a chance to talk to the sponsor of the legislation. not saying that i wouldn't accept them in two weeks, but right now, it's important to get feedback from supervisor safai. >> president cohen: supervisor fewer? >> supervisor fewer: i would be open to having further discuss and i'd like to meet with the port to see how this might have impact and whether or not to reevaluate the proposals so see whether or not it will impact they want. >> supervisor safai: thank you.

sorry. didn't want to speak out of turn. through the chair and to everyone, i just received those this morning. they are referencing a separate section of chapter 19 that is not referenced in my legislation. i asked both the port and the department of environment to speak. they're looking at them. the first one that talks about waiving the responsibility of them, that would be an exclusive wavering request that no other accounts have. so my reaction to that, i'm not open that, but i'm open to sitting down and talking to them. the second is about the public trash cans and we have started -- one of the amendments today deals with that. i do want the department of environment, myself and the port to sit down and have further conversations. we met with them months ago about this. they said they would get back to us and we just got the language today. >> president cohen: what we'll

do is hold off on accepting the amendments proposed by the port. we'll chew on them for two weeks and then bring it back up in discussion. you're welcome. so supervisor fewer has made a motion to accept the amendments made by supervisor safai. i think we can take that without objection. thank you very much. without objection, the amendments are accepted. and then i will say that we will continue this item for two week's time as amended to the november 15th budget meeting. all right, we can take that without objection. thank you. is there any business before the body? >> no further business. >> thank you, we're adjourned. thank you very much.

>> i came to san francisco in 1969. i fell in love with this city and and this is where i raised my family at. my name is bobbie cochran. i've been a holly court resident for 32 years. i wouldn't give up this neighborhood for nothing. i moved into this apartment one year ago. my favorite thing is my kitchen.

i love these clean walls. before the remodeling came along, the condition of these apartments had gotten pretty bad, you know, with all the mildew, the repairs. i mean you haven't seen the apartment for the program come along. you wouldn't have believed it. so i appreciate everything they did. i was here at one point. i was. because i didn't know what the outcome of holly court was going to be. you know, it really got -- was it going to get to the point where we have to be displaced because they would have to demolish this place? if they had, we wouldn't have been brought back. we wouldn't have been able to live in burn. by the program coming along, i welcome it. they had to hire a company and

they came in and cleaned up all the walls. they didn't paint the whole apartment, they just cleaned up the mildew part, cleaned up and straighted it and primed it. that is impressive. i was a house painter. i used to go and paint other people's apartments and then come back home to mine and i would say why couldn't i live in a place like that. and now i do.

>> hi. my name is carmen chiu, san francisco's aelectricitied assessor. today, i want to share with you a property tax savings programs

for families called proposition 58. prop 58 was passed in 1986 and it was helped parents pass on their lower property tax base to their children. so how does this work? under california's prop 13 law, the value we use to calculate your property tax is limited to 2% growth peryear. but when ownership changes, prop 13 requires that we reassess properties to market value. if parents want to pass on their home or other property to their children, it would be considered a change in ownership. assuming the market value of your property has gone up, your children, the new owners, would pay taxes starting at that new higher level. that's where prop 58 comes in. prop 58 recognizes the transfer between parents and children so that instead of taxing your children at that new higher level, they get to keep your lower prop 13 value.

remember, prop 58 only applies to transfers between parents and children. here's how the law twines an eligible child. a biological child, a step child, child adopted before the age of 18, and a son-in-law or daughter-in-law. to benefit from this tax saving program, remember, you just have to apply. download the prop 58 form from our website and submit it to our office. now you may ask, is there a cap how much you can pass on. well, first, your principal residence can be excluded. other than that, the total tap of properties that can use this exclusion cannot exceed $1 million. this means for example if you have two other properties, each valued at $500,000, you can exclude both because they both fit under the $1 million cap. now what happens hwhen the totl value you want to pass on exceeds $1 million.

