tv Government Access Programming SFGTV September 22, 2019 6:00am-7:01am PDT
the variance and grant with standard conditions. >> if we could go back to 16b. >> sorry. we need a small break. we are down to four. hold on. go ahead. >> going back to 16b for. >> we would take that matter under advisement. >> thank you. >> commissioners we left off on item 18, for 2019-004691 c.u.a. 1347 27th avenue. >> the project is conditional
use authorization for demolition of existing single family home and construction of a new two family home in rh-2. demolition of two story single family home and construction of new 5355 gross square foot four story two family home. unit one on the bottom with two bedrooms and total of 1925 square feet. unit two four bedrooms and three full baths 2158 square feet. one vehicle and one bicycle space for each vehicle. there was an application meeting on mar2019. three maybes voiced concerns of the height of the building. the department received 25 letters of support describing
the dwelling unit to the neighborhood. consistency of the project design with existing neighborhood character and the garage spaces will not impact street parking. the department received four letters of opposition to the project from neighbors voicing concerns over the fourth floor on light and privacy to add jay sent buildings and out of context to the the neighborhood and concerns of the conversion of three unit structure and effects of neighboring foundation. i believe there was one additional. staff recommends approval of the conditional use authorization request as noted in executive summary. it does involve demolition of the structure, proposed will provide two family sized units. it is not historic resource. this is a point of
clarification. the unit is not occupied it is vacant. no known evidence of eviction: it is consistent with rh two zones. that is concluding my presentation. the sponsor is here with a quick presentation. >> good evening, president melgar and members of the commission. i am going to edit this on the fly so bear with me. the reason we are asking for demolition is because the existing driveway goes up 4 feet 9 inches from the street. any attempt to modify the building to add fourth floor. the existing building is seen from the street yesterday. here is a closeup of the
driveway. so again the building on the left has 17% grade in the driveway. ours is 29%. on the right is 26%. this is what we are proposing. four story building, 40 feet tall. it is only 15 inches taller than the building on the left, a three story single family building 38 feet above the roadway. the building on the right is three story single family. i can go into more detail. the long and short the building is not bigger front or front, a few inches here and there. taller by 13 feet to add 7 bedrooms and additional single family housing -- dwelling unit rather. this is designed for the homeowners who have a few words
to say. >> i am lydia. this project will provide housing for my family. i have lived in san francisco for 15 years. i continue to work downtown. we have been looking for housing for a few years and unable to find anything with enough space for my family. we plan to have three generations me, my husband, two young kidses and in-laws and parents. my husband and i work from home. the additional office space is needed for us. thank you. >> we will now take public comment on this item. one speak consider card, mr. lee. >> okay. any other public comment?
no. it is you? come on up. >> i am the neighbor in the sun set area. i lived in sunset for 40 years. i think sunset needs housing now because the children are growing up and family is expanding, and we need more, you know, housing, actually. the kids are growing up, they have married and have children. we need places for children to sleep. i believe the project is really good for the new people coming, you know, for our children around grandchildren. i don't have grandchildren yet. my son is getting married.
i think, you know, eventually i might need to expand my house for my grandchildren. right now i don't. i am thinking about that in the future. thank you. i support this project. >> thank you. okay. if there is no further public comment is now closed. commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: i have to say i respect you, and i want to thank you. every time you come and it is tantamount for demolition you go through the process and after seeing the last one and the ones before it i may not agree with the designs you are a man of integrity for advising your client to go through the process correctly. i move to approve the project. >> second. >> nothing furthered there is a
motion seconded to approve with conditions. (roll call). >> so moved. that motion passes unanimously 4-0. this is discretionary review. 19 a and b were continued to november 14th. 20 both drs are withdrawn. that is 21 for case 2018 2018-012718drp at 1980 eddy street. discretionary review. we are on 21 now. >> good evening, david winslow staff architect. this is a request for discretionary review of building permit application 2018-0816 a
three story rear addition and conversion of ground floor storage space to create 775 square feet of dwelling unit to create a two-story two family dwelling. the historic resource is category p. dr requester the immediate neighbor to the west is concerned with the proposed project because of the size and proximity of the proposed additional reviews from the bedroom to significantly impact his property value. his suggested alternative is reduce mass of third floor. public comment staff received no letters in opposition or support. staff recommendation is based on advisory team this design complies with guidelines related to building massing at the rear and access to mid block open
space because the proposed addition is set back 6.5 feet from the requester's property line and extends to the adjacent neighbor to the east. sits over the existing footprint of the building such that it retains visual access to the medblock open space from the add adjacent properties. property views are not protected by the guidelines. staff recommends not taking dr and approving. there are no extraordinary conditions. this concludes my presentation. i am here to answer questions. thank you. >> good evening. i see am renee hole. >> are you the d.r. requester? >> you have to wait. >> i see am sorry. i didn't realize that.
