çú>çó th;- thank strervisorñiçóp, peskin purpose of the legislation.t( so thank youñiñrçóñi for yourñr onçó ñrthis. we haveñiñi beflb thei] boardñe action. i did receive a lot of comments.

... the police officers did actively solicit video surveillance footage from the surrounding homes, including my home, in the investigation of that crime. there was a recent incident of vandalism where windows were broken. the police department did actively seek video surveillance footage from the surrounding businesses as part of the investigation. so i would agree with a lot of the people that i've heard from, that is really important part of the investigation. and pretty standard and important step that our police officers take. so, supervisor peskin, if you

could explain how the legislation is able to happen? >> supervisor peskin: through the chair, to supervisor mar, the legislation as originally drafted no way prevented the police department from gathering that information. the use policy makes san francisco safer. we all know, the board knows, the public knows, how long information can be stored, with whom it can be shared, who has access to the data. that is the fundamental underpinning of this piece of public policy. but last week, to make it abundantly clear, we added language that says nothing shall be construed to prohibit information gathered by a non-city entity or individual. so it is abundantly clear.

what is important is that the department must not violate 19-b. they still have to have a use policy. but that's what is important here. and if i may, while i have the floor, just reiterate things. first of all, while there is a bunch of thanks -- i do need to thank my staff lee, who has been accommodating the references. i want to thank administrator kelly and bill barnes who made this much more friendly. policies are not in place, is indeed in there, but it has to

be read in conjunction with the fact that the amendments introduced here allow for 90-day extensions, unfortunately, perpetually. i expect when there is not good cause -- and the department has utilized more than a couple of those 90-day extensions to introduce their use policy that will put our foot down, we'll stop issuing those, but it has to be seen in conjunction with that. there is nothing in this legislation that in any way thwarts the use of body-worn cameras by law enforcement. again, they should be subject to the use policies we've addressed. and relative to sfo and tsa areas, that is addressed and specifically exempted in the legislation, but the public will have another week to look at the amendments and if anybody wants more copies, i have them here. and if i run out of copies they

will be on the internet for the next meeting, or come to my office and i'll print one out for you. >> supervisor ronen: wonderful. can i get a motion -- >> supervisor peskin: you have to take the minutes. >> supervisor ronen: sorry, thank you. can i have a motion to approve the amendments? >> i move that we approve the amendments. >> supervisor ronen: that motion passes. i believe we do not have a meeting on april 29th. so i move that we continue this item to the may 6th rules agenda meeting. without objection, that motion passes. thank you. thank you, supervisor peskin. mr. clerk, can you please read item number 6?

>> clerk: item number 6 is hearing to consider appointing one member, terms ending december 31, 2020 to the sugary drinks distributor tax advisory committee. >> supervisor ronen: thank you. is aaron kuntz here? he is not here. he was nominated by the youth commission and comes highly recommended, so i'll open up this item for public comment. is there any member of the public who would like to speak on the item? seeing none, public comments is closed. can i have a motion? >> i'd like to move that we set the nomination of aaron kunz for seat 6 for sugary drinks distributor tax advisory committee. >> supervisor ronen: thank you. without objection, that motion

passes. any other items on the agenda? >> clerk: that completes the agenda for today. >> supervisor ronen: the meeting is adjourned, thank you. >> i moved into my wonderful, beautiful, affordable housing march 7th. i have lived in san francisco since i was two-years-old.

i've lived in hunters view for 23 to 24 years now. my name is vlady. i use titus and i am the resident commissioner for the san francisco housing facility. from the very beginning, this whole transition of public housing and affordable housing was a good idea. but many, many residents didn't think it would ever actually happen. it's been a life changing experience. and i'm truly grateful for the whole initiative and all those that work on the whole sf initiative. they've done a wonderful job

accommodating the residents, who for many years have lived in delap tated housing. now they have quality housing. i was on a street where the living room and the kitchen and stairs. it wasn't large enough to accommodate. the children are grown. i had the accomplish of having a dishwasher in my home. i really like that. [laughter] i really like not having to wash dishes by hand. we still do it from time to time. the mayor's office has been a real friend to us, a partner. we know that our city supports us. i love san francisco. just to be able to stay in my community and continue to help the residents who live here and continue to see my neighborhoods move into new housing, it's been a real joy.