let's say you have four properties. three with current taxable value of $300,000 and one at $200,000, totaling $1.1 million in value. assuming that you decide to pass on properties one, two, and three, we would apply the exclusions on a first come, first served basis. you would deduct properties one, two, and three, and you would still have $100,000 left to pass on. what happens when you pass on the last property? this property, house four, has been existing value of 2 -- has an existing value of $200,000, and its existing property value is actually higher, $700,000. as i said, the value left in your cap is $100,000. when we first figure out your portion, we figure out the portion that can be excluded. we do that by dividing the exclusion value over the assessed value. in this case, it's 50%. this means 50% of the property will remain at its existing

value. meanwhile, the rest will be reassessed at market value. so the new taxable value for this property will be 50% of the existing value, which is 200,000, equaling 100,000, plus the portion reassessed to market value, which is 50% times $700,000, in other words, 350,000, with a total coming out to $450,000. a similar program is also available for prepping transfers fl interest r from grandparents to grandchildren. if you're interested in learning more visit our website to begin. good morning. today is wednesday, october 17th, 2018. this is the regular meeting of

the building inspection commission. i would like to remind everyone to please turn off all electronic devices and the first item is roll call. president mccarthy. >> here. >> clerk: vice president walker. >> here. >> clerk: commissioner konstin. >> here. >> clerk: commissioner lee. >> here. >> clerk: commissioner warshell. >> here. >> clerk: we have a quorum. next item is item 2, president's announcements. >> president mccarthy: good morning, and welcome to the october 17, 2018 commission. as most note today is the 29th anniversary of the 1989 earthquake and i would like to ask for a moment of silence in honor of those who died or were injured by that disaster. [moment of silence] thank you.

engineers and all of the rest of us do learn from each other and every earthquake and we're better prepared today to respond to the next major earthquake. we also know, however, that we still have lots of work to do to improve the city's resilience, excuse me and our overall ability to respond and recover, including never-ending training by both the private and the public sectors so that we can be ready and better preparations such as success to grab and go bags. to help us to manage our own for the initial 72 hours. and we are better prepared mentally and emotionally to resist panic and fear as the ground shakes and rolls. and to be able to think clearly and to practice training we have to do. it's all -- it's a tall order and, make no mistake, and one that reminds us to keep working

on -- with our families and loved ones every day to get prepared. and related to the ongoing observance of the 1989 earthquake, i want to let you know that one of the departments contracted non-profits c.y.c., is hosting 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. today another fire safety and emergency preparation fair at 290 irving street the they'll hand out information on the material to help people to prepare to respond effectively and quickly to the next disaster. and they will do hands on c.p.r. demonstrations on-site as well. and they will also give away free smoke alarms while the supplies last. i also want to recognize director hui and the staff who took tours on october 4th of the modular housing factories. a tour that commissioner walker

and i took in mid-december. i'll ask commissioner lee and warshell to have looks at the way to address the housing production and challenges. thanks goes out to commissioner konstin, and the director hui and director lowry who had a letter of appreciation for the reference in guiding the company through their permit process. and finally our employee recognition committee received 11 nominations for employee of the quarter, quarter two and three and selected mark langan as our winner for quarter two. mark was singled out for his impressive performance in terms of responding quickly and efficiently to often complex computer-based research requests. mark is particularly good with customer services and able to make tough calls with plants and with respect to the working

collaborative with the entire m.i.s. team. so congratulations, mark, and thank you for all of your outstanding performance during quarter two. and our quarter three winner, bern net perez, a senior clo clk was nominated by four members of the housing staff. she's had persistence and professionalism as he during quarter three when the housing division was going through transitions with new staff and new leadership. and we -- with more than 30 years experience besh get has a steady hand and very well informed mind and she shows dedication and exceptional skillsets in assisting problem solving. so congratulations, bernadette, and thank you for providing a brilliant role model for the staff to learn from and to -- and to become. present -- i think we will do the presentation. so commissioner lee will take care of that. so we have two --

>> clerk: the staff can come forward, the staff and the recipient. >> president mccarthy: lily, you're taking pictures? good, all right. >> (indiscernible).

[applause] >> congratulations. you can make comments if you like. >> thank you to all of our commissioners and staff and we will continue to support everything that goes forward. >> thank you. [applause] >> i would like to express my deep appreciation to the staff and the commissioners. they've been really good in dealing with the transition. i'm thankful for your patience. once again thank you. >> thank you very much. congratulations. [applause] >> bernadette and i met in 1993 and i had long hair back then. and she looks exactly the same way as she does now. she's incredible and hard working and very cheerful throughout the 28 years at

d.b.i. she oversees a busy staff. her staff carries out the important measures that the inspectors have to use to get compliance on important cases. and her duties range from compiling statistics for this commission to collecting everyone's timesheet. she's the backbone of h.i.s. and she's the glue that holds us together. and she's one of the reasons that i applied to work here. so from everybody in housing inspection we'd like to say congratulations, bernadette. [applause] >> president mccarthy: thank you, and congratulations to all recipients. madam secretary, that concludes my public announcements. >> clerk: any public comment on the president's announcement? seeing none, item three, general public comment. and there will be public comment on matters within the commission's jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda. >> good morning, my name is

