ák>> will be members of the pubfi9ill be members of the madam secretary please call the first item. order'cp &c% of firsthsh businessñiñiñr is item one roll. name. [roll+6zçó call]çóñi-9ñiçóñii the next order of business isñr the nextxd regularly scheduled meeting will beñr held on novemi cityñi hallñiñr roomñrt( 416. please beñi advised thatñi theñi

ringing of use of cell phones meeting. please beçó advised that theñr r may order theçóçóñi removal fro meeting%jázp any person responsible for ringing orñrçó e of cellñiñiçó phone or pagerñi electronic device.ñi announcement ofñiñirtime allotme comment.cntñi please beokñr advised a member i minutes to make publicñi commens on eachñi agm.p& itenr unless e( xd secretary.vaelc @&c% 3ñi is itemçó at a previous closedçó sessionñr meeting if any. there are noñrçó reportableñrñi. theçóñr next orderñi of businesó fá there areñi noñii] matter unfin% business. %@five.lpess is itemñiq matterçóñr of new businessñi cor

supportq andñrñiñiçó regularçó q first consent agenpiz 5a,ñr regi meeting#gñ september 18, 2018.ñá madamçóñi ckfwi9ñçóñrñi >> chair mondejar: do you have any speakerlpñrxdf'páiñiñrñi cai hearing no further question,ñiñi will closeçó public comments. i'll turn to my commissionñi members for comments ande1 questions. iñr need a motion to approve thi minutes.çó÷ moved by commissioner rosalesxdr andjfçó secondedñiçóçó byçóçóñrg uhjhp'd commissioner scott.ñiñr please callçóñi theçó roll.t%-[f andhsq oneñiñr absent.çóçó

>> motion carries. please call íhñr next item.ñi >> the next orderçóxd of busineó agendañi itemñiñi 5b,ht authora ñç!:) @&c @&c% urbanñiñi analyticsñiçóñi l.l.ci related to taxñiñiñrñiñi allocad bonds,ñrñiñr secondary disclosue obliuavion andñrñrñrñr otherçó r 9ññrñiñr analysis notñiçó toñiñiñi exceedñ)iw3ñrñrçó $82,500. resolution numberxd[omy 41-20i rdió

>> good afternoon madam chair mondejar and members of the commission. this contract is primarily dedicated -- really two parts to it. continued to disclosure and bond-related tax analysis. primary part is the continuing

disclosure. each year we have to file sec mandated report for each of our separate credits. this report requires reproduction of all the key tables in the original offering documents. as you've looked, that's pretty extensive. as we have those prepared in the official statement by an outside consultant, which has been urban analytics and they've become experts on various complex credits, we have them prepare the tables for our secondary market disclosure. the bond-related tax analysis has to do with things that just may come up. we may have a situation where

laws change and a new credit is invented. we need to understand how -- what would that mean in terms of support we could have in interim event which affected our tax base. we would need to analyze the impact in order to disclose to bondholders. since we basically -- all bonds are supported by tax revenues, we really need to have someone on hand in case any of these situations come up. the oci, purchasing policy provides that we can make a selection from established city pool or panel. in this case, the office of public finance and the city established a fiscal consultant pool on march 7, 2018. we selected urban analytics from

that pool based on the criteria of their knowledge and experience with ocii credit and excellent service history. urban analytics is also a san francisco l.b.e. and s.b.e. next slide shows not to exceed budget. parts of this are locked. first item 45,000 reflects $2500 for each report, six reports three years. the next one, $7500 is an allowance for an additional report if a new credit should emerge we would have to do an additional report. that would cover three years.

that's contingent. we don't know that would happen. the third category is a broad category of bond-related tax analysis. this covers three years and rather not have to come back and if they w we need to respond quickly we need to have an expert. contract runs through december 21, 2021. the reason for that ending is our annual reports are due in december. it makes sense to end it there. with that, i will conclude and ask for any questions. >> thank you. madam secretary, do we have any speaker cards? >> no speaker cards. >> chair mondejar: i will close public comment and turn to fellow commissioners for

questions. commissioner singh. >> president singh: this is $82,500. >> that is the entire amount of the contract for oil. for all three years. okay, thank you. >> this is for three-year agreement. i need a motion. please take roll call. thank you for your presentation. >> please announce your vote when i call your name.

[roll call] the vote is 4 ayes and 1 absent the next order of business is agenda item 5c, conditionally authorizing the conversion of 25 off street residential parking spaces in an existing building containing 315 parking spaces at 185 channel street to provide accessory parking for a neighborhood serving grocery use, proposed for the site, approving an amendment to the basic concept schematic design approved resolution number 61-2011 and approving a variance south design for development.