>> the d.r. requester will present first. then if you are a sponsor you can come up after. >> good evening. i live in the house for seven or eight years with my wife and baby. this is one of the rooms where we it is with our baby. it is going to impact our pleasure of the house as well as parents come to live with us often enough. that is why we requested to the height and subsequent i spoke to my neighbor and she is going to present her case as well. >> your neighbor is going to present your case? >> you are done with your presentation? we will before you come up we need to take public comment from anyone who agrees with the d.r.
requester. okay. since there is none. you can go. >> please forgive me for not knowing the appropriate procedure. >> is she the project sponsor? >> no, i don't believe she is. >> i am sorry. i don't understand who is who. >> let me explain. i am the one who is most impacted by the proposed remodeling. i live in the middle of the block around the corner from 1100 broad rick to 1120-1122 broad rick. it is a two unit building. my co-owner had a stroke. she is in her early 80s. in two months i shall be 90. i have here a picture of the
existing building from my kitchen window. this is a drawing which we were able to get from the designers, and in a letter on the 30th of april i said i had no objection except that i wanted to see that the extension were not on so deep. apparently this letter of the 30th of april never got to anybody, even though i addressed it to the planning commission. if you take a look at this drawing, you can see that it comes up to about here and it
cuts off daylight from my windows considerably, and is the sun goes at an angle, i will get very little sunlight except maybe once each day. i have here a picture of my existing thing and a photograph with black lines what i would consider for me a healthy adjustment which would mean the line of the roof in the proposed building would not be so high. what can i say? i am nearly 90. my friend had a stroke. she is in her early 80s.
we have had no communications with the owner or with the architect to try to let us know what they were planning to do. if it hadn't been for reuben i wouldn't have had a clue. i did give a condition approval. gentlemen and lady, that is what i have to say. do you want to take this letter? >> i can accept that. just leave it there. >> would you take these pictures, please? thank you very much. >> thank you very much. since we have no public comment in support of the dr requester we will hear from the project sponsors.
>> good evening. i am the architect for 1980 eddy street. what we are proposing is a rear addition. this is the existing deck area, three story deck. the proposed design does not go past the line of the deck or adjacent house to the east. we have held back our building 6' 6 be inches in the property line the d.r. requester's window is here. 35 feet to where our bathroom begins. this is approximately 30 feet here. the distance there. there are no windows on this wall right here. all of the windows are back
here. this drawing north is up on the drawing. it shows light coming through. there is plenty of light from the south coming this way. in fact these two buildings cast more shadow to the mid block than we actually would. the third floor addition is expansion for the growing family there and for the addition of the unit below is for to add a unit to the housing stock. also, i have here with me the owner of the home to speak now. >> evening, commissioners. i am a fifth generation bay yore z area i have been in san francisco 25 years. i am a schoolteacher, my husband is a chef. we have two children in the public schools.
we love the schools and neighborhood. we need more space. we have decided not to move outside of the city and hopefully to do expansion of our property. thank you. >> thank you. you still have a couple minutes. do we have any public comment in support of the project sponsor? case is submitted. d.r. requester you get two minute rebuttal. if you would like. >> so my case i stated i lived in the city for almost 20 years. i came from a different country, this is my home and i have been living there with my family and
kids. i believe that this expansion is going to significantly impact my home value. i requested merely -- [ inaudible ] >> okay. thank you. project sponsor you have two minute rebuttal as well, if you want to add anything else. >> i think we started this process knowing that we were sensitive to the house being victorian and the mid block light and air. we made choices. our planning input to pull the house away from the west neighbors and higher elevation than we are. i feel like we have done a lot
to already address the light and air access for the whole neighborhood. that is what we did. >> thank you. okay. that is it. commissioner fong. >> this is probably not as much as what the neighbors would like to see, the addition in the rear has a shed roof and a higher ceiling than the rest of the spaces. there could be if that was a flat roof that was say 9-foot clear space in there, that would reduce the addition probably several feet. do you agree? >> i do. >> which is probably not as much
as what the d.r. request errands neighbor would like to see but it does reduce it a little bit. otherwise, the addition and everything else is pretty minimal in terms of the length of the lot. i am supportive of the expansion but perhaps with a minor tweak. >> commissioner richards. >> can you put that in the form of a motion please. >> move to grant and to approve the project with modification of the rear from a shed roof to a flat roof allowing the interior to have a 9-foot clear. is that sufficient?
