CCA Meeting Part 1 How do those of us who dialed in for audio participate? How many units are in that dorm building? Is that dorm included in the 46 affordable units? Any chance it could be dorms for UC Berkeley? Is the developer signing a CBA with the community? The 46 affordable units are separate from the dorm building? Subsidizing housing for senior artists who qualify – whatever happens there has to be related to art and not real estate development I have concerns about the ability of residents to exit from the property given current situation of only one entrance/exit on Clifton in case of an emergency such as a fire, earthquake, etc. You said you favored Option #1, but not why. The councilman states that there is a DEMAND for housing. There is a NEED for AFFORDABLE housing. This is not it. This is another luxury condo development that, if built, will increase displacement and homelessness. It is unconscionable to despoil this lovely, historic campus when there is a perfectly good site for condos at 51st and Broadway. The displacement argument mentioned above is a red herring for a neighborhood like Rockridge. I will elaborate during comments. They reached out to some colleges without interest from them. CCA Meeting Part 2 19:21:06 From David Kamholz : don’t give people ideas 19:21:16 From JHanavan : Thank you for your efforts. 19:21:28 From valeriew : As an artist I’ve seen way more body parts than that. And that was particularly incompetent drawing. 19:24:32 From Myrna Walton : Can you provide a view of the project from the residential area of Broadway Terrace. 19:24:34 From Jennifer McElrath : has UCB been re-approached post Covid-19 to buy or lease Clifton Hall? Colleges are needing to space out their students in residence halls, thus needing more space 19:30:15 From dellaperetti : how are all the cars going to get out of that wrapped around housing in case of emergency evacuation? Won’t there be dangerous bottlenecks? 19:32:53 From David Kamholz : it’s near BART and on major bus routes 19:35:08 From Amelia Marshall. KM6UFZ : How many people will be using elevators, much less BART and buses, in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and presumably the next? With people able to work from home, how valid are the claims that dense housing is still a good idea for Oakland? 19:35:41 From Joe Johnston : I've heard that UCB believes Clifton Hall is too far from campus.. In my opinion it's an easy bus ride to campus via the 51A/B bus route on College Ave.. 19:37:25 From David Kamholz : @amelia climate change is still a huge issue. density and reduced car use are the best way to address that 19:37:28 From Tracy Craig : Website: 5212broadway.com There is a comment feature on the website as well. Thank you. 19:37:31 From Nicole Lazzaro, XEODesign : Q: How would including the value of land and existing buildings effect the pro forma? (Page 22) 19:37:31 From David Peters : this financial analysis is really helpful in bringing common understanding. THank u for sharing this level of detial 19:37:41 From David Kamholz : @david agreed! 19:37:56 From Cody Little : Residential rental prices in Oakland are up YoY by 4.5% even now. 19:38:34 From Atticus Liu : I have seen several studies that support Cody Little’s statement. Residential rental in SF and Mt. View are down YoY, but not Oakland's. 19:38:36 From Ken Rich : Office rents are more likely to be affected than residential rents or demand 19:39:27 From Frank Lee : reduced car usage is a desire not yet a fact. 19:39:34 From Cody Little : Can we get an explanation of what conversations occurred that caused the tower to be removed? Back and forth 19:39:43 From Cody Little : With the city has been referenced several times 19:40:10 From Joanna Gubman : Is there a time for making public comment, or is this it? 19:40:11 From Claire : will the parking be bundled or unbundled 19:40:56 From Tracy Craig : There will be time for comment during this meeting. 19:41:08 From Benjamin Golvin : The presentation will likely go another 5-10 minutes; the rest of the time will be open for questions/comments. 19:41:22 From Joanna Gubman : thanks 19:41:57 From DAN KALB : City and I both call for unbundled parking. That’s pretty standard now. 19:42:31 From Cody Little : Dan, did you also call for the tower to be removed? 19:43:53 From SonjaKT : sorry if you already said it and I missed it, but is the project w the tower feasible? 19:44:04 From Leslie Moldow : What led to the difference from 19 stories to 85 feet? Why 85 feet, why not taller? 