tv Government Access Programming SFGTV May 15, 2019 12:00pm-1:01pm PDT
agreements for as needed real estate economic services were awarded in 2016 valued at $500,000 each lasting to june to to 2020. those funds have been expended. we issue a request to solicit proposals for a new pool of consultants. on february 5, we held the meeting at pier 1. there were 26 individuals in attendance. we are satisfied with the turnout. we convened panel members that included the senior project manager, business development manager from the mayor's office and meghan wallace, the port finance director made up the
panel. the list was provided to and approved by the contract division. the submit deadline march 1st we received seven proposals. the first step is to review each proposal with compliance with minimum qualifications. one firm concourse was nonresponsive for failure to meet the requirements. r.f.q. was two phases. written was 100 points, five of the remaining six firms scored over 75 points and invited to oral interviews. they were worth 100 pounds. top 4-h th four with the final difficulties. >> we are recommending the four
highest ranked four. three of those are incumbent firms. keyser marston is the exception. staff and i met with the losing firms to review score sheets and provide feedback on streps and -- on strengths. we did not receive any protests regarding the evaluation processor the selected teams. presenters from bae are here today. it is a minority owned firm with offices nationwide including berkeley. it is a prime consultant on the contract. 14% l.b.e. goal they are projected to close at 20% due to contract services with the maritime division.
bae provided financial visibility. they supported economic impact study, provided development support on the research park in mountain view. eps are here. they are in oakland. they are an incumbent firm with real estate experience that including the pier 70 master point and redevelopment of treasure island. their current lb participation is 14% they will close at 22%. keyser marston is on pier 70 with the harbour project and alameda, california. they committed to subcontract 18% of the contract work to l.b.e. firms.
receive el consulting is woman owned. it -- seifel are at 18%. they have supported us with alcatraz lease negotiations and financial visibility and cost estimating and real estate economic support on the revitalization project. if you award the projects today we will issue the notices to proceed by mid-june. contracts are scheduled for completion in 2023. in conclusion we respectfully request you award the real estate economics to bae, economic and planning, keyser marston and seifel consulting. each is $750,000 with a four year term and option to extend for one year. i am joined today by rebecca
from our real estate division and the contract monitoring division is here and representatives from the winning teams are available to answer your questions. thank you for your time. that concludes my presentation. >> can i have a motion? >> second. >> any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> thank you for the presentation. it is good that we are obviously dealing with known firms with experience with us already. my question relates, i guess, higher landscape level to understand. as we have been awarding these contracts out over the years. this is not the first time we are presented with this proposal. how much of the work do we think is volume related? we don't have enough staff to do
the work? how much of the work is specific expertise we lack? the third part of the question is related to as we work with the buttants we get mar-- with the consultants we get smarter and our reliance factor changes over time as we absorb or hopefully that is the way to work with them so we do work and can absorb more and can be more self-reliant in the future. my questions are more at that level than to question if we need the contracts but to understand where we are headed with these over the longer term. >> i will start to answer that question then give it to rebuckca. -- rebecca. one of the things part of it is the third-party validation requirement as well. even if we have staff that can beautifully run the models and we do and understand the
financial analysis when we have such high value economic proposals we want the third-party validation. the staff can perform much of the work and performs a lot of the work we rely on the third party to double and triple check because there is such value in the deals. we want to make sure the public agency is not leaving money on the table. i will turn it over to rebecca. >> i completely agree. volume definitely as we contemplate the items before us at mission rock and pier 70 going quickly. we have r.f.p.s that we are working on. we see tremendous volume of work and the way i feel comfortable telling my husband i will be home at night. we will rely on assistance to
accomplish a lot more with the firms. third-party validation and valuable thing we get is negotiating tool that is helpful to have information that they can bring to bear to ordeals to use to the negotiation table that would take us a long time to come up with other examples we use in our negotiations. >> i should comment. i think our staff you are all competent and what you show us in open and closed session you do your homework, analysis is strong. i have confidence in that. i want to say that for the record. yes, i understand the argument of third party validation. i hope that each time we learn something from the outside source we are getting smarter and smarter. we are learned a lot of lessons and we are smarter to do business. that should be the ongoing goal
of continuous improvement and learning here. that is all i have to say. >> >> commissioner makras: i support the item. >> thank you for the presentation. have they given us l.b.e. goals for this? >> yes, the you contracting goal -- subcontracting goal is 13%. >> what is the goal of 21%. >> the previous contract. the current contract is 20% goal and i was giving you a look at how well these incumbent firms did to meet the existing goal. the goal for this contract is 13%. >> the existing firms, none have reached that goal but yet we have one out of money? >> they will meet the goal at the end of the contract life.