>> second. >> if i understand correctly take dr and approof the project as proposed with following modification for the rear shed roof -- alter the shed roof to flat providing interior 9-foot clearance floor to ceiling height. (roll call). >> so moved that passes unanimously 4-0. >> we are adjourned. his voice o
momentarily. this is a regular meeting of the commission on community investment and infrastructure. the successor agency commission to the for tuesday, september 17, 2019. welcome to members of the public. madam secretary, please call the first item. >> the first item of business is roll call. please respond when i call your name. [role call] the next order of business is
item two, announcements. the next regularly scheduled commission meeting will be held on tuesday, october 1, 2019 at 1:00 pm (city hall, room 416). announcement of prohibition of sound producing electronic devices during the meeting. please be advised that the ringing of and use of cell phones, pagers and similar soundproducing electronic devices are prohibited at this meeting. please be advised that the chair may order the removal from the meeting room of any person(s) responsible for the ringing of or use of a cell phone, pager, or other similar sound-producing electronic device. a member of the public has three minutes to make pertinent public comments on each item unless the commission adopts a shorter time frame on any item. strongly recommended that members of the public who wish to address the commission fill out a speaker card and submit a card to the commission secretary.
no reportable actions. the next order of business is item four, matters of unfinished business. there are no matters of unfinished business. the next order of business is item five, matters of new business consisting of consent and regular agenda. approval of minutes from the regular meeting of july 16, and august 6, 2019. >> do we have any speaker cards? >> no for this item. >> closed public comment. hello commissioners, do we have any comments or edits to the minutes? >> no. >> of july 16, and august 6? no. may i have a motion? >> yes, i move that the minutes be accepted. >> the motion has been made by
commissioner scott seconded by president bustos. [role call] >> the consent agenda is adopted. madam secretary can you call the next item. >> the next order of business is regular agenda item 5b. authorizing a fourth grant disbursement agreement with the mexican museum, a california non-profit corporation, and 706 mission street co llc, a delaware limited liability company, in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000, for tenant improvements for a new museum facility at the 706 mission street project, pursuant to a december 14, 2010 grant agreement between the museum and the successor agency; former yerba buena center project area (discussion and action)(resolution no. 24-2019)
madam director? >> thank you. this item before you is a request for disbursement, since the approval of the grant agreement, we have had three disbursements, and this will be the fourth. the crest -- the request before you for a million dollars to assist with the partial funding for the museum. with that, we have representatives here. >> thank you. good afternoon. i am develop services manager, i am here before you today to present a grant funding request. with me, are representatives from both the mexican museum and
706 mission street company. the developer for the 706 mission project. andrew kluger who is the chair of the board of directors of the mexican museum and market for our from 706 mission street, he is a project manager. i will provide a brief overview of the project, and the current grant disbursement request and then turn it over for discussion. as you know -- there we go, the project is located in in yerba buena center. which the agency helped assemble and develop over the years into a the cultural district that you know today. the last remaining undeveloped parcel is the mexican museum site. that is shown here on central block one. here is an an aerial view.
and reggie 706 mission street site, which combines it with a building that was purchased by millennium partners. there is a long trajectory to the history of this project. in 2013, ocii entered into a purchase and sale agreement with millennium for a mixed use project on that combined site. the project started construction in 2016. in overview, the develop a program for this project includes 190 units of condominiums, and a 480-foot tower. the build out of the korn shell of about a 48,000 square-foot museum space and the four floors. the developer is responsible for building that shell and transferring it to the city. also, part of the project is historical preservation of the aaronson building on the ownership and operation of the
garage. you see renderings of the project. as i mentioned, this is the last project and fulfillment of the yerba buena cultural district. we contributed the land and the garage. the developer provide significant community benefits, including the construction of the shell of this museum space. when it is completed, it will be deeded over to the city and the city will lease it to the museum. the mexican museum will be responsible for the design, and construction of tenant improvements. ocii has approximately 7.1 million available to fund those. the balance will be the responsibility of the museum there is a recent photo showing construction of the tower. in terms of status today.