19:44:11 From Jennifer McElrath : In option 1 wouldn’t Macky Hall and Carriage House be leased as offices? the slide does not show that? 19:44:30 From David Peters : @leslie - yes, same question 19:44:46 From David Kamholz : same question from me! 19:44:55 From Amelia Petrovic : I’m not seeing on the website what % affordable units the new plan contains - does anyone know? 19:45:00 From Benjamin Golvin : The assumption is that ALL of the preserved/existing buildings would be leased as office space; the buildings DO NOT lend themselves to renovation/adaptive re-use as residential. 19:45:23 From Tracy Craig : We are capturing questions and will answer them after the presentation then open up for further Qs and comments. Thank you. 19:45:31 From Amelia Petrovic : Thanks! 19:46:10 From Jennifer McElrath : The original Tower (E) and Building A totaled 295 units and Option 1 has Building A with 261 units, so only 34 units were lost and the building costs are considerably lower since the structure can now be concrete and wood, and not steel 19:46:49 From Cody Little : Thanks for the input Jennifer. I would like to see some numbers on that, as was asked for in the last meeting. 19:47:43 From Amelia Marshall. KM6UFZ : Yes! Call it a day. 19:48:18 From Jennifer McElrath : you missed that part of the discussion in the first call. There would be 46 affordable units. the previously proposed 35 units were in the dorm which has been split off as a separate project 19:48:24 From Ken Rich : No, please don’t call it a day. 19:48:46 From Cody Little : I did not miss that part of the discussion. 19:48:53 From Ben Norquist’s iPhone : +1 please do not call it a day 19:50:57 From Moses : Scenario 1 is the best. Macky Hall and carriage House are the only “historic” sites I can think of at CCA. The rest of the sites are falling apart, like the facilities for artists at Pasadena City College are 10x better than at CCA like what is this obsession with preserving other buildings aside from those? CCA is moving to San Francisco (and hopefully building better facilities) but like, as an alumni, those other buildings don’t matter. 19:51:03 From David Kamholz : +1 don’t call it a day. find a way to make it feasible. better to have on-site affordable and more total housing with option 1 19:51:57 From Ken Rich : A shame it has taken so long! 19:52:01 From Amelia Marshall. KM6UFZ : All of these dreadful scenarios nuke the charming Facilities Building and create a major traffic jam at Clifton and Broadway. 19:52:06 From Jennifer McElrath : Kalb wants to see the dorm still be affordable housing, so the total units would be more than double that before 19:52:32 From Ken Rich : There will simply not be traffic jams caused by this project period. Fake news. 19:52:34 From Cody Little : It’s great that he wants that, but it isn’t his decision and the college representative just told us it isn’t going to happen. 19:52:41 From Amelia Marshall. KM6UFZ : CCA campus would be an ideal home for Oakland School of the Arts. 19:52:47 From Leslie Moldow : I don't think you can count on a drop of construction costs so I think you should be more conservative with your proforma. 19:53:02 From Frank Lee : We already have traffic jams. 19:54:04 From Ken Rich : Maybe, but 400 units won’t move that needle. 19:54:45 From Frank Lee : Traffic will only increase over time. 19:55:24 From David Kamholz : @frank not if car use decreases and transit use increases — which we need to do anyway for climate reasons 19:55:35 From Ken Rich : Again, maybe or maybe not, but this project isn’t even 1%, not even close in terms of contributing to traffic. 19:55:47 From Frank Lee : Again, it’s a desire, not yet a fact. 19:56:01 From Amelia Marshall. KM6UFZ : Transit use will not increase in the future. 19:56:13 From Theodore Fleischman : I don't see office space as a necessary part of the project. It is riskier and has less value to the community. Maximizing residential seems have the highest benefit. 19:56:26 From Frank Lee : David K, I’m happy to talk with you off line. 19:57:25 From Amelia Marshall. KM6UFZ : Too much density, and the rats get crazy and bite each others’ tails off. 19:57:27 From Theodore Fleischman : The number of parking spaces should be minimized in my opinion because of environmental considerations and the presence of good nearby public transit. 19:57:31 From Nicole Lazzaro, XEODesign : There are approximately 198-261 parking spaces in Option 3 to Option 1. 