when we take a snapshot today. two firms are at 14%. those are payments and not work invoiced to date and work done to complete the existing service order. we can project that each of the existing firms will meet their l.b.e. obligations on the existing contract. >> on here you have it at 20%. it is actually 21%? >> the existing i think the existing subcontracting goal is 20. i can confirm that for you. >> they will all meet 20% by the end? >> yes representatives of the contracted monitoring division are also here. when l.b.e. goals are not met, the contract monitoring division has the ability to define or submit penalties to firms that
don't meet the goals to balance that. >> then when they fine them, where does the money go? >> to the general fund. >> okay. so you will report back if they do or don't meet that goal? >> yes. >> why was it 20% now 13%? >> because of the new scope of work. when this contract moved from the former planning and development division to the real estate and development division we lost a lot of the planning services and architectural service was the waterfront land use update and that had a higher l.b.e. available. the real estate economics and lease negotiation and site planning has fewer firms to
provide that work and lower l.b.e. goal. >> i guess i understand that. but the amount is the same? the amount of the contract is the same? >> the previous contract ability was $500,000. these contracts are $700,000. >> increasing with a lower goal. interesting. what can we do as a commission, as the port commission? >> i think that a lot of the outreach work we have been doing is helpful to get firms that aren't currently certified certified who do the work but not for the city is one. breaking up the work they have done as good as they can to reach a smaller pool of qualified l.b.e. firms. any other items?
>> always trying to encourage new firms to be certified and at preproposal conferences we encourage the l.b.e.s that do attend if they are providing new services to become certified. when c and d settings the goal or requirement for the project we work with port staff to ensure we understand the changing nature of the demands of the upcoming as needed projects, and with consultation with port staff the l.b.e. participation requirement was lowered. >> this is for planning, for real estate? >> for real estate. >> what we come back for
planning the goal will go up? >> that's correct. >> okay. i will look for it. >> i have a question. rebecca you mentioned the volume of the work. sometimes we try to also get our developers and their proposal to help us with the funding. how much of these contracts are they subject to where we might have the developers help us with the funding so they are not purely port funds by themselves, is that correct? >> that is a very good point. i don't have a number but i can come up with that. much of the work will be funded by mission rock and pier 70 development if we are successful for the seawall and we select the developer then we would have them reimburse us for outside costs such as the consulting
contract. at print we have three developers that reimburse us. going forward once we have more developers we would put that in any negotiating agreement we sign. >> that is part of the increase? >> yes. >> when we put up the rfi or r.f.p. we get the feedback we are not addressing it as fast as possible because we have our own constraints and not just throwing resources to do more. it increases capacity of taft. by using third parties consultants to stretch resources and be able to do more at a faster pace which is something we are interested in doing if we can. >> that's right.
