mr. hepperman, can we talk to that and what some of our commissioners are thinking with cleanup action and so on. if this 25%, you think that it should stay? >>> just briefly i think that there's reasonable basis for the 25% and it's in the report before you and it was incorporated and considered in the seismic hazard zone map. to the concerns this is going to be a cumbersome sac process, there's contention that additional process and cost is a basis to waive -- for the broader public -- i don't think that in a seismically vulnerable place like san francisco that we should cut corners around that review. to the incident that there's a cumbersome sac process i think can be addressed, again, through process improvements. i don't think that the sac process needs to be a six-month, $50,000 project, we're not trying to create an industry of permit expediters and a new demand for engineers that are demanding new costs and that's not the intent of this legislation. i would recommend something like this, what if you have a project come in, small project on a slope that is 25% or greater, the staff