19:58:56 From leslie : Frank, I hear you. The problem is that public transit is starved and until it is significantly improved and expanded people will not get out of their cars. 19:59:00 From Ben Stiegler : remember seniors and other-abled cant walk or use transit as easily as many can / until we have all-shared vehicle world where its affordable and reliable, those with special physical needs are likely to need personal vehicles 19:59:15 From Ben Norquist’s iPhone : I loved the tower 19:59:36 From David Peters : tower makes it work 19:59:41 From Diane Scarritt : What provisions are being made for the art community of Oakland? 19:59:42 From Theodore Fleischman : I believe the tower should be an option because it probably would be more feasible financially than the current option 1. 19:59:49 From JHanavan : The tower is horrible 19:59:54 From Cody Little : The current option 1 is not feasible 20:00:03 From SonjaKT : I’m seeing a lot of members of the community in support of the tower 20:00:12 From dellaperetti : and a lot against 20:00:19 From SonjaKT : and people who oppose it don’t really have any reason 20:00:19 From Lee : I was disappointed when the tower idea went away 20:00:19 From David Peters : @diane - it sounds like artist space was funded by the tower... 20:00:24 From David Kamholz : tower is best option, otherwise option 1 20:01:09 From Frank Lee : TOWER-19 is unhealthy for this neighborhood. 20:01:24 From Diane Scarritt : Artists need studio space. I am only hearing about cheap housing. 20:01:29 From Cody Little : Frank, it is disgusting to compare the presence of housing to a virus. 20:01:30 From dellaperetti : I appreciate how you listened to community input and came up with something closer to the scale of the surroundings. Thank you. 20:01:38 From David Kamholz : agreed cody 20:01:39 From Moses : The only way to honor CCA’s legacy is to build a tower and allow people to live there bc I’ve stay through too many emails from CCA talking about sustainability. People. Should. Live. There. and the CCA community should put their money where their mouth is. 20:02:06 From John Promani : Project website: www.5212broadway.com 20:02:12 From Frank Lee : David K - allow for dissenting options.Please. No it isn’t. 20:02:14 From Joanna Gubman : Oh! I am in favor of more housing!!! 20:02:24 From valeriew : Just registering opposition to the tower here, as there seems to be another referendum happening here. Way out of scale with surrounding zoning, really impractical in terms of traffic. In the age of Covid, it will certainly be a while before people feel comfortable on a crowded bus. 20:02:25 From Amelia Marshall. KM6UFZ : 85’ is still too tall. This ugly plan will never pencil out. 20:02:44 From Eric Johnson : I unfortunately have to leave, but thank you all so much for facilitating and running this. You are all saints! Really great information, will be sure to leave comments on the website. 20:02:56 From Cody Little : It sounds like a financially feasible option would include a tower! 20:03:01 From Diane Scarritt : CCA only educates the artists. The community (Oakland) has to value and retain it. 20:03:21 From Joanna Gubman : More housing is the most environmentally friendly thing. Urban infill is the most impactful way to reduce emissions, per the study UC Berkeley Professor Chris Jones. Also it's more inclusive. I would have loved to have lived in this area, but I couldn't afford it and moved to North Berkeley instead. 20:03:30 From David Kamholz : turns out it’s called rockridge for a reason 20:03:31 From valeriew : Will the presentation slides be available online after this meeting? 20:04:00 From Benjamin Golvin : The slides are all on the website - www.5212broadway.com 20:04:00 From Joanna Gubman : Also to whomever thinks we won't have people use transit anymore post-covid: I personally do not own a car and don't plan to buy one. I can't afford one either. I need to be able to live somewhere near transit. 20:04:08 From Joanna Gubman : Thank you for the opportunity to comment! 20:04:14 From Nicole Lazzaro, XEODesign : Q: How many units did removing the Tower cause? 20:04:27 From Myrna Walton : The statement that the tower project included 589 units should be amended since that included Clifton/s 35 units. 20:04:27 From Amelia Marshall. KM6UFZ : This is not urban infill, it’s overcrowding and destruction of cultural value. 20:05:02 From Abby Pollak : We so appreciate your listening to the community and coming up with much more appropriate options. Thank you for such consideration. 20:05:06 From Diane Scarritt : Lots of us 70's-something hippies have figured out a way to stay in this community. Sad that Oakland could care less at this point. 