>> i'm not sure who might be able to answer it. i have a harder problem saying we can't go from 13% to 15% or 15 to 18 or 22%. if you just take one of the contracts at $750,000 anal locate the 13% it is $97,500. there are some firms willing to take this work and do it. are we being told if we give them $150,000 worth of work they don't have the capacity to do it? >> that is a question for c and d. >> commissioner, when an l.b.e. firm is certified, the firm isn't certified on its capacity. they don't know the capacity of the firm, it is up to the firm to take on the work that they are offered, they ensure that
they delivered the product in a timely and quality manner. i can actually speak for the l.b.e.s on what their capacity is. they may be working on a different city projects. the consultants who are sitting here today would better be able to answer that question. i can only read through it that the l.b.e. requirement was lower through consultation with port staff and with the understanding of the limited number of l.b.e.s who are certified in the specific disciplines or anticipated disciplines for the projected work for this new contract. >> could we not answer the question. 13% is the minimum. if someone was able to do
$150,000 of the contract and the consultant felt they would give them the work. there is no reason they wouldn't get the $150,000. that is the minimum bar. we have had contracts in the past which exceed the l.b.e. requirement. you know, we could do that and the president is encouraging us to exceed it. if you can exceed it there is no reason you can't exceed. it is the minimum the way i think about it. >> that is right it is the minimum. >> it is on the port is strenuously working to try to increase the l.b.e. participation on the csos to be sure they max mine the work. >> we can see with the existing
contracts no one is breaking their neck. we are trying to figure outweighs to help encourage more participation from the l.b.e.s. >> these programs have good results. as warranted as a few companies are for going over. our goals pushes participation and it is policies that we implement that are the results of the success of these programs. we have never -- i have never seen the port staff come ring the bell and say the contract or is out of the ballpark in meeting the goals. for all intense and purposes we meet them. generally speaking they are a met goal. >> some go over and some come in
and some we struggle to have them meet through contract compliance. it is across the board. our l.b.e. grades are high. last report we were at 40%. over 40% and sometimes over 50%. we strive to go over. where we have success is micro set aside contracts. when we set aside the work for micro-lbes that is why we can achieve those. this is certified for the l.b.e. to do this type of work and the goal is reduced. >> i understand how you got there. i don't agree the depth is not in the marketplace. if the commission wanted a
different pace number, i would be supportive of that. >> if we have to do a set aside to achieve that, maybe we can. there are firms out there. >> do you have the list of mikeo and l.b.e.s certified in this arena, how many we are talking about. >> i don't have it at hand but i will be happy to get it to you. >> if there is a number to amend it. i am happy to table top the number. my simple equation says if there is enough for $97,500 worth of
work we can set a number of $120,000. it is arbitrary. someone can demonstrate the marketplace cannot do the work. that is the cap to go by. >> i don't think we can a the l.b.e. -- amend the goal. only cmd sets the goals, we don't do it. i am trying to think what we could do at this point. >> it's frustrating with professional services we have issues with l.b.e. participation. it is frustrating that is goal has gone down but the amount of contract and work has gone up. that is frustrating. i'm not quite sure what our options are. i don't want to take away from
the firms that bid on this. they are great. we have done wonderful work with them over the years. i think it is a policy level. when year after year when it comes to professional services, real estate or planning, construction management we hit it out of the park. professional services we have issues with availability -- well not just availability but getting firms to bid or getting our primary firms to bring in l.b.e. firms. it is just, you know, how long is this for, four years? i'm sorry. public comment is closed. >> we can take separate
informational discussion at some point to understand the status of professional services of san francisco. if you step back to think about it. we have had a very strong sort of real estate and construction market. that has not made perhaps working for the city as interesting as it might be going forward. we need to understand what staining stage we are. there may be firms out there but they find working in the private sector is easier and therefore they haven't been as interested in city contracts. we need to just -- we are just making assumptions and guessing. we need facts to understand if this is an availability issue, interest issue, and outreach issue. we are jumping to conclusions without knowing. >> generally speaking we would do an open house and bring in people interested in the work
who are not certified or look to the the listing to see who is fallen off and taking work and do the analysis for like engineering where we were struggling with the ads needed which has changed with the last go around. that was a lot of groundwork to see who is not coming in, who do we need to get certified working through cmd. we haven't laid that groundwork to say this is the number. we haven't done the outreach to see how we could grow it. maybe firms are engaged in private sector of business and they have lost faith in the city process and they have given up and they could be brought back to the table. this is what we have done in other communities. we could pursue effort in this
preceding four year period. we will encourage our primes to do better with their teams and we can get that message as well. do you have any other ideas for us, rebecca? >> we have one firm with an 18% goal. that is kma. i think that, you know, it is the change in scope, lease negotiations. there are fewer firms. this is a small community of firms that provide this. it is really the same firms and the same l.b.e. subcontracting person. we always do our outreach events and we will continue to push and to widen the net on these firms. >> thank you.
i really appreciate everyone's involvement and all of the effort going into increasing the pool. i am encouraged that we are going to continue to do better. with that all in favor. resolution 1919 has been approved. >> 12a informational presentation of draft amendments to update the waterfront plan for public review and comment and approval of resolution dedicating the pier 52 public boat launch in memory of waterfront plan working group member corinne woods. >> good afternoon. i am diane with the planning and environment division representing the waterfront plan team. we are here to give you a preview of the water front plan.