>> this item before you is with regards to block two which was completed back in 2014. it's a market rate building. had one for one parking. it is underutilized. they would like to convert some of the residential units to use of the supermarket coming in, at least up to five to allow them to be more efficient. with that, i'll turn it over to gretchen heckman to present on this item. >> good afternoon madam chair mondejar, commissioners. as executive director mentioned, i'm gretchen heckman as development specialist at ocii.

i'm here to present on item 5c which is request for conditional approval of the conversion 25 off street residential parking spaces at 185 channel street block two to provide accessory parking for a neighborhood serving grocery tenants who lease the ground floor retail space on the site. in order to facilitate this parking conversion, the commission must approve an amendment to the basic concept and schematic design for this site originally approved in 201. i will be presenting on behalf of the building owner u.d.r. and behalf of the future retail tenant requested this parking conversion, gus's community market. the block 2 site is located at one of the gateways to mission bay south.

the building houses 315 market rate apartment units and 315 residential parking spaces. representing one ot to one rati. it holds 8100 square feet of ground floor retail space. before i go into detail, on today's request, i will go through block 2's development history. the development plan for block 2 was initially secured through the commission's approval of the major phase document for ]s 2 through 7 and 13 in 2005. it was approved by udr who created design for the block which was later approved by the commission in 2011. the -- it included 315 off street residential parking spaces and 8100 square feet of ground floor retail. in 2014, the building finished

construction and in 2016, the first ground floor retail tenant, the market hall, boutique grocery open, opened its doors. a year later, market hall left the ground floor space creating an opportunity for gus's community market to consider and eventually move forward with leasing that space. as part of the evaluation, gus's community market has requested that 25 of the 315 residential parking spaces be set aside for its customers use only. now that we've gone through the history, i have a few slides that will give you a visual representation of block 2's retail space. first slide shows the ground floor retail space from the viewpoint of channel street and fourth street. this slide thoughs the -- shows the entry to the building.

i'll now give contacts to staff's recommendation to allow for this conversion of the 25 parking spaces from residential to retail use. as mentioned earlier, the parking ratio at block 2 is one residential parking space for every residential unit. under that one for one ratio, the parking at block 2 has seen low rate of utilization. since 2014 the parking spaces have been offered to block 2 residents at rental rates consistent with other rental properties in mission bay. even so, less than half of households have opted into this parking leaving about 160 spaces sitting vacant in the garage. this occurrence has showne showt the one to one is too high and unused parking should be able to be repurposed to another use would be affect -- without affecting quality of life.

there are approximately 160 spaces vacant in the block 2 parking garage, there's a capability use for 25 of them. this request is relevant to today's meeting because gus's community market hopes to open their doors in mission bay before the year end. with those 25 spaces available to their customers. in order to allow for the 25 parking spaces, the commission must approve a variance to the design for development document which limits the parking spaces to 16 spaces, 9 fewer than gus's request. the 16 pace -- in addition to the design for the development variance, the conversion requires an amendment to the block schematic design which purposed the 315 parking spaces residential use only.

ocii staff recommends granting the schematic design amendment and the variance of the design for development guidelines with certain conditions. under these conditions, following an approval, the building owner, udr, will come up with a plan to restrict the use of the 25 parking spaces for gus's customers only and will develop a plan to monitor access to the garage so a own sure the safety of block two residents. before coming to the commission

today, ocii staff brought this item to the mission bay which was briefed in october. the c.a.c. communicated a strong interest in meeting gus's request for the 25 parking spaces and voted to move this item to commission for approval. ocii staff has determined that the parking conversion will be considered exempt from ceqa under section 1503 of that statute. upon commission approval of this item, the block 2 building owner, u.d.r. will work on a plan and use restrictions for the 25 retail parking spaces in order to meet its condition of approval. the future block 2 ground floor retail tenant gus's community market, will continue to work towards opening its doors to the community by the end of the year. finally, the vacant parking

spaces remaining after this 25-space conversion will be evaluated. u.d.r. and ocii staff will develop a proposal for utilization of the remaining parking spaces and we hope to be back before the commission in the 1st quarter of 2019 to present this proposal. this concludes my presentation and before we move to questions, i will also introduce a few block 2 parties present at today's meeting. meagan jennings is here representing the building open otheowneru.d.r. and one of gus's sons and co-o co-owner is present. they're happy to answer questions. >> before we do anything, do you have any speaker cards madam secretary? >> no speaker cards. mondeja