20:05:32 From Moses : @ Amelia What “Cultural Value”???? The exposure unit at the screen printing studio that I know so many people that have done coke off of? Please 20:06:05 From Frank Lee : Good discussion tonight. Thanks. 20:06:28 From Sam deutsch : I strongly support building as much housing as possible 20:06:44 From Amelia Petrovic : I strongly support density as well 20:06:49 From Leslie Moldow : The only buildings that are worth saving are the ones designated on the National Historic Register. The others don't really help the context no matter what the historic report says. A nice housing building on the back will frame the historic buildings in a nicer way. 20:07:48 From Nicole Lazzaro, XEODesign : A lot of HS students also cross Clifton every hour for classes. There’s a danger there for traffic. 20:08:30 From Cody Little : All of the community facilities were removed because the tower was removed! 20:09:06 From Sara Ogilvie : We support the tower! it would be beautiful and make history! 20:11:35 From naomischiff : Towers = very high rents, because unit cost of construction is very high. 20:12:44 From cathy : Can Chris get a response to her concerns regarding car bottleneck at Clifton?? 20:12:53 From Cody Little : Thank you to commenter #4 20:12:59 From David Kamholz : +1 20:13:01 From Nicole Lazzaro, XEODesign : As I recall from a previous meeting the Tower didn’t pencil out because of construction costs of that type of structure. The new plans are denser and we lost surprisingly few units. 20:13:15 From Myrna Walton : In the tower proposal there were NO affordable units. 20:13:39 From Myrna Walton : The only affordable units were in Clifton 20:14:45 From Amelia Marshall. KM6UFZ : Luxury condos will not nurture diversity. 20:15:01 From Myrna Walton : Insisting on a robust number of affordable units is the best way to make project inclusionary. The tower was strictly exclusionary. 20:15:18 From Diane Scarritt : I moved to this neighborhood with my ex-husband in 1970. Really affordable for art students. I stayed, went to grad school, saved money and bought a condo in this area. Great location. I would like to see that affordable housing is prioritized, including subsidized housing for artists. 20:15:20 From Cody Little : Myrna, there are more things that changed when the tower was removed, so you are not comparing apples and oranges. 20:15:29 From David Peters : Luxury condos is how the developer subsidized affordable housing 20:15:30 From Jennifer McElrath : luxury apartments/condos allow for more affordable units on site 20:15:38 From Anna Marks : Does the tower at MacArthur BART have any low-income units? 20:15:47 From Cody Little : Yes 20:15:48 From Lee : Yes 20:15:49 From David Peters : @anna - yes 20:16:07 From Claire : There are 90 units of affordable housing at MacArthur BART 20:16:26 From Nicole Lazzaro, XEODesign : Redlining was true of most of the Bay Area. 20:16:53 From valeriew : No the tower at MacArthur BART has no affordable units. They are in another building already on another lot facing MacArthur. 20:16:53 From Cody Little : Nicole, Rockridge had more than redlining, it had explicit racial covenants from the beginning 20:16:56 From Jennifer McElrath : There are lots of apartment units in Rockridge, not just single family houses 20:17:22 From Diane Scarritt : I worked a Census survey in this area. This is an area for affordable housing area with access to transit and services. NOT the best location for luxury housing. 20:17:29 From leslie : There are studies that show that building max number of units does NOT result in trickle down rents (lowering rents for surrounding properties. We need truly affordable housing to keep a diverse community. Numbers does not achieve that. 20:17:42 From Nicole Lazzaro, XEODesign : Many single family homes are subdivided to 2-4 units. 20:18:02 From Sam deutsch : sure! found it from the haas institute 20:18:09 From David Kamholz : bus lane on college would solve a lot, agreed 20:18:34 From valeriew : Where are you going to put a bus lane on College if its is a two-lane street!! 20:19:01 From Claire : Car free street! 20:19:34 From DAN KALB : The MacArthur tower building has 11% below market (affordable) units within the building. The ENTIRE MacArthur Village has 20% below market rate housing. 20:20:59 From Amelia Marshall. KM6UFZ : No displacement? yeah, right. Trickle-down housing market does not work. Attracts professional refugees from “urban density” dystopia in San Francisco. 20:21:03 From Claire : Zero parking yeah! 20:21:21 From David Kamholz : what low income people are there to displace in rockridge currently? 20:21:30 From Cody Little : Thank you Theodore! 