>> sfgov tv ready to begin. good morning today is wednesday april 17, 2019. this is regular meeting of the building inspection commission. please turn off all electronic devices. first item is roll call. [roll call] we have a quorum. our next item is president's announcements. >> president mccarthy: good morning welcome to the april meeting of 2019 b.i.c.

i have some announcements to read into record. please forgive me if i mispronounce any names. tomorrow is the 113th anniversary of the 1906 greater quake and fire. city department of emergency and management are conducting the citywide test of its alert notification system. this is something that we can add to your smartphone and it's worth having. go to d.m. website, it's s sf72.org. speaking of steps to get ready for the big one, director hui reminds that the safety fair will be on june 11th at 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. mark your calendars and plan to attend. there will be five free inform tv -- informative workshops to

improve the seismic safety of tall buildings. the new requirement about to take legal effect on owners responsibility to register and maintain vacant storefront. another workshop entrance program to ensure they are offering goods and services to customer providing successful entrances. another workshop on successful dwelling units with steps to d.b.i. planning. fire and others are taking into expedite reviews and approval. final workshop on home remodels and permit process. we'll also be offering earthquake safety a -- to enable you and your family to experience an 8point earthquake

in a safe and controlled environment. thanks goes to tom sessler. we want to -- he went on to say that tom was professional, fair, practical and efficient. i want to alert you to the upcoming may 21st delinquent property hearing at the board of supervisors when the board will vote on this year's final list. d.b.i. staff with about 700 properties with outstanding assessment costs. we're down to 300 owners who paid and achieved and compliant. we'll have update from staff when we expect the final numbers to drop again.

finally, please join me in congratulating nicole rossini and housing inspection permit technician on our selection as d.b.i.'s employee in 2019. nicole was selected in recognition going over and beyond her classification taking customer service initiatives and finding helpful solutions to customer's issues. please come forward and nicole please come forward. thank you. commissioner lee will meet you do and do the formality. congratulations. [applause]

nicole if you want to say few words you're welcome and talk about the great bosses you have and so on. [laughter]. >> you like to thank the commission and my supervisor. it's a pleasure to work as d.b.i. and work in the housing division and work with such diverse people. it's a challenge and it's fun to come to work everyday. >> president mccarthy: thank you for your service. that concludes my announcement. >> any public comment on the president's announcements? seeing none. item 3, general public comment.

b.i.c. are take public comment on matters within the jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda. >> good afternoon commissioners. i wanted to talk about couple of seismic issues coming your way. you want to thank the building department what i consider an outstanding job on the salisbury program. it's a huge success about preserving affordable housing and we do seem to fire risk collapsed buildings. i want to point out robert chung and the staff has done a great job. i want to make suggestion that we clarify the engineer's role or structure observation. i think some of the engineers don't understand their responsibility on structural observation requirement which is part of the requirement for this code. clarifying his role would improve the service. because of this discussion, you want to point out this ordinance

coming your way, should be aware of that. it will be helpful to get report on s.a.c. they are doing a fantastic job on that program. there is a discussion of another program. that's coming from th the boardf supervisors. it's looking for cracked wells and in earthquake buildings. this issue is being discussed. you guys should be ahead of that issue. then, do i want to compliment on the fact that they're doing a great job. whoever is working on this. thank you. eneed to get this resolved between the building department and planning department. thank you for your worken that

program. >> president mccarthy: next speaker plaz please. >> there are no additional public financing comment. item 4a increase of staff. [agenda item read] >> vice president walker: i was talking earlier about our loan program that we have initiated through the mayor's office, housing communities development. i wonder if we could put it on the agenda for update as to the effectiveness how it's been used and maybe begin discussions about taking recommendations on how we might expand it what are the other needs for helping move

some of these priorities forward. a.d.u.s, seismic, we're providing funding for it might help. i like to do that in the future. >> any other commissioners? next item is 4b. [agenda item read] >> president mccarthy: s how ave both those dates. 15th and 16th?

>> i'm available. >> i may have a conflict on the 16th. 15th is open. >> timing on the joint meeting is in the morning. >> vice president walker: i have it down in the morning. 9:30. >> president mccarthy: i wasn't aware of the time. >> it supposed to be in the morning. i don't have a concrete time. >> vice president walker: morni. >> we can discuss and finalize it before next month. >> president mccarthy: i guess for a particular time frame of the meeting will be allowed. one hour or two hours. >> i think they have their meeting starting at 1:00.