i am sorry i don't have it to give to you today. i wanted to give you this heads up. we have been before you several times to give you th the steps through which the whole waterfront plan working group worked to develop recommendations that you endorsed. we are at work to get that through the production process to produce the plan. i want to acknowledge a number of working group members here today. i thank them for coming. janice lee sends regrets she can't join us but we will go ahead anyway. the waterfront plan as you may recall. there were 161 recommendations the working group brought to you that you endorsed. there are additional policies in the plan right now. the staff's work is about trying
to take the existing policies, figuring which ones need updated, which are obsolete and bringing in the new content the working group brought plus working with the city departments. there are a number of city departments that have taken place over 20 years. we have put this together in the update of the plan. there are nine portwide goals in the plan as it is updated now, two more than what the 1997 version of the original plan set forth. i am going to walk through those goals and give you a flavor for the content that is covered. number one, th the maritime goao maintain the businesses here in san francisco. prop h which required this plan really requires the port
commission and port to give first priority to maritime uses and focus on the piers and shoreline areas, and the waterfront plan has always gone further to include all of the port's properties, always gave first priority to the maritime needs. this working maritime port has been a central point from whichault of the other topics -- which all of the other topics tried to balance around. some of the topics are not just the categories of the industries, but how do we generate capital for maritime improvements? how do we balance birthing and public access on the piers? how do we provide for water recreation which has found popularity? how do we prepare for cleaner
maritime industries so we can have clean fuel cargo ships? that gives you the plan. >> diversity of activities in people. the objective is a diverse range of activities. not just maritime or recreational and entertainment but also work. the port has been a place of work so the waterfront plan is trying to find ways to work with the city's policies, stay within the public trust responsibilities but still offer a broad diversity of activities to keep the waterfront vibrant in this urban edge. that said, we have also the need for interim leases. these are all germane to
proposition h requirement that dictated need for acceptable land uses. it will set forth the tables based on these port-wide policies. clearly there is a lot of progress made on the open space network front. if you compare this with 20 years ago i it is inspiring to e what is done to bring a connected waterfront network across the miles. the embarcadero and the parks have been memorialized in the updates. largely the planned network of open spaces is complete. there is one new major open
space investment identified to create a plaza behind us another -- behind us. thathat is the civic center of e waterfront there is a case to get the funds for that over time. that said, there is a lot of discussions had about how do we try to use the parks and public open spaces more actively, more interestingly to offer more recreational opportunities and the policies and plan update will speak to that as well. >> urban design, historic preservation. these frame a lot of what we consider to be the desirable types of additions we want along the waterfront? the 20 years two national
register historic districts at pier 70 and the embarcadero. those have given clear thinking how we bring about vitalization and balance the historic maritime heritage the public clearly values. the water front plan has two volumes. one has the urban se design ande land use policies are in another. the update will collapse them all under one cover. a lot of work is being done to get the policies organized. financially strong port. all of the work to set up the stable and comprehensive capital planning and budgeting system is
a helpful thing recognized in the plan and the topic of a lot of deep discussions with the public during the public planning process. it is that way that they were able to understand the financial feasibility requirements and the necessity of revenues that has driven a lot of the discussion that we hope the policies incorporated will be instrumental in real change. with that comes the responsibilities for making sure there is an economic opportunity, equity extended to all sectors of our community, to make sure that everybody has a space at the table to participate in the benefits. transportation. a lot of discussion about transportation, congestion,
parking, transportation demand management, safety, bicycles on the embarcadero. we had all of the transportation agencies participate in the meetings. the underlying concern for the port is that those relationships with the agencies are the most fundamental to make improvements on the waterfront. the port has very little or no control over those systems. it is to make sure our objectives are in line for increases in services that we need. for the port, i think one of the things to flag for our attention is that we do still have industrial and maritime uses. some of those requirements we need for the car go in the fishing has been a ton pick we
will continue to have to keep out there because there is a move for pedestrian and bicycle access, but did safety issues of making sure we can still have a working maritime port are in the policies and the transportation goal. environmental sustainability. the port, i think, through many of the presentations that carol brought to the commission previously starts to reveal the depth of the environmental sustainability and management stewardship programs that weren't fully revealed until this planning process. this is one of the new ones we are highlighting to talk about the different faces to talk about somewhat i would means on the waterfront. they are about operations and smart, clean responsible
operations as well as habitat and wildlife management and making sure we address the coming regulatory needs for cleaner air emissions, soil management to make sure we are doing right by the bay and the ecoal gee. the more we -- ecology. the more we help ourselves on the resilience front. i don't need to go into how much energy the working on behalf of the city and the sea wall and flood study. the water front plan working group has recognized that the recommendations they put forth are not intended to be the solutions for the seawall or sea level rise but to provide input
as to what are the things the public values so our planning efforts will take those into account when coming up with different solutions. the sea wall program to strengthen adapt and envision framework highlights where we are now with the water front and the types of investing to be made put us into this adapt straited gory. how do we make it other adaptable? the port will be a laboratory of solutions. what does adapt look like? what is working well? hopefully that will help all us understand better how to make resilience work. to do all of that, partnering.