jerry gerantler. on august 30, 2018, the department of building inspection, deputy director gave an excellent presentation on residential demolitions. mr. o'reardon's presentation demonstrated the progress that the planning commission and the building inspection commission had made over the last nine months. it's important that the planning department and the department of building inspection embrace this progress and support d.b.i.s and mr. oh o'reardon's position that it includes a demolition. you can't add a floor to a structure without removing existing supporting structure. all vertical additions should require a separate set of plans, showing what was demolished and what will be added. these plans will bring clarity for district building inspectors and planning department planners. building inspectors like

planners are not structural engineers, and we have been assigning the responsibility to both groups that is unreasonable. i am asking the building inspection commission to support mr. o'reardon's proposal and to request to support the development of an implementation plan consistent with his proposal. thank you very much. >> president mccarthy: thank you. next speaker, please. >> clerk: there's no additional public comment. so going to the next item. item 4, commissioner's questions and matters. fa, inquiries to staff. at this time commissioners may make inquiries to staff regarding various documents, policies, practices and procedures, which are of interest to the commission. >> president mccarthy: commissioner walker.

>> vice-president walker: i wonder if we could put that item on the next agenda for the meeting and to have a presentation of the report. >> president mccarthy: so i think if we're talking about the same thing, we are waiting on some legislation to come from supervisor peskin's office. and the latest that i heard on that is that it was supposed to be introduced on tuesday. but, you know, some tweaks, some more work has to be done. so my understanding, which i don't have 100% confirmation of, that it will now be reintroduced next tuesday. >> vice-president walker: so it would be assessed anyway? >> president mccarthy: so that rolls into mr. reardon's presentation and to your point, commissioner warshell said to me, that when we get this report that maybe we can calendar something around that. and it will have to go through a process of land-use planning, so we'll have opportunity, but the big one i guess is to have the

joint meeting when everything is finalized on this piece of legislation with planning and we can go forward there. so that hopefully is the way that it will play out. >> vice-president walker: so it wouldn't be at the next meeting but it might be -- >> president mccarthy: yeah, but we definitely could get an update on what was introduced by supervisor -- >> vice-president walker: i think that is a good idea so we're aware of what is coming even if it's not the official review of it. >> president mccarthy: definitely. we could have our own input on that. >> vice-president walker: thank you. >> supervisor yee: future meetings and agendas. at this time the commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a special meeting and/or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the building inspection commission. our next meeting is november 21st. >> president mccarthy: so on that i got emails because it's thanksgiving, correct? the next day. so my decision was to keep the

meet asking keep it short and i know that people will be leaving time. i hope that we have quorum. i know that commissioner konstin, you won't be here, right? but if it's okay with everybody i will just -- we'll keep that date unless there's objections. seeing none. >> clerk: thank you. any public comment on item 4a and b? seeing none, we'll move on to item 5. discussion and possible action to make recommendations with current memberships and tomorrows to expire november 1, 2021, and november 1, 2022. >> president mccarthy: so commissioner lee or warshell, who will give the update on that? commissioner lee, you're ready. >> commissioner lee: commissioner moss and commissioner warshell and i met -- what was that, last week? and the nomination committee and

we reviewed the current members of the access appeal commission and decided to reappoint all four members who had seats expired or will be expiring this year back on to the commission. and that would be commissioner.r walter park, and learner, and alice brown, and william scott-ellsworth. >> i believe that some of our members may be here. >> commissioner lee: i think that we need to recommend that the full board approve as well. so i make a motion that b.i.k. appoint these members back on the commission. >> second. cb.>> clerk: are all commissioners in favor? any opposed?

and congratulations, the members will be reappointed. if you're present and would like to come forward. >> i would like to thank you all for the service that you provide to our city. this is a really important function in making sure that we have access to buildings and we can do it in a way that makes it possible. so the work that you do is really appreciated by all of us. i don't mean to speak for the commission. but maybe i do. so thank you again for serving. >> clerk: i have to take public comment. public comment on this item? seeing none. okay. >> president mccarthy: commissioner moss and commissioner warshell and three members. commissioner park is not here with us today.

>> (indiscernible).

>> i william scott ellsworth... (indiscernible).