>> any public comment on item 4a and b? seeing none. next item 5. [agenda item read] the next item is a which is presentation by parties. they will have seven minutes to

present their case. there will be public comment and then rebuttal three minutes each. department like to come forward? just a moment. you can stay there. i'll do the oath of office. all parties giving testimony today please stand and raise your right hand. do you swear that the testimony you about to give is true and to the best of your knowledge? >> good morning. i'm chiefly building inspector. we received a notification from the city agency regarding fire damage on this property. the concern was investigated.

you can see on the package that i provided, we found out there was a property that had fire damage. the property was boarded up. we can see a portion of fire damage. inspector keene contacted the building department so we can provide proper assessment. there was no response from the owner or anybody at the property. in november 2017 there was anonymous phone call. he contacted me and asked me if he can go and visit the site. i said yes. he noticed the building was demolished and there was a fence constructed the property.

>> president mccarthy: you said demolished. there's nothing left? >> if you see in the package, there's a picture showing the time that we were there. 11/26/18. i have a couple of pictures where you can see it's empty. there's no more building. >> president mccarthy: okay. continue with your presentation. >> on january 24, 2018 the department building inspection conducted conducted an inspection. where i submitted all my documentation. at that time, the ruling was it was considered unlawful demolition. which requires a 5-year

moratorium or the owner to obtain a permit to put the building to its original condition. >> commissioner clinch: good presentation. it's helpful. in a situation like this where there's a fire, does the fire department reach out to the property owner or the tenants telling them what to do next? i don't know if you know that? >> no. usually when there's a fire, fire department will calls. we have an emergency inspector on call. this time we didn't get notification from a fire. we got a response from city agency about displacement. somebody was living there. there was a fire. they sent us an email. they said there was somebody

that was displaced. >> commissioner clinch: do you know how long after the fire you got that notice? >> it was couple of days. >> vice president walker: do we know if it was tenant or owner that was displaced? who was live if th -- living ine building? >> we did have contact with the person. he requested to be anonymous. >> vice president walker: it's not the owner? >> it wasn't the owner. i believe it was tenant. he requested to be anonymous. all responds was with emails and phone calls. >> commissioner lee: on the rebuilding if there's a 5-year moratorium, does that mean no permit can be issued for any rebuilding or does it mean that they can only rebuild to the exact same size as was there?

>> if you're not going to rebuild whatever was there, you will get 5-year moratorium on your lot. >> commissioner lee: you could rebuild what was there? you cannot build anything more than was there? >> yes. >> commissioner lee: thank you. >> president mccarthy: i think you should clarify that. >> there's no building permit what so ever for five years. >> that size of a home it could be any particular size. lot different than what was on there before. that can go through the whole planning process. >> that lot would sit empty for five years. >> correct. >> that's the way the code is written and that is -- which is one of the debates we're having

regarding the demolition policy. that's one thing we're looking at in the future. that is to the discretion of the director to make that call if he thinks it exceeded what was so. >> vice president walker: it's intended to be punitive. it's really to dissuade people. on some level if we don't -- >> president mccarthy: why don't we hear the case then we can get into the details. do we have more questions for maurice? >> vice president walker: not at this point. >> president mccarthy: thank you. >> appellant like to come forward?

>> president mccarthy: just for my fellow commissioners if we have questions regarding that you would like to see -- i guess the question here is, we're kind of on a very legal scenario. we're hearing a case and the appellant is asking us to reverse the decision made by the director. is that correct? >> i think we should hear what the appellant wants. they're contesting the 5-year moratorium. they are contesting the underlying finding. just on the question of the issuance of permits, my reading of the code is they could get a permit to rebuild what was there. i wanted to make sure. >> vice president walker: thank you for that clarification. >> they could get a building

permit. >> president mccarthy: not for five years. >> vice president walker: within the five years they can rebuild what's there. they can't get a permit for anything else? >> president mccarthy: you can replace? you are right. >> they are get a permit for construction alteration with the same number of residential units. it's not complete moratorium. >> president mccarthy: thank you for that clarification. >> at this time the appellant will present their case for seven minutes. then public comment after that. ms. hungate, please come forward.

