that's helpful. >> supervisor kim: thank you, mr. frey. if maybe the committee members can remind me of the three that we forwarded with recommendation to the full board, 101 , and 940 grove and 637 waller, did we limit all three of those to a tenure mill is act? >> supervisor breed: i don't think that we did all three, the 940 grove i pushed for no limit, and i can't recall exactly -- i think that waller was a limit and what wase

. >> supervisor kim: thank you, mr. frey. if maybe the committee members can remind me of the three that we forwarded with recommendation to the full board, 101 , and 940 grove and 637 waller, did we limit all three of those to a tenure mill is act? >> supervisor breed: i don't think that we did all three, the 940 grove i pushed for no limit, and i can't recall exactly -- i think that waller was a limit and what was the other one? i don't remember that one. >> supervisor kim: mr. frey. >> my ris recollection is only e waller street project is the only one with a 10-year limitation. >> supervisor kim: okay. and that was actually a significant reduction, at 59% in terms of their property assessed value. okay. these two projects are slightly lower in their reduction rate. for me on a level of consistency i would move both of those items forward with the 10-year limit and that would be my recommendation to have the property owners come back again to explain additional costs or rehabilitation at that time. so that will be the amen