>> president mccarthy: thank you, candidates. if you would like to say a few words you're more than welcome. >> thank you all for your confidence in us. >> president mccarthy: not at all. thank you. >> thank you. thank you. >> clerk: congratulations, everyone. we're on to the next item, possible action regarding ab-082, and administrative

bulletin presenting guidelines and procedures for structural, geotechnical and seismic hazard engineering design review of buildings and other structures. >> president mccarthy: deputy director. >> good morning, commissioners. deputy director of permit services. i'm here to speak about the administration bulletin with the guidelines and the procedures for structural, geotechnical and seismic hard ard engineering design review. and this bulletin addresses structural and geotechnical and seismic hazard naturalling with buildings and other structures. and wherealterations, and it may apply to the prescriptive provisions of the san francisco building code. and for the projects with the prescriptive exemptions of the building code. and the discretion of the

director of it may include one or more, structural engineering, geotechnical engineering, site specific seismic assessments, and scaling. the term geotechnical and seismic hazard engineering design review is referred to as a peer review. and it encompasses design review as required. if the director determines that the review is required they may request geotechnical or seismic hazard reviewers having knowledge and experience to provide professional opinions on the design aspects of a project. the purpose is to have an independent objective technical review of the aspects of the project design that are identified in the scope of the review. reviews contract with san francisco department of building inspections are responsible to the director.

and they are responsible for the payment of fees and other expenses for professional services of the reviewers. and they shall sign all written communication to the director. this is a new process by d.b.i. sf-dbi new process retains the reviewer's responsibility to the director in align with the number of jurisdictions that the contractor -- that the contract directly with reviewers attach the clause for the project sponsor. previously the city of san francisco procedures for procurement of professional service have not been suited to directly contracting with consulting engineers. and reviewers instead contracted with the project sponsor. the revie rears are, nonetheles, responsible and under the directions of the director. so the change to this is that we contract directly through the peer review group down. the engineers -- the engineer

records is solely responsible for the construction contract documents. documents in the reviewer will be retained as part of the fdbi files. each reviewer is selected by the director based on the reviewer's qualifications applicable to the project and considering the availability with the project scale. the director may at his or her discretion consult with the project sponsor and the engineer of record and others before selecting the reviewers. the reviewer shall disclose to the director in writing any potential conflict of interest related to the project and the desired scope of review. or the ability of the reviewer to be independent in other objectives in the review. each reviewer provides professional engineering services shall be a registered professional, holding a professional license in accordance with the california law. qualifying staff and reviewing

not registered as a p.e., including reviews from academia, can contribute to the review under the responsibility charge of the registered engineers. reviewers should be engaged as early in the design process as practical. and this design team has an opportunity to look at the disciple decisions that could disrupt the design development if addressed later in the design phase. early in the process the initial of record, and a representative of the director and the reviewers should convene a meeting to establish the scope of the review. and the methods, the lines of communication, the timing of the review milestones and the degree to which the engineers of record anticipates the designs will be developed for each milestone. and at the conclusion of the review and sequestered by the

director the reviewers shall submit to the director a report documenting the scope of the review and the comment logs and the professional opinions of the reviewers regarding the design performance and the criteria identified in the scope of the review. so this has been a long process on this and it's still in draft form but it's tasked by con and under the city attorney's review right now. and san francisco d.b.i. just added to this ordinance all projects of new buildings 240 feet or taller located in the city's office.

>> he has been working on this for years, if you have any questions. >> i have a few quick questions on projects. we don't have the data, that is fine.

obviously, we had last week where we had fleet week and i had the privilege and honour to go and talk at fleet week where we had a building and safety strategy program. you were there and i appreciate it. i thought it was interesting the level of conversation as to the different changes that are coming down the pipeline. well if you think, as a city, we are based on your years and years of constantly evolving on this, where do you think we are compared to other cities and how far are we advanced in this arena right now, as best we can be? >> we are at a point that this is the ten year anniversary of this administrative bulletin.

the first was developed ten years ago. requiring more scrutiny by the engineer professionals and more. right now we are at the point where we expand from the structure. we have more scrutiny on the geotech issue. >> in that arena, compared to other cities, are we exploring the geotechnical side of things? do we want to break it down more than l.a. or are our requirements more stringent than others? >> much, much more stringent. we already have the slope

protection act and we require further reveal and detail resign -- design review as required. >> and the industry as a whole, how are they responding to these extra measures that we are taking, particularly in tall buildings? for example, is a lot of projects -- are they going to bed rock or are they taking a look at different -- what is it doing to the industry? have we had many projects lately that falls under these new criteria even though they are not necessarily implemented yet, legally? >> actually, we are still implementing the old one. that was already updated two years ago by a minor change with a peer review. >> we were paid by the director of the city. we have more control