>> president mccarthy: just point of clarification, they have seven minutes. is that for all testimony? >> yes. >> president mccarthy: reminder, seven minutes in total for all four of you. >> we were the party who disposed of the site. should i start first regarding the responses opposed to the property owner? >> president mccarthy: this is your seven minutes. however you choose to use it. >> i'm here to help them throughout the process. i'm a friend of lucy's. i've been guiding her through the process. hopefully we can come to a resolution. >> house burned down. i knew that. >> what's your name? >> good morning ladies and

gentlemen. >> president mccarthy: commissig through the chair. start the time from the start. everybody introduce their name as they're talking. commissioners, if you have questions we'll hear at the end of the testimony. >> my lucy hungate and i'm owner of 426 ivy street. i found out the day after that the house burned down from a tenant in the apartment building. i didn't go over there then. by couldn't go over there then. i heard federal the guy that was supposed to be living there, the next day -- i live in yuba county. i come down here for every two weeks and stay a few days.

it was a longtime tenant. all of a sudden, couple of months, edidn't see him around there. one say i saw this tall gentleman, i had the fire extinguishers done. i left him a note saying it's in the hallway come get it. he never did. month later, i said, i called out to the gentleman, i said is will around? no, but i can talk to him later. i said would you put this extinguisher in. every time i went over there, i made sure i was out in the back, he is the only person i saw in

that place. the tenant called me and said he got word that ivy burned down, i wasn't there. >> we on a time limit here. essentially what happened was -- >> what's your name >> i'm charles floyd i'mal friend of lucy's. she called the insurance company. they determined that property was a total. they paid her off. as a result, she hired a license contractor to take up from this point to get a permit to take the building down. as far as she knew, that was going to happen. the building was taken down but it was taken down without a permit by license contractor she hired to do so. what we're saying, lucy had no idea what was happening here as the owner of the property and hopeful is not held accountable

for what was done by the licensed contractor as a result of taking the property down without a permit from a licensed contractor. she's done everything possible to accommodate the city in this matter. we like to see the 5-year moratorium lifted. she doesn't have the funds to be able to rebuild the property back to its past condition, whatever it was before the fire. as a result, it's going to have to sit there for five years, the way it is, with nothing but a foundation that's probably not up to code anyway. you have to tear the whole thing down and she's asking that 5-year moratorium be lifted so she can sell the property or it's going to sit there for five years. her financial situation, and because of her age and proximity

to where she lives in relation to the property. she's owned this place since 1988. she's maintained it. this is a sole source of income. it is a burden to have to go through this process. especially since it wasn't her fault, we're asking it the fire moratorium not be imposed on this property as a result. thank you. >> hi, i represent the demolition company. we have been in business peninsula hauling for the past 15 years doing this. we had no intentions of doing anything outside of what the city requirements were. with regards to demolition. we know the law. let me say that. i went out to the site, saw the

site. the site literally was blowing in the wind. there were prostitution going on, there were drugs inside and there were literally two or three partitions that were standing that was blowing if the wind. at that time, i felt that property was not only a liability but a threat to lucy and the neighborhood and everything else. at that time, what i did instead of going down to obtain a permit for something that the city felt rared a permit, i went and i obtained alcom structural engineering. they did an evaluation, provided a written letter with regards to their opinion regarding this

structure and what should be done. when we initially looked at the site and did an evaluation on this site and decided what we were going to do, all the charred and fire damaged material from that house was on ivy street with people inside the burnt dwelling. it was disastrous. at that time, i reached out to an engineer, please come out and provide us with an opinion what you think regarding should happen with this and the state and the condition of this property. which he provideddal letter. we literally did no demo. we cleaned the site up. that's what we did and disposed of everything. with regards to the complaint,

we demoed on 23rd, which was fried. i don't know how the complaint come in before we cleaned the site up. i don't know how that could happen based on what was said here. we did everything we had to do pepertaining to clean up on that property in one day. that was it. that was the extent of that cleanup. >> that's the time. it will be public comment next so you'll have an opportunity for rebuttal. you guys want to ask questions? >> president mccarthy: no, i rather do public comment. your time is up. we can have public comment and we'll go back to questions.