this is another new goal that is being added to the plan specifically focused on what it means to work together and to be truly inclusive to expand all of our equity programs to make sure all populations that don't typically get to come to the port there is still a way to reach out to them. it including business and public agency partners, state lands commission, staff is a true partner walking through us on all of the long meetings to align our public trust interest and the work with the city to align it with the city's land use and policy interest as well. these communities for community
part he neverring include process steps for lease and development proposals. that we would cover for the embarcadero appear 30-32, and taking it to the next level those were the nine silos of gold i was trying to go through. those goals drive statements what it is we are trying to achieve along the waterfront. there arthere are five. pier 35 to 14 including the ferry building, south beach to china basin and then south of china basin we have mission bay which is largely developed all
right. then th the southern waterfront. we will talk how the portwide policies apply to those areas, and there will be a map that shows all of the properties and a table acceptable land uses for each of the properties located within those sub areas. in terms of schedule going forward working on the production. we have a team of staff working on this. we expect to have the plan out in early june, and we will provide a copy to the commission and the working group members. we would like to spend time with those who spent the most time in all of the meetings before we
take it out to the public outreach and solution it is public comments and address questions. we will buy planning -- be planning to meet with advisory group members in late june. which we will send out a broad public notice to meet would people to educate about the plan. payment we are working to get environmental review process up and running. i think i saw team members who will be helping on take front as well as work with bcdc because of many of the changes are in the plan so we have those lined
up. i want to spend a minute to talk to you about the depth and the breadth of the discussions and how they really did not stop at just giving us advice as to how to update this plan, but with the projects coming upbringing more public use to the piers, those sprung from the public discussions. what we found as staff is that when you invest in the time to talk through all of the complexities of what the port has to do to keep the lights on, keep the operations going, keep the money flowing while we are trying to plan for the next improvements and why you are confronted with kinds of questions and policy issues that you are and giving the direction
that you do to the staff that people are very interested in that. we have found that the more when the time that we spend walking through the details, the more people want to help and be problem solvers with the port. that is reflected with the work we will do on the care another on the embarcadero district and why we are looking for advancing an r.f.p. for those two sites and going through all of the difficult public discussions around the navigation center, those are all part of the collective education that hopefully will help us to work together on making improvements on the waterfront. again, i think moving forward,
we are the laboratory for adapt solutions. we are the place to try to make a difference on not just improving the port but protecting the city. the more that we can build on the understanding that the voters reflected in the approval of prop a funds, the more we can get done in as efficient amount of time as possible because time is precious. to that end given the richness of the community engagement, it is a natural for the staff to want to have the waterfront plan be dedicated to corinne. she was what a responsible citizen and community does in looking for making their public waterfront better, and we are very happy to really honor her with this plan, which i hope
that she will be happy with it. we will see what happens. that is our plan. it will be dedicated to her and to all of the work that everybody put into it. this is not to take anything away from janice lee and rudy. they were stellar co-chairs as alice and el lynn. they did the work along with my colleagues david, brad and carol, byron. we just couldn't have done it without everybody pulling in. with that we hope you will approve the attached resolution we have in the staff report to permanently celebrate and
recognize corinne's could be cos contribitions by naming the pier 52 boat launch in her honor. thank you very much for your guidance through all of this. >> thank you. there is public comment. alice rogers and ellen. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am here to cheer on the staff for this work of finishing up the draft of the plan, as diane said it is an exceedingly complex document. i think it may be the first time we are really happy that we can link to the internet because the summaries, there will be no executive summary really to get through the meat of this
document. we are going to need all of those links. i have gotten a little sneak peak. i feel confident of the areas i worked on. the synthesis is keeping the just of all of the meetings that we had. there is a lot of detail. people are invested in the recommendations and how they were worded so these links are going to be really important. i also want to stress what diane said about really keeping this process moving forward so that the community doesn't lose all of this information that you spent three years educating not only the working group but the community at-large because the decisions you make and the community is going to want to weigh in on and needs to weigh in on are as complex as they
get, and we need all of this rich education that we have so that we don't resort to solutions. that is not going to work. the values? the plan, diversity and authenticity and preservation combined with education we have gotten will hopefully if we can move fast enough on the r.f.p.s to make the couldlaboration with the public meaningful and productive. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. i am ellen, co-chair of the maritime commerce advisory committee. i was honored to be the liaison for m.c.a. c for the waterfront land use plan process.