the construction completion is anticipated in 2020 with initial delivery of the residential condominium units in approximately april or may of this year, and delivery of the museum space to the city, in the summer of 2020. in terms of the public art. when the project was approved it was approved by the city's planning department and it had to meet the requirements under the planning code including article four which was the provision of either on-site public art, or a contribution. the developer and the museum jointly proposed that the public art fee be applied to a façade screen. which was a unique public artwork worth roughly $3 million. here's a rendering of the façade screen. it basically wraps the four-story condominium.
that brings us to the grant request today. the former agency of the museum entered into a grant agreement, in 2,010 to help fund museums portions of its cost for tenants portions of this mixed use project within the 706 mission street project. the total grant agreement arouns $10.5 million, 2.78 has been disbursed for predevelopment costs to date, approximately 7.8 [of that the current request would utilize at 1 million to fund the museum's portion of the façade screen. the grant agreement itself has a ten year term and expires in december of 2020. the joint request that is before you today would be to access
funds for the museum's portion of the façade screen. in light of the fact that the developer has taken on the obligation for the design fabrication and construction of the façade screen, the proposed grant disbursement agreement would disperse 1 million grant funds directly to the developer, on behalf of the museum pursuant to the budget contained in the disbursement agreement. the final budget for the total cost of the façade screen approximately 3.6 million. the developer would be contributing their public art fee, plus some cost allowance savings for approximately $2.6 million and the museum would contribute the remaining amount of $1 million due to the grant disbursement agreement. the grant agreement -- itself includes provisions related to compliance with the policies and programs, including the small business enterprise program. which both the museum and the developer are complying with.
they have been working closely with our contact compliance team to date. the approval of the fourth grant disbursement agreement would be in compliance of the 2,010 grant agreement. the proposed use of funds is consistent with the grant, and the fourth disbursement agreement would include or does include a budget and the roles and responsibilities of each party and the mechanisms for disbursement and compliance. if the commission approves this request the parties will move forward to complete the façade screen and disburse the million dollars in funds by the summer, june 2020. this concludes the presentation. thanks for your time and we are available to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you. madam secretary do we have any cards? >> yes, we have oscar james.
>> good afternoon commissioners, director. my name is oscar james, i'm a native resident of hunters point, san francisco california. when this proposal was first brought to the redeveloping agency, in 2010, it seems like it was longer than that. ramon was one of the commissioners that was sitting up there at that particular time. we had other commissioners sitting up there, at the same time. there was a lot of people that did not want this to come to fruition. i stated then, and i state it now this city should allow any any race, religion, arts
commission if they desire to have arts commission and the city and county of san francisco. it was a big fight about some of the commissioners did not want it. it did pass. this city, san francisco is built on the mexican-americans, in the city and county of san francisco. this country as a whole, before the mexican war, before the alamo, all of this was mexican territory. they have a right to have a museum here, in san francisco. the only thing i ask for them to do is give some of the history of san francisco what it means to the whole united states. what they have done here in san francisco. all of those people trying to come back to california, the mexican-americans, they deserve to have the right to be here this is their country first. i don't care what kind of war takes place, where you move
people out, what have you. this is their land. you have a lot of mexican-americans who built mission dolores. the country did not start in 1776, it was way before 1776, and they were here. i would like for them to give the history of the bay area, the fights that they have done in san francisco, how they made san francisco, san francisco. i am just glad that this is happening. to me it is taking too long. i give credit to the mexican-american people. god bless you all. >> thank you. no more speaker cards. >> thank you. public comment is closed. i turned to my we have any questions for staff? >> have no questions, just the comments that i am thankful for the work that you have done, and
the plans that you have going forward. i totally agree with mr. oscar james, and i am thankful for hilda scott. thank you for your report. i approve. >> this is a motion? >> yes, i would like to move that we authorize a fourth grant disbursement agreement with the mexican museum. >> have a question, is there a second? the chair booster is a second. i have a question, i didn't see in the packet about the small business participation. i think the numbers are impressive. i would like to know who the professional services providers are? >> i am the contract contract supervisor with ocii.
the project started off with a consultant team of about 12 consulting firms with a participation of 66.8%. there was a joint venture with a/d architecture. i do want to note, however, because of the duration of time, and changes in some of the firms has now been merged with harkins and wales. the joint venture is no longer in effect. we have been, in recent conversations with the mexican museum their attorney, in terms of looking at the replacement. what has been brought forth to us as a hispanic firm, as a replacement for the architect. we expect that the participation will remain above 50%.