>> public comment? >> good morning my name is jerry dradler. it appears the building was demolished without a permit. the issue is, what's the resale value of the building with the stipulation that has to be replaced as it currently exist. i think the issue really is not about what happened, because it's clear what happened. the issue is, the petitioner is saying they are suffering a financial loss because of a demolition and the stipulation. question before the b.i.c. is do you remove the stipulation? my perspective is, if the petitioner suffered a financial loss, it's not the b.i.c.'s responsibility to make her whole. it's the person who demolished the building without a permit.

if she feels she's entitled to money, she should take legal action against the person who demolished the building and result in the imposition of the stipulation. >> president mccarthy: next speaker. seeing none. public comment closed. >> rebuttal? >> yes, we did get the engineer's report but that came six months after the fire damage. we do have a system in place for fire damage buildings that require demolition. demolition permit can be approved with engineer's report and application and it goes through the proper channels. it is actually something that can be obtained. i'm going to show you the engineer's report.

if you look at the highlighted part what it said, this is only thing that we got from the engineer. there's no pictures how the fire was. the date is actually februar february 6th. the original report was in 2018. unlawful demolition was no november 2018. there's loss couple of months there we didn't have communication from anybody. even the contractor saying, we need an emergency demolition permit. i want to apologize for not clarifying the determination and the definition of the 5-year moratorium. i did put it on back of my completion and findings.

>> president mccarthy: thank you so much for that. >> one more thing. this is a double lot. there's a building on on 526 grove. i believe it's four-unit three-story building. the building is in the back which is the ivy street side. if you look at one of the pictures -- aerial view picture, you can see the bigger building. >> good morning commissionerrings. i wanted to restate couple of things that mauricio has said.

i think it has to be understood that the engineers letter came in way after the fire and after the demolition of the building. i don't know that's a valid conversation to be had based on demolition that occurred with having an engineer's letter. i don't believe the engineer's letter was in place at the time of the democra demolition. it's not a vacant lot. this is a rear building. i think it was probably one of those rear structures that was built on the slab in the rather yard. you wouldn't really see any evidence of a foundation because there was a building placed on this slab. thirdly, we do have a process whereby an engineer and most

structure engineers will understand that process. the process is, if you were going to be requesting an emergency permit for demolition, you will submit an engineering report along with pictures, submitted d.b.i., lot them happen to come to me. we have an inspector go out either concur with the engineer's evaluation or deny their request for emergency demolition and saying the building can be repaired. this process is in place. the report will come with pictures. it's not just a one-page document. it's an expansive report. >> commissioner lee: what's a turn around time for emergency demolition permit? >> if it's truly an emergency, it happens within days.

>> president mccarthy: thank you. >> appellant have a rebuttal. >> i wrote that letter. i was on the site prior to it being demolished. it wasn't intended to be a full report. ivy street just assessing the damage of the building. if there was it was a potential danger. that letter was written much later at the request of a contractor to provide some evidence that it have been reviewed. >> president mccarthy: apprecia. where is your office located? >> i'm in river city. >> president mccarthy: if you done projects in the city before? have you ever been around demolitions? >> i never done a demolition in the city? >> president mccarthy: if you are called to do demolition report, would you understand the policy and procedures? >> actually i was called out there to assess the damage to see if it was rebuilt and

repaired. that was the initial contact. >> president mccarthy: i think you come to the conclusion this property would probably need to be demoed and probably would have not passed. it would have made met that emergency demolition. that wasn't your mandate when you looked at the property. >> assess it to see if it can be rebuilt or demolished. my opinion it should be demoli demolished. would-be wer >> president mccarthy: were you informed? >> no. i took an initial look. >> president mccarthy: thank you sir. do we have more questions here?

>> you have two minutes or do you have more comment? >> commissioner clinch: i forgot your name, your business located if san francisco. do you have prior experience working on demolition in san francisco? >> repairs and minor, nothing such as this. >> commissioner clinch: thank you. >> president mccarthy: commissie r clinch has a question for the department. >> commissioner clinch: i like to get further understanding of the rebuild moratorium. >> we want to let them finish their presentation. we have two minutes.

you have two minutes. >> thank you. situation is like i mentioned before, lucy is not in position to rebuild this property. the state where it was at before the demolition. i want to let you know, if moratorium was not imposed, it would give somebody, if she was able to sell this prompt -- property, the opportunity to build more units to accommodate more people to the city of san francisco. lucy had no idea that was happening and the timing mentioned by the city. she was out of the area. notices was posted but she wasn't here to see them. that's where the delay was for her. as soon as she found out, she immediately and talked to the building department and to discuss the matter and try to come to a resolution. she's been very cooperative in the process of working with the city in order to get this thing resolved.