>> chair mondejar: it's quiet today. i will close public item. i will now turn to commission members for comments and questions. >> commissioner ransom-scott: i had the opportunity to see the site. i'm happy you're coming to district 10. other side of that those parking places are going to be welcomed. i found out just recently our smart and final community grocery store is closing as of november. so that means there will be more of the community residents in district 10 looking for community grocery stores because we only ar -- we only have the e in that area beside the super save which is small. it's welcomed. i'm excited about it coming to

district 10. >> chair mondejar: this is in addict 10? >> it's district 6. it's up the road from district 10. >> commissioner ransom-scott: i. >> it's easily accessible by the community line and other modes of transit. >> chair mondejar: commissioner rosales. >> commissioner rosales: do we know why market hall left? >> we don't know exactly why. i would assume for numerous reasons. i don't want to elaborate on those reasons. >> commissioner rosales: i'm interested in the thinking of grocery stores.

>> i don't know exactly why either. i do know the community felt the price point was very high. they expressed concern about the market. they thought the price point was pretty high. just too expensive. >> good afternoon. meagan jennings. i will just add, i heard from my client the developer, u.d.r., that market hall is going for a captive audience in terms of capturing people who are in the immediate vicinity. that's part of why they didn't ask for use of the parking for retail use.

they frankly were limited in finding that audience. gus's is pursuing a different model in the price point and the customer base they trying to engage with. i represent u.d.r. the building owner. >> chair mondejar: thank you. >> commissioner rosales: that was one question that validated my assumption. i'm happy to support this request. i'm a customer of gus's market. i think when it went in, it was a great addition to the neighborhood. i see folks from not just the immediate neighborhood but people like me that drive. there's always the need no matter where you are. especially if you got a lot of groceries to carry. you feed that amenity. only thing i would like to hear,

maybe this is not the right time, what is it that incentivizes gus to come to the neighborhood? would that be appropriate question? >> chair mondejar: since gus is here and u.d.r. is here if they're willing to respond to your question -- >> good afternoon commissioners we have really had our eyes set on this part of the city because how we feel it's underserved. a proximity. we feel we can come in and add little bit more of a diverse offering to the neighborhood. that's one of the items. when we put community in our name, we feel like the

demographic is so broad in that neighborhood, we feel we can serve everybody. >> thank you. r >> commissioner rosales: safeway was the only other grocery? >> entirely. only other grocery store if the redevelopment plan area. >> commissioner rosales: are you going to have enough space? that's good. >> commissioner singh: what is the market rate? what do you offer for particulatmarketrate? >> market rate for the parking spaces?

the rates varied from about $300 a month to $350. that's in line with everyone else's pricing in mission bay. >> commissioner singh: how much it cost for parking? >> to clarify currently, the parking is only available to residents on a monthly basis. they rent the space for the entire month at a rate of $300 to $350. currently there's no -- you can't just drive in and park there for an hour. >> commissioner singh: [indisce] >> they've done the analysis month over month. consistently, the parking utilization has been under 50% for quite some time.

>> chair mondejar: all the units are market rate in the building? >> that's correct. >> chair mondejar: how many units.1qxf >> 315. >> chair mondejar: that's why you have one on one parking spaces and only 50% are utilized or rented? >> consistentlyless than 50%. >> you allotted 25 spaces 19 for gus's. what about the other? 135 and 140 empty real estate? >> sure. i'm glad you asked. the 25 spaces for gus's is obviously the first component. u.d.r. is speaking approval for it, they are the tenant going in now as a grocery use. they do have particular needs

for parking to have a successful business. more broadly, u.d.r. has been in discussions with ocii staff about utilizing some additional portion of the garage. that's not before you today. but it is something we're going to be coming back to you with, hopefully within a couple of months to talk about other ways that portions of the parking garage can be used in service of other businesses in the area. >> chair mondejar: that's good to know. how old is the building? >> it was completed in 2014. >> chair mondejar: you have about 50% vacancy rate. i hope we can utilize some of those spaces for retail.