>> thank you. on construction -- i guess i am reading 22.9, is that accurate? >> that is correct. this is the construction of the tower itself, not the mexican museum. the museum itself will be putting forth bids when the leaseholds aren't contemplated. >> okay. you have a comment as to why it is 22.9%? it seems kind of low -- is it just because of the nature of the work? >> unfortunately it has to do a lot with the tower constructions that we have talked about in recent times. just the magnitude of work, and the different type of work with respect to type one constructi
construction. the participation of small businesses, while there are quite a number of small businesses, their level of participation is not a 50%. approximately 30 small businesses that are participating. the largest package that i see, in terms of dollar amounts is about $7.5 million. >> i would like to have a report, not at this time, typically the kind we receive f -- with our packages, and the details. thank you. >> the item has been moved by commissioner scott and seconded by chair bustos. [role call]
>> the item has been approved. thank you. please call the next item. >> the next order of business is agenda item five c. workshop on the amendment to the recognized obligation payment schedule for january 1, 2020 to june 30, 2020 including the administrative budget for the successor agency and supporting documentation. madam director? >> thank you. the item before you is an amendment to the 19-20. back in january we had held a workshop, for the commission, as well as a workshop on approval for submittal to the department of finance, by february 1. we did submit, but we got pushed back in terms of specific requests related to our pledge agreements. when we do estimates, we had allowed through the recognition
of the payment schedule for the controller to transfer actual receipts. the response back to us in approving, they gave us feedback that that is not allowed if we had to approve drop -- it does not allow us to construct the controller to disburse to the agency over what was approved. what we are proposing to do today, is have the commission hear the item, which is subject to oversight approval and ask that we make to public finance based on information, from the controller, under the certificate of assessed valuation that shows an increase in property tax revenues generated in the three project areas beyond what was in the original approved draft. today we will be working through
the specific line items and changes we are proposing with regards to the amendment. we are typically allowed to do this in september for submittal in october. >> good afternoon. i am the financial reporting management analysis -- analysi analysis -- analyst for ocii. ab 26 requires the agency to create the roth, sb-107 requires a time period to amend for the 12 month period. no later than october 1. resubmitted to the department of finance on february 1. we received approval on may 17.
on the ninth we presented the workshop to the oversight board. we are here before you present in the workshop on the amendments for the oversight board will be taking action on the 23rd and submitting the amendment to the department of finance by the end of the month. this is just a reminder of the funding. we have the proceeds, reserve balances, other development payments on grants and we have the redevelopment property tax trust fund, add and non- admin. you can see the total requested increase is $53.24 million this is non- admin. again, when we submitted this earlier this year, we had used estimates. then we receive the finalize property tax role from the assessors in august of 2019. we are amending to updated figures.
we receive had just used straight-line projections for our estimates. we had a number of projects come online. we've also built a model for more robust property tax increment calculations and projections moving forward. again, the total increase is $53.24 million which brings the total to $461.45 million and this will be used for the construction of infrastructure and approved housing areas. this table shows the requested increase by our uses. we have 16.33 in our affordable housing, plus this will be used to fund projects and our pipeline for future years. we also have the remainder of the increase that will be used to reimburse developers for infrastructure already constructed in the art project areas.
again, this is used to pay for ocii funded affordable housing. here we are just showing this will be used to read -- [inaudible] we wanted to show the net impact to our different project areas. here we have a table showing the impact in mission bay. you can see the 34.38 is driving the requested increase, because of some major projects like the chase center and the uber office building that will be coming online. here we are showing the net impact, this is reflecting where we sent project completions and the infrastructure pledge line 102 will be transferred to
support the terminal. here we have the increase to the shipyard, hunters point shipya shipyard, it is a $.9 million increase, primarily for flex and adjustment for inflations. off of the gross tax incremental amount, 20% of the top goes for taxing entities, 20% goes to ocii housing, and the remainder this group we are requesting in our amendment will not adversely impact the tax amenities because the shares are being constant. there is no budget amendment required because it is only an increase in the revenues, and not the expenditures. budget amendments are only required for changes and expenditures. these funds will fall to fund balance and be programmed for our out years.