thank you for your time. >> president mccarthy: seeing no more. we can open up to the department? >> yes. >> commissioner clinch: the question i have is the rebuild limitations are to be a building of similar or smaller size. does it have to have the same level of finishes for example? >> i don't think the code would speak to the finishes. the limitation is that the same configuration, the same size or smaller and the same number of dwelling units. that is the limitation. there's really two scenarios. if somebody elects to go that route, they can file for a permit to do that. the other route is if you want to build something bigger more

units or a bigger envelope, you'd have to wait the five years to do that. really it's a two-fold thing. you either put it back the way it was or you wait five years and then you have opportunity to file for permit for a larger building. this is a rear-yard structure. there's already a building on the front. the owner did come to see us and was very cooperative. i think there's something here that mauricio can put on the overhead that will explain to you what the intentions were-in regards to the contract for the work that was performed. there are exclusions in the contract. permit was excluded in the

contract. in my mind, that's meaningful. >> president mccarthy: thank you, very helpful. okay. i want to open up to commissioners comments we can take it from there if there's any. >> vice president walker: i think that there's -- we see enough of these demolitions that happen without permit that it's serious issue which is why the leadership in the city took the action of putting a moratorium as a real serious, hopefully, encouragement of not demolishing buildings without permits. we have one that's expedited for emergency demolition. the restriction allows for rebuilding it the way it was. there's no actual loss of value

other than what you can -- what you are insured for. it is not the responsibility of our commission to waive this kind of punishment as it were for demolition. our department did the right thing when they realized what was going on. i think it's unfortunate that the owner was advised by her contractors or misled by her contractors or whatever it is, unfortunately there's a responsibility of a property owner to follow the law and know it and that's where it lies. i think there's several options going forward. if they need to sell the property or whatever, that's

their call. i don't see where a there's anything presented to us that makes me think the department did anything that i wouldn't support. >> commissioner warshell: i should preface my comments i live near this property. in the large packet that ms. hungate provided, she begins can with i've been owner of 426 ivy street since 1989. parcel on the same land and just different addresses. i became aware of this property over five years ago when there was a major fire next door.

the property, one door to the west, was completing a complete restoration of a historic building. there was inadequate securing of the rear yard. homeless broke in, fire started and ms. hungate's home as well as the home to the other side, suffered major fire damage and the property that where it began on ivy street was a complete demolition. in this period, we have gone through our painful process of permitting and approval to get a complete new construction on the property next door. the property on the other side to the west of the demolished

property was owner occupied and restored promptly, even though it had severe damage. this property has remained in a boarded upstate. the 525 building. it's been a very long time from the community's point of view that this property has not been a contributing asset to the community. i've witnessed it different times for sale signs on it. i've seen construction going on at 525. the construction company -- if you have any questions, call this number. i did call it.

they said they'd get back in one day, they got back in two weeks. they said construction is halted because we're having major problems. >> president mccarthy: i'm sorry. >> commissioner warshell: 525 has had tarps on the roof, ha hashad different situations as a neighbor. these may not be the principle elements in how we regard this property. i think commissioner walker had a very concise and focused and accurate assessment of purely the ivy street cottage was demolished without permit and

that's the issue we're going to look at. i bring these other factors up only as a observer familiar with this property that has been uncle occupied 525 grove street and the unfortunate situation that happened on a fire in the cottage on ivy street on the same lot. i did feel it's my responsibility to relate my observations regarding this property and my concerns. the first fire started on ivy

street. it took out three houses basically or took out fire damage two and took out one completely. now we have a fire at 426 ivy that potentially could have done the same to several houses. so the need to have this adequately secured can't be overstated. we now have two examples of issues and i think the people who spoke on behalf of ms. hungate, talked about the rapid misuse of the property after it was fire damaged by the people, prostitutes, homeless,

others. again, while our issue here is purely with the illegal demolition of 426 ivy, i would temper any feelings i normally have small homeowners and trying to get to a good outcome. i'm harkened by one of the comments in public comment that this is almost a poster child of why we have this 5-year. it is purely a financial issue what is the wortof