20:21:34 From Lee : Everyone who lives in my house? 20:21:59 From Amelia Petrovic : Thank you @Atticus @Ken, @Sam, @Claire and others for speaking up — this is my first time attending a community meeting as a new homeowner in Rockridge and it is inspiring to see so many pro-density and pro-inclusion voices. 20:22:25 From Ken Rich : Yay new homeowners! 20:22:42 From David Peters : really good points about equity, density, and inclusion 20:22:49 From leslie : There are plenty of low rent places here in RR with long term tenants who have experienced displacement 20:23:04 From Amelia Marshall. KM6UFZ : Rockridge is not an island. Oakland has many neighborhoods where homeyness is more visible. 20:23:27 From Ken Rich : If they’re experiencing displacement, it is because there is too little new housing being built. 20:23:37 From Alicia Torres : No Tower 20:23:58 From Jennifer McElrath : No tower 20:24:02 From Lee : Tower, please! 20:24:04 From Myrna Walton : Remember everyone, the tower proposal had NO affordable units; option 1 now has 10%. Which is better from the point of view of inclusionary housing. 20:24:10 From Amelia Marshall. KM6UFZ : Building expensive housing will not help low-income people. 20:24:14 From Nicole Lazzaro, XEODesign : No Tower 20:24:28 From Amelia Marshall. KM6UFZ : No tower. 20:24:31 From JHanavan : No tower. It is an eyesore and a terrible design. 20:25:06 From leslie : For people who actually live here, we are not talking about a couple of dozen more cars. You have to add those to the huge number of drivers and cars going to and from Merrill Gardens, Baxter plus the several new buildings opening on Telegraph. We want density but the streets cannot absorb as many as the tower would add. Its a fact that the streets are already passed maxed out. Ask someone who lives here. 20:25:06 From SonjaKT : everyone who is against the tower has no reason except aesthetic. that’s subjective, people who like the tower like the way towers look 20:25:27 From wendycosin : The tower was out of scale. I prefer the most dense of the current versions. I wish affordable housing could be included on site. 20:25:50 From Ken Rich : Sorry, but this project will only add a few down more cars PER HOUR to the streets. That’s it. 20:25:55 From Michael Reardon : There are only about 8% fewer units due to the elimination of the tower. 20:26:16 From Cody Little : There were more changes between the tower and it’s elimination, you can’t compare the two 20:26:18 From SonjaKT : “the tower is out of scale” is an empty comment. why do you expect buildings in a neighborhood to match each other? 20:26:23 From JHanavan : Untrue They have great difficulties in construction, density, and overall functionality, such as access, especially now. 20:26:29 From Steve Cook : Why does anyone care whether there is a tower or not? The issue is the number of AFFORDABLE units. Luxury units do nothing to help diversity. The original plan with the tower has 35 Affordable units in a separate building (Goggle "Poor Doors"). Option 1 has 46 Affordable within the Lux units. Option 1 is MUCH better. 20:26:44 From Cody Little : A tower would allow more residential 20:26:59 From Steve Cook : More Lux residential--who needs that??? 20:27:11 From Diane Scarritt : We do have issues with crime that have not been discussed. I think that the tower would be a problem because I am familiar with other areas where tower-housing led to problems in elevators, parking areas, and eventually the streets themselves. Dense housing is an ideal but not practical given the stresses and drug use in urban living. 20:27:19 From SonjaKT : losing the tower means losing 130 units. that’s a lot 20:27:20 From naomischiff : Steve Cook’s point. Tower units would be expensive units. 20:27:40 From Ken Rich : who needs the lux residential? The people who live there rather. Than competing for existing rental in the neighborhood, thats who! 20:27:57 From Steve Cook : No, not -130 units. Look at the numbers. 20:27:59 From Michael Reardon : You lose around 44 units. Look at the plans. 20:28:07 From SonjaKT : existing Rockridge housing is luxury residential housing so ....... 20:28:16 From Myrna Walton : The number of affordable in the new project is 46 units, a total gain as the old project had none in the new construction. 20:28:27 From Steve Cook : So lets build more lux housing in Rockridge? 20:28:31 From David Peters : wow - here we go with the density = crime trope... 20:28:36 From Cody Little : Again, Myrna, you are comparing apples and oranges. 