thank you. love your offerings and your pricing. commissioner scott. you have a question? >> commissioner ransom-scott: i think it was answered. we will have to pay for the spaces for shopping? >> no. to clarify the parking rates, those are the rates that are in effect for residential uses. my understanding -- there's no charge for the retail parking. when we come back to you and have discussions, there may be some paid components to support other retail uses. that doesn't relate to gus's. >> commissioner ransom-scott: t. >> chair mondejar: that's good

to know you don't have to pay for parking. as long as you don't stay all day or more than three hours. thank you so much for responding. do i have a motion to approve? >> i move. >> chair mondejar: motioned by commissioner rosales and seconded by commissioner singh and scott. please take the roll call. [roll call] the vote is 4 ayes and 1 absent. >> chair mondejar: motion carries. thank you for being hero and responding to our questions. thank you gus's for coming to our area. madam secretary please call the next item. >> the next order of business is

5b, approving the california public employees retirement system calpers, resolution authorizing an amendment to the contract between the successor agency and calpers to employee contribution to retirement benefits. discussion and action resolution number 43-2018. >> this item is routine. it's come before the commission for approval so we can see an election t. this is just presentation reporting out to the results of the election and then an approval. i'll turn it over to april ward to present on this item. >> thank you director. good afternoon chair mondejar and commissioners. i'm april ward senior personnel

analyst. i come to seek approval for the contract amendment for the california public reemployees retirement season has calpers ocii we provide retirement benefits to our employees with calpers. in 2015, ocii management team along with the units from local 21 and local 2021 entered negotiations to match the shared provision in comparable with the city and county of san francisco labor agreements. this in addition to the policy offsets the employer shared contributions by employees required to contribute a portion of their salary to the retirement program. the memorandum of agreement negotiated that employees contribution should be on pretax

basis effective date the new calpers contract. in 2015, the successor agency commission previously approved salary increases to the memorandum of agreement with both local 21 and local 1021 along with the employees cost sharing negotiated. all contributions be taken on a pretax basis, as of today the agency treated all contributions on pretax basis. the implementation dates on the contribution are as follow. one percent taken effective the first day of a full pay period february 2015, 1.25 was effect in october of 2015 and 1.25 was on the first full pay period of july in 2016. the current contract that we have with calpers only incorporates the 1% and 1.25. the 1.25 that was taken in july 2016 is not currently

incorporated. the commission item was brought june 2018 for ocii to seek your approval to hold an election for staff. the election was mandated pi by calpers to approve the contribution to the proposed contract that was taken in july 2016. the election was held in september of 2015 and results were 33 employees approved, zero employees disapproved. the vote was tallied by our commission secretary. that is required by calpers that the commission secretary tallies the vote. today, we request your approval of this resolution toc authorize the agency to amend the calpers contract to include the third

employee contribution of 1.25%. also with this approval, this will also resolve the current way the contribution are taxed on a pretax basis and will allow separated employees to receive their full refund or their contributions. this concludes my presentation. i'm available for any questions and answers. thank you. >> chair mondejar: before we do that, do we have any public comment? no speaker quiet afternoon. ly closi -- i will close public comment. any comments or questions? none? okay. no questions. i need a motion. moved by commissioner singh and seconded by commissioner scott. please take the roll call.

[roll call] the vote is 4 ayes 1 absent. >> chair mondejar: motion carries. thank you. madam secretary, please call the next item. >> item six public comment on nonagenda items. we have no speaker cards. next or the of business is item seven report of the chair. madam chair. >> i don't have a report. >> next order of business is item eight, report of the executive director. 8a informational memorandum on marketing outcomes project report, 2500 arelious walker drive for 122-unit hope sf

affordable housing including 93 public housing replacement units, 28 affordable housing rental unit and one manager's unit. 8b, informational memorandum on marketing outcome project report 255 fremont street known as natalie gubb commons for 120-unit affordable rental development which includes one manager's unit and redevelopment project area discussion. >> thank you. it's nice to be in position where we're completing these projects. they are getting leased up. today we have 240 units. all are affordable. >> good afternoon commissioners.

i am pam sims. i'm a senior development specialist if the housing division. the first project, there were 28 affordable lottery units. the balance of the other units are the 94 other units were public housing replacement units for those of you who attended. those people living there now in the 94 units are relocatees from the old one to the if you. there were a total of 12c.o.p. holders who applied to live there. two c.o.p. holders were successful. demographics of the 28

householdses are 43% are black, 7% asian and and 25% are latino. this is interesting. there are 61% of the households living there, 61% are returnees. it's one of our special project that has a special preference for households that were living there. they -- they moved before the new unit was developed. they have the first preference to relocate pack at alice griffith. who's really excite -- what's really exciting many households are taking advantage of that. 32% were rent burden and 7% the people now are c.o.p. holders. 12 of the households originated