i am missing a grade buddy here today who was on the land-use committee for the working group, corinne woods. i will get into a couple comments about her later. i spend most of my time on the land-use committee. i attended as many of the other committee meetings as possible to really bring the maritime interest through the other arenas. i like to think i was able to contribute given my other experiences in the city over many years in the broad arena of ports and city interest. mcac is very eager to see the process move forward. as alice said, as well as the r.f.p. for the embarcadero pier
development in piers 30 and 32. you know, the future of the maritime mission at the port we know it is tied to the investment and the improvements that need to be made to the pier facilities on which the maritime operations depend. i am really excited about this waterfront land use plan as it goes forward because what it really does, it affirms a vibrant vision for preservation of thelis tore rick pier goes with in a new public trust. i would say the new public trust objectives framework. the framework recognizes that we are going to need investment to maintain the facilities and that public oriented uses and more
public activation is certainly needed, combined with maritime use. this is a new strategy the land use plan will pep the r.f.p. process going forward. i am excited to see this continue. the point about corinne even before i got involved with the port, i have known her for many, many years. she was the city's waterfront and port collective stage and a check point on reality. you know, we would tag team a lot together to make sure that the reality check and the stage for what is happening that
people know about it and speak about it, and i hope that working with alice and many, many others participating in the working group that we can continue to be your stage, to be yes reality check. going forward i want to say the maritime committee endorses your distribution of these master full amendments that have gone forward with diane and the staff team, great hand, thoroughly endorse the resolution supporting the dedication on the waterfront plan. >> thank you. any other public comment on this item? can i have a motion? >> so moved.
dedication of the launch in honor of corinne woods. >> do you have anything? >> i just want to commend everyone and i think if it wasn't corinne woods name on this plan it would be diane nervous name. you have done a fantastic job. i know it is a team effort and many people including co-chairs and everybody working on this. you have been the guiding force, you have been patient and persistent and you have put all of the pieces together. you have kept us updated as all of the pieces of the puzzle have come together. it is not easy. in terms of the depth and breath of the plan. it was way back in the 1990s.
we in a great place. it is a framework to help us. i think it is coming at a great time when we are embarking upon the actual major aspects of the plan which is what are we going to do with the historic piers. commissioner brennan and i went -- commissioner brandon and i went on a tour to prioritize as now we understand how it fits together and would like to see it together and execute it and including it. i would say the next step seems to be for staff to give us the timeline of the strategy of the r.f.p. process that help us understand how you go about executing the major pieces of the waterfront land use plan that will guide us on many issues. there are major pieces we need
to know the timeline as you continue to complete this -- i don't know what you want to call it. it is greater than war and peace. it is everything you want to know about the water front. we feel fortunate that we have the waterfront planned, strategic plan, we have things to help us so we are making decisions that are with the framework that makes sense, that we have a mission, a vision as well as road map and that we have the community with us to be our stage and reality check that we also are not sitting in an ivory tower making decisions on our own at the commission level. i endorse everything i heard today and i want to commend everybody involved, especially you, diane. >> thank you. i couldn't have said it any better. >> thank you for the presentation. no questions and i support.
>> thank you all committee members and diane. thank you for leading the charge. you have done a phenomenal job. you spent a lot of time and energy. we can't thank you inform for the efforts to come up with the draft amendments and hopefully they will all move through. it is about the dedication to corinne. very, very excited about that. all in favor. resolution 1920 has been appro approved. >> number 13. new business. >> any public comment on new business? >> no new business. can i have a motion to adjourn. >> so moved. >> second. >> all in favor. >> the meeting is adjourned at 445. that is a record.