20:28:44 From Ken Rich : More housing of all types - lux to affordable 20:28:45 From Alicia Torres : Traffic is less now for students are in SF. Parking has been difficult before CCA went to SF 20:28:53 From Theodore Fleischman : historic building preservation only has benefits when the building itself is an architectural treasure. IMHO 20:29:07 From Jennifer McElrath : Let’s compare apples to apples - Building A&E went from 295 to 261 units, so losing the tower cost only 34 units. Building D was deleted due to cost and the dorm conversion was lost with the entitlement 20:29:07 From Nicole Lazzaro, XEODesign : Q: What is the cost to the City of Oakland for Utilities and Sewer upgrades? Is that part of the proposal? 20:29:23 From DAN KALB : I am already working on Ordinance with city staff that will come to Council this year to require all new construction to be all-electric buildings. 20:29:27 From Ken Rich : developer usually pays for utilities on the site 20:29:49 From JHanavan : Preservation is about more than architecture. It is a question of maintaining a history that will be gone forever if not preserved. 20:30:05 From Steve Cook : Does the developer pay to upgrade water mains, etc. to service their site? 20:30:21 From Alicia Torres : Traffic and Parking is of concern 20:31:02 From JHanavan : That is nonsense 20:31:04 From Joshua Roebuck : David Peters please mute yourself, your typing is overtaking the speaker :) 20:31:07 From David Peters : thanks for having this forum. This was really wee done! Again thanks for the financial projections and the robust discussion. DENSITY! 20:31:34 From Myrna Walton : 8 stories is dense. 20:31:42 From Joanna Gubman : https://coolcalifornia.arb.ca.gov/california-local-government-climate-policy-tool 20:32:01 From Steve Cook : >100 units per acre is very dense 20:32:04 From Joshua Roebuck : Thanks David! 20:32:11 From JHanavan : Density is not an optimum scenario for effective urban living 20:32:11 From Ben Norquist’s iPhone : having lived in a 2 bedroom with 5 roomates in Oakland. I would much prefer to live in my own smaller space in a taller building 20:32:24 From leslie : Thank you for this opportunity and this forum. We appreciate your transparency and willingness to listen to the community. 20:32:32 From JHanavan : Great meeting. 20:32:33 From valeriew : 4 stories is significantly more dense than existing zoning, but reasonable. rational level of growth. 20:32:34 From Lee : I agree with you, Ben — would love to have more options for small-space living in the neighborhood 20:32:38 From Steve Cook : Rent for that smaller space in a taller building would be >$3K/month 20:32:40 From SonjaKT : email the planner to ask for the tower to be in the EIR! 20:33:01 From Steve Cook : You can get a nice, larger place in Rockridge today for that cost 20:33:03 From Jennifer McElrath : Thank you for being so open and welcoming to opinions 20:33:07 From David Peters : @Sonja - I did 20:33:11 From SonjaKT : Rebecca Lind 510-238-3472 rlind@oaklandca.gov 20:33:11 From RLind : Landmarks Board will also meet Aug. 10th 20:33:14 From SonjaKT : cool thanks 20:33:23 From JHanavan : No tower. 20:33:27 From dellaperetti : Great job — very reassuring and I appreciate Option 1 20:33:32 From SonjaKT : it seems like allowing the tower would result in the dorm being BMR 20:34:02 From naomischiff : No, that ship has sailed as the dorm is for sale separately, though if we are lucky perhaps someone will do BMR there. 20:34:07 From Nicole Lazzaro, XEODesign : I feel that increasing affordable units is the important thing. UBA is willing to work to obtain funding for more affordable units. 20:34:10 From dellaperetti : yes — beautiful facade, please 20:34:17 From Steve Cook : The dorm may well become BMR housing. 20:34:44 From Sara Ogilvie : Yes tower! it would be beautiful! 20:34:54 From Steve Cook : 35 BMR and the dorm plus 46 in Option 1 is a MASSIVE improvement in Affordable over the Tower plan 20:35:04 From Ronnie Spitzer : my understanding is that the ground is composed of granite. did that enter into the decision not to build the tower? 20:35:26 From valeriew : Agree with DKalb. Design of facade is going to be important. the placeholder presentation is dreadful, and I am counting on it being improved at the appropriate point in the design process. 20:35:47 From Joe Johnston : Tracy , Because of disruptions some have recommended 2 hosts, one as moderator ,the other to watch for and shut down meeting disruptors.. 20:36:06 From John Promani : Tracy Craig: 510-334-4866; tracy@craig-communications.com 20:39:30 From Steve Cook : Night Night! 20:39:46 From valeriew : Thank you, Tracy, and good night.