from district 10. i thought that was interesting too. total of 21 households were from san francisco originally. for transbay 7, it's different. primarily because they done have the alice griffith preference. maybe also because they're in transbay. this project is much larger, 120 units, 95 were lottery units. they were affordable at 40% and 50%. 24 units were subsidized with project-based vouchers and 23 of those households relocatees from sunnydale. this is the first site hope sf project. it was extremely successful and

you'll be happy to know those residents in those households from sunnydale are thriving. we had 10c.o. holders, one holder was living there. they're living there through the lottery process. another c.o.p. holder is living there. the other holder was the second preference after the sunnydale households. the c.o.p.o. holders have the second preference for this property. we got another c.o.p. holder in that way. we had 6580 applications. there are now 320 residents now living at transbay block 7. the demographics are different again from alice griffith, 11.5%

black, 34.7% saying ago and 21%e latino. 75% of the residents living there are have the preference of residents and workers. that's very different. which is kind of exciting. this is our first project where all the districts are represented. there's households from all over san francisco. that's kind of exciting too. that's my report. >> chair mondejar: thank you, i can feel your excitement. do we+ have -- we don't need speaker card on this right? speaker cards? >> no speaker cards. we'll close public comment. questions and answers from

commissioners? commissioner rosales. >> commissioner rosales: this is one of the more fun segment of our calendar. thank you for the report. i guess, one question. i wrote it down. alice griffith, 61% returned? >> yes. >> commissioner rosales: why wasn't it 1 un%? >> that's a great question. there's public housing replacement units. that was the 94 other units that weren't in the lottery. these are alice griffith households returning who was not living on the site of the gem information notice. they lost their standing to have a public housing replacement

unit. that said, we really wanted to embrace the community to come back to alice griffith. those households moved away, went other places. we have provided a first preference for those households to come back. >> commissioner rosales: , wow. that's a different way looking at it. we had a meeting in the bayview early on as a commission. i think this was the project where folks were worried about moving out of their units. they didn't trust that they will be able to come back. do you remember that? maybe not. >> i heard about it. i remember you mentioning that

in that talk. >> commissioner rosales: i think this one of those projects where people were just worried that if they moved on, they wouldn't be able to come back. we assured them, yes, they could come back. >> what's interesting is in phases one and two, as you know, alice griffith is a multiphase project, we had just a handful of alice griffith people who applied. this time we this 36 applied to return. which was such a nice representation and showing. it's successful. >> commissioner rosales: it's nice. we promise things, i do remember

if we delivered so thank you. the other question is always, c.o.p. holders, how is it that we have 12 applicants but only two get in? why -- it seems we're always having that story. >> for these two properties in particular, it really depends when we're leasing out. of the households that under income, there were a few under income, but not the majority of households that didn't get in. the subsidies that are usually available like through the foundation, unfortunately, while this lease was going on, they had run out of their subsidies for the year. that's number one. number two is people are funny and kno they change their mind. we have a number of c.o.p. holders that did not return

calls, return mail, they didn't return any type of outreach done to them. they requested to be put on the wait list. they're not ready yet. >> commissioner rosales: that says they have confidence they can let this opportunity pass and another one will come up. >> chair mondejar: if you're c.o.p. you're automatically approved. >> you're number one in the lottery. >> chair mondejar: they still have to qualify. we support them if they win and then we help them with that. you said we run out of money? >> iif they needed subsidy, we generally go to the - cue foundation and work with them to

help our c.o.p. holders receive a subsidy. they ran out of funds this year. >> chair mondejar: they can always come back? >> absolutely. >> chair mondejar: did you have further questions? i interrupted you. >> commissioner rosales: i would love to meet the cue foundation folks. they seem like they're always stepping up. >> they've been really wonderful partners. that's an excellent idea. i'll invite them next time. >> chair mondejar: commissioner scott? >> commissioner ransom-scott: oh some of the people with c.o.p. they were very excited but then they were also making just a little too much to fit the

qualification but not enough to live in san francisco anywhere else. that was so hard. they thought by moving out, they would have a place to come back to. they got another job. just a couple of dollars more. they can't get into the housing. that kind of just bewilders me. i don't know what to say. >> chair mondejar: isn't there an allowance or a percentage? my understanding is, if you are of the maximum limit, there's like a 5% allowance. i don't know how much more they made. am i correct? okay, jeff would have the answer. >> good afternoon jeff white