this is just the next steps. the oversight board will take action on the item, we will submit our amendment on september 30, that concludes the presentation. >> thank you. >> any speaker cards? >> we have one speaker card, oscar james. >> mr. james. he is waving hello, and goodbye, and waving his right -- so no more speaker cards. this is a workshop? there is no action. this is an opportunity for questions, or comments, reflections. [laughter] commissioners?
any questions? >> thank you for your report. >> the only question i have, just because it is a nagging question. this is essentially money in? >> yes. an increase in our revenues. >> not estimated to come in actual money that has been scheduled or has been collected? >> yes. we have collections from august, and it is an estimate for january. it is a more robust as that we had initially submitted. >> i think you address this, it's just a curiosity, our original projections were more on the conservative side, because, you know there is lot of things that can happen during the year.
>> s, it was more on the preservative side -- conservative side. we did this in the fall of 2018. we would include, in our rough notes, these are estimates, but anything over would be distributed to us, but because of the decision to keep it to what is actually requested, we revisited our assumptions about our estimates. >> okay. yeah, because obviously if we can capture as much as possible, it's better to have it on the front and. -- end. i think it is very impressive actually. when you look at this picture, every area has increased. i don't have any other questio questions. it is a no action item. thank you. please call the next item. >> the next order of business item no. 6, public comment on
non-agenda items. members of the public may address the commission on matters that are within the commission jurisdiction and not on today's calendar. each speaker shall have up to three minutes to make pertinent public comments unless the commission adopts a shorter period. it is strongly recommended that members of the public who wish to address the commission fill out a "speaker card" and submit the completed card to the commission secretary. i have one speaker card. oscar james. >> oscar james again. i don't want to take up too much of your time. what i wanted to speak on. we are having a meeting, thursday night, pertaining to the seawall that is going around the city. the city is going to do their part, both the navy has not committed to putting a seawall up in the shipyard. i want to bring that to you guys attention, that we need a seawall in hunters.shipyard. we would like for you guys to support it. the other thing i do, and i have
done for years, things that really matter to me about hunters point, or any area, as far as that goes, i always get a package. besides getting a package, i also go downstairs and i get a dvd. they stopped making dvds, and oscar james is not up to recording. i would like for you guys to have them downstairs, make dvds for the public, because i keep my record read when i come up here to speak, or someone comes up here to speak, i can go back to that dvd and see what was g gay, or what was nay. it is important to me to see what has been happening in these meetings but i've been coming to these meetings i came and there was no minorities in this commission.
we flipped over desks, and everything else, to get you guys here in our communities. i am proud of what the outcome has came to be. i need to have a record, just like if someone would say today, what happened in the hunters point shipyard, when he first closed, i was on the task force on what we wanted the city to come in and do it, the city didn't want to do anything in the hunters point shipyard. mr. soul, the director at that particular time, the only thing he wanted to do was bring a coal train into hunters point shipyard. we told them in a kind hunter's point way. hunter's point came up then with different programs, we wanted to go into hunter's point shipyar
shipyards. the city decided they would sell that, the officers club and the hotel restaurant for young community developers, fenced off out at partial e. i can go back to those tapes and say what was said back then. it is important to me to have a record of ocii, or the redeveloping agency and what you say, what you don't say. when i get out into the community, and the good lord give me another 70 years to be here, i can tell what happened here at this commission and hope some young people start coming to these meetings so they can take it further. what you are doing is important, and it is good. if we don't have a record of in communities of what is happeni happening, you know, no sense coming here. it is fruitless. i would ask, i would beg, even
though they are doing a good job downstairs i would like to get a dvd from them. they told me how to go about on the thing, and tape it. like i say come on out into. my grandkids is into that, so are my young kids, but i am not. thank you very much. >> no more speaker cards madam vice chair. >> thank you for the comment. please call the next item. >> the next order of business is item seven, report of the chair. >> i don't think the chair has a report. >> the next order of business is item eight, report of the executive director madam director? >> none at this time. i do want to acknowledge, since our last meeting, the chase center open and it was a huge success. they've had a few concerts be mitigated. i want to thank everyone for their work on item nine,