housing program manager. i wanted to give you an update. we've mentioned this to the commission couple of time this year. the tack credit regulations in 2018 have changed. it's kind of fancy phrase called income averaging, which is going to allow us to take some of our affordable units up to 80% median income instead what was previously 60. to the earlier comment, c.o.p. holders that are couple of dollars over what was 60% median income, then qualify maybe 60 to 65% or something even up to 80%. the evidence that we have on the c.o.p. holders that for our past five or six lotteries, it's a pretty wide range and representative range that kind

of every a.m.i. level. we definitely missed some of the folks at the 60 to 80% level. with our next project that you'll see, mission bay south, we're planning on using that approach. the last time we were talking about transbay block 4 where there's that wide range and a.m.i. is much higher an transbay block 4. >> chair mondejar: i hope we're communitying this to everyone on the list. there are changes a there will be other opportunities. especially when it relates to income. once you get turned down, you're informed that overqualified because you make two dollars more than the max numb. it's important for them to understand there is. maybe a briefing, changes in

this regulation. just so we're communicating to our demographics, especially c.o.p. holders. >> that's a fantastic idea. we don't have any of those units coming on for couple years. >> chair mondejar: in the pipeline and planning. we owe it to them. these are the people we disadvantaged. thank you jeff. >> also just to piggy back on what jeff said, what we tried to do also when we -- when the developer or the leasing agent has deemed household under-over income, we let them know about the next opportunity coming up. what made it really much easier holders to apply for every opportunity, which is great is -- it's an amazing

thing how consistent people are applying for it. >> chair mondejar: it's really working? >> before i was daunting and paper and the application. now it's just automatic. >> chair mondejar: it's exciting to know lot our projects and all the things we discussed through the years is finally working and it's effective. i share your energy because i was with you in both of thiswjü openings that we had natalie gubb commons. it's a great feeling to see the residents and everybody who contributed to the project. it's just amazing. beautiful day too, which was a bonus. the same thing with alice

griffith. the natalie commons, are they one bedroom studios? >> they are one, two and three bedrooms. >> chair mondejar: okay. that's great. i saw some of the pictures. alice griffith have five bedrooms? >> not in the lottery. the lottery was one, two and threes. >> chair mondejar: they are larger units >> they do have fours and one or two fives. those are for the public housing replacement units. >> chair mondejar: that's exciting. thanksgiving is coming up. there's no action here. this is more of discussion and sharing of great news.

the next madam secretary, can we please call the next item. >> next order of business is item nine commissioner's questions and matters. >> chair mondejar: commissioners , do you have any questions? >> commissioner singh: next meeting on the 18th. >> before thanksgiving, no. it's the holiday week. we didn't think we'll get a quorum. >> commissioner singh: so prepare for the home day holida. >> and december? >> we had one item. and it didn't seem fair to have

the commission meet. we're going to have a busy christmas week. any other questions? >> chair mondejar: iwould you like to submit a card? okay, can we do that? this is a commissioner's questions and matters. we can call for a public comment? okay, we will open the public comment for you sir.

>> my name is mr. gregory williams. does this housing development, what we trying to do is adequately calculate the information in regards to the funding process, which i have that. we want to make sure that the funding was appropriate to the proposals that were addressed to the panel. my question is, are we following under the h.f.a. authority. united states california code? anyone familiar with that? what that is, it is the housing

-- i can't think of it. it deals with housing. i didn't bring the paper here. it's in regards to the acorn versus kentucky somewhere. it falls under the graystone. are you familiar with it. federal housing authority? the f.h.a.? the reason why i'm discussing this, i've been trying to acquire for 11 or 12 years. my indication is that the reason why i'm here is to provide a better stability and to utilize the financial means in appropriate establishment where the proposals are legit and provide the in-depth to the

funding towards it. so that we don't utilize it for self-gain or selfish reasons but yet to develop the proposal. on the indication we trying to deter the homeless situation. i understand the process is. i want the proposal to be more adequate and in-depth and the city and state. that include -- i don't know if 25,000 was presented to all the treasure island community event. it was supposed to be for transportation and other developments.

we fleed to -- we need to stop doing that. what we need to start doing is submitting our intelligence of governorship to the where the establishments require and the governor called for the united states and protocol. >> chair mondejar: thank you. >> no mr. speaker card. >> chair mondejar: thank you sir. please call the next item. >> next order of business is item 10, closed session. there are no closed session." items. the next order of business is item 11, adjournment. >> chair mondejar: i need a motion to adjourn. >> i move that the meeting be adjourned >> chair mondejar: this meeting is ended at 2